I have a Nikon D600, a pretty nice little camera if I do say so myself. I've lately been doing wedding receptions & the caterer I help has asked me to do pics of her food tables. well, my 24x70 lens just doesn't do her table justice as they're sometimes pretty long. I think I need a wider angle lens, something in the 14-16mm range? Something in the 2.8f range in case I have to turn my flash off (as I had to last night).

B&H has some nice options in the Zeiss & Nikon lines. Zeiss is a manual focus, Nikon is an auto (I think?). Price is only $200-ish apart, so that's not bad.

Thoughts, comments, suggestions? Keep in mind I'm only a hobbyist doing this as a fun thing to do. An expensive hobby, for certain.  

Thanks!

For some time I had, and loved, but got very little use out of, the Nikon 14-24mm super wide rectilinear zoom lens.  Great piece of glass.   But also with a retail price around 1900 dollars it's not for every budget.

(I got a screaming deal on mine, used, in need of repair...I repaired it myself using parts bought off ebay.)

I just didn't get much use out of it.  Great lens,  but it turned out that it doesn't fit my photography style very much.

The great thing about that lens is that while it's super wide angle, it's not a fisheye lens. Straight lines stay straight in the image.

I'd say that this lens or one similar to it would certainly achieve your goals.   If you can find one at the right price, jump on it.

I, too, am only a hobbyist photographer.   When I look at my D800 I think "Overkill for a hobbyist" and then when I look at my D810 I think "Seriously?" but what the heck....

Depth of field on super wides are so deep not a great need for auto focus, so if the Zeiss glass is better, that's the route I'd take.

I own and love the hell out of the Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 and you can usually find a refurb for $1500 or so.  Probably my most used lens really.

B&H does have a couple in their used section, two rated in "9" condition. About $400~ cheaper than a NIB lens. Thinking about those too.

Personally I'd rather get a refurb because you still get a (short) warranty with them.  That said, $400 is $400.  They're $1600 refurb from Nikon and B&H right now, but I'd guess Nikon is going to have a refurb sale here in the next few weeks.  Barring that, Sigma just put out a 14-24mm f/2.8 that gets great reviews, is a bit less expensive, but I've never seen in person.  FWIW, all of my lenses are OEM Nikon.

My new question is prime or zoom? 14/15mm or 14-24? *I* have no clue which I should go with, so I need help, please.

Choices:

1) Zeiss  Distagon T* 15mm f/2.8 ZF.2    $1,699 NIB

2) Nikon  AF-S NIKKOR 14-24mm f/2.8G ED

$1,573.95  Used, 9+

3) Sigma  14mm f/1.8 DG HSM Art Lens   $1,499 NIB

4) Nikon AF NIKKOR 14mm f/2.8D ED Lens   $1,299  Used, 9

Those are what I'm looking at right now. Hopefully, the more experienced shooters can tell me which one is the best bang for the buck. I realize one gets what one pays for, but at my level (strong hobbyist) is it worth the scratch for the Zeiss?

So please, opinions are encouraged.

TLDR: performance the Zeiss and Nikon are fantastic across the board.  Slight wins here or there, but they're essentially tied performance wise.  Smaller, lighter, and no AF, vs larger, zoom, with AF is how I'd consider it really.  I'm biased because my Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 is probably my most used lens though.

Personally I'd get a refurb 14-24mm f/2.8 for $1600 from B&H or Nikon USA for the $25 difference.  That way you still have a limited warranty on it.  90 days is better than B&H's 30 day return policy IMO.  
All of those are fantastic lenses though.  Personally AF is really useful, so the Nikon beats the Zeiss right there.  At f/2.8, the Zeiss is sharper, but has much softer edges.  F/5.6 they're basically matched, and f/8-9 the Nikon is leading slightly.  Unless you're pixel peeping, they're practically identical performance wise though.

So it really comes down to the subject use, AF, and filters.  The Zeiss takes 95mm filters which are expensive for quality ones, vs the Nikon that needs adapters and will run you about the same cost all said and done, just larger.  Personally I freaking love my Nikon and (to be honest) suck out loud with manual focus.  I haven't really played with the focus peaking on my D850 though.

Don't overlook the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 or their newer 11-20 f/2.8.

Good point, those are solid lenses for the money.  That said, for paid work I personally would go with the 14-24mm unless OP can try one of the Tokina lenses and see how it performs.

I have a 20mm 2.8 af which with my older n90 was perfect but with my D7200 it turns into a 30mm.
You likely could find a used 20af or 20d at a good price.
I wish my 20 was 20 with my cropped framed D7200

Usually the only filters I use are UV ones. I didn't know about the adapters for the Nikons, thanks for that.

Subject use? Mostly indoor use for group shots and/or table shots of food (for a caterer). I might try some landscape shots eventually.

Ok, why zoom over prime? Versatility? More options?

Great lenses, but aren't going to work with OP's FX body.

At 1/3 the price of the Nikon 14-28, the Tokina 16-28 f2.8 would be well worth considering.  I've gotten lot of use and abuse out of my 12-24 f4 DX Tokina over the years.

Composition.  At 14mm, it's often going to be wider than you want it to be.

I have the same lens, and love it - FOV and compactness are its strong suits.  But at f2.8, the coma is objectionable - I have to stop it down to at least f4 at night to get good results.

The newer 20mm f1.8 AFS is so much better - faster, well controlled coma wide open, and sharper throughout the entire frame than the 20mm f2.8 AF-D.