Wide Angle Lens Suggestions

I am using a Nikon D750 and the current wide angle lens that I have right now is a 1.4 35mm Sigma Art but I am thinking of getting a new wide-angle lens. I like landscape and architectural a lot but sometimes I have to stitch my shots together because of my lens.
What is the best wide-angle lens for my camera? Any suggestion is welcome. Budget limit is $1000 (or I could a few more hundred if it's really good)

Why not stick with Sigma, and go with their 24mm f/2.4 that you can pick up around $700 with Adorama for example.  

Define "best"?

I was able to hit Imaging USA last January (being in San Antonio, just down the road) and got to try out the Tamron 15-30 and something comparable from Sigma (a zoom). Didn't care for the Sigma super wide (whatever it was), nor their 14mm. Too much barrel distortion for me. The Tamron, on the other hand came out great, IMO. I thought the CA on the Tamron was less, too.

That said, Tamron runs their sale once a year, around the time of Imaging USA, and the knock $100 off that lens. It can be had for $800 used. This was my top wish list item. Until...

I just found a Nikon 17-35 f/2.8D on eBay for under $600. It's condition is awesome. Lists new for $2000, so I'm happy. Is it fantastic? I don't know yet; the DxOmark is kinda low. But it will likely suffice for what I do and how I work.

You can also consider a Nikon 16-35 f/4. I've used one and it also is very nice.

If you're doing astrophotography you might consider a manual Rokinon or similar. They and others are highly regarded for that sort of thing.

But the 24 won't get you where you want to be, IMO. Keep shopping.

The Nikkor 20mm f/2.8 AF D is a bargain these days. Here's a link to one from Adorama:

www.adorama.com/us%20%20%20%20918454.htm...KEAQYAiABEgK3-fD_BwE

I use it, especially when travelling, and weight and space are considerations. Look at the reviews. Here's a link to a photo shot with it:
www.flickr.com/photos/perlucem/36569987012/in/dateposted/

Those Rokinon lenses are surprisingly a great lens for the money.  My friend just picked up one and he's using on his Sony and I have to say, I'm impressed.  The build quality is good, it's sharp and priced very fairly.  Keep in mind, the all are manual lenses, no auto. 

The Nikon 16-35 f/4 was mentioned and I concur, a very good lens. Also the 20 f/2.8 prime, but why not get the 20 f/1.8, also a great piece of glass. I could be wrong but Sigma may also make a 10-20 for full frame?

Why not stick with Sigma, and go with their 24mm f/2.4 that you can pick up around $700 with Adorama for example.  

 Hey Casey! I have already checked this out but I am still looking for more options. 

Define "best"?

I was able to hit Imaging USA last January (being in San Antonio, just down the road) and got to try out the Tamron 15-30 and something comparable from Sigma (a zoom). Didn't care for the Sigma super wide (whatever it was), nor their 14mm. Too much barrel distortion for me. The Tamron, on the other hand came out great, IMO. I thought the CA on the Tamron was less, too.

That said, Tamron runs their sale once a year, around the time of Imaging USA, and the knock $100 off that lens. It can be had for $800 used. This was my top wish list item. Until...

I just found a Nikon 17-35 f/2.8D on eBay for under $600. It's condition is awesome. Lists new for $2000, so I'm happy. Is it fantastic? I don't know yet; the DxOmark is kinda low. But it will likely suffice for what I do and how I work.

You can also consider a Nikon 16-35 f/4. I've used one and it also is very nice.

If you're doing astrophotography you might consider a manual Rokinon or similar. They and others are highly regarded for that sort of thing.

But the 24 won't get you where you want to be, IMO. Keep shopping.

Thanks for these options. I will visit some stores and see for myself. Thanks for this Gary!
By the way, what I mean with the best is:
- Just within my budget
- lens that I don't have to stitch photos
- Quality at its best

The Nikkor 20mm f/2.8 AF D is a bargain these days. Here's a link to one from Adorama:

www.adorama.com/us%20%20%20%20918454.htm...KEAQYAiABEgK3-fD_BwE

I use it, especially when travelling, and weight and space are considerations. Look at the reviews. Here's a link to a photo shot with it:
www.flickr.com/photos/perlucem/36569987012/in/dateposted/

Just checked the links you gave me. It is very promising. I will check this out for sure.

Those Rokinon lenses are surprisingly a great lens for the money.  My friend just picked up one and he's using on his Sony and I have to say, I'm impressed.  The build quality is good, it's sharp and priced very fairly.  Keep in mind, the all are manual lenses, no auto. 

I haven't tried it before but will consider this! Thanks Vahr! 

The Nikon 16-35 f/4 was mentioned and I concur, a very good lens. Also the 20 f/2.8 prime, but why not get the 20 f/1.8, also a great piece of glass. I could be wrong but Sigma may also make a 10-20 for full frame?

I would like to try Nikon 16-35 f/4. This is so far the best recommendations I have. Thanks for this Effron. 

Carl Mendez wrote: By the way, what I mean with the best is:
- Just within my budget
- lens that I don't have to stitch photos
- Quality at its best

Right. And the only one of those that is fixed is your budget. The others are moving targets.

Since you don't specify how much stitching you're doing now, it's hard to know what focal length is going to satisfy you. But 16 or 17 mm should give you a fairly wide field of view. At a certain point it wouldn't matter which lens you had, you'd have to stitch (e.g. a 12" x 36" print, or 1x3 aspect ratio)

IMO, for landscapes, any of the mentioned lenses is a good option.

Just remember that when using a wide-angle lens, distant objects become tiny. Best to include foreground interest as well

I remember when I was a pup, that 24mm was considered a wide lens. Not that way these days.

IMO, for landscapes, any of the mentioned lenses is a good option.

Thanks for this Gary! This thread has been very helpful to me.