spdmn54 Loc: Avon Lake, Ohio

I currently own a Nikon d3100, I have the kit lens as well as a decent zoom. I am looking for advice on what wide angle lens would be best. I have looked into a Tamron 18-24. I like to shoot nature and landscapes, as well as the grandkids (when they sit still long enough). What would someone recommend, plus I don't want to spend alot. Want to keep my gas to the minimum.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Tokina 12-28mm f4 - $421 at B&H - read about it here - http://www.kenrockwell.com/tokina/12-28mm.htm

spdmn54 Loc: Avon Lake, Ohio

Thanks for the input, looks like a really good lens. Plus I like the price

forjava Loc: Half Moon Bay, CA

Grand kids? Landscapes? An interesting comment about 35mm on full-frame (24mm on your D3100) is: "...fine for...landscapes, ..., groups, ... and good for flash, too, since its angle of coverage is inside the angle produced by most flash units." See p. 176f of Keppler, 1977.

For economy with quality, you can use the manual-focus Nikon (Nikkor and Nippon Kogaku) lenses from an earlier time marked Auto on eBay; see my post from about two days ago for detail.

Manual focusing is easy!!! to learn but the wider the lens' angle, the less need to focus as there is inherently a wide depth of field. Moderately wide, as in 35mm primes (24mm on the D3100) is less problematic than very wide. Bottom line: your jumping grand kids will be more readily captured well.

An Auto prime at 24mm f/2.8 goes for $90-$150. For auto focus, I recently bought a used 24mm AF D f/2.8 for $178.

CO

LensTip.com does great reviews and tests lenses in eleven or sometimes twelve different categories. I pasted links for the Tamron 10-24mm, Tokina 12-28mm, and Nikon 10-24mm. Click on the links below. When you get to the bottom of the first page you can click on the other categories or click on "Next Chapter". The Tokina is significantly sharper than the Tamron. Check the image resolution section. The Nikon 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5 is a nice lens but much more expensive.

http://www.lenstip.com/180.1-Lens_review-Tamron_SP_AF_10-24_mm_f_3.5-4.5_Di_II_LD_Aspherical_(IF)-Introduction.html

http://www.lenstip.com/381.1-Lens_review-Tokina_AT-X_PRO_DX_12-28_mm_f_4-Introduction.html

http://www.lenstip.com/194.1-Lens_review-Nikon_Nikkor_AF-S_DX_10-24_mm_f_3.5-4.5G_ED-Introduction.html

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Good choice, or the 11-16mm for a bit more money.

tomcat

Go RENT one first. Not all brands of lenses will provide the quick focus that Nikon does. I had a Tokina lens once that was so slow to focus I lost many shots because of it and I finally just gave it away to a camera store to get rid of it. I have a Sigma Art lens that is great. But Nikon is still the fastest at focusing. Believe it or not, my new 200-500mm is almost instantaneous and is the fastest at focusing I have ever seen. You will be terribly disappointed in a 3rd party lens that will not focus quickly, no matter how cheap it is. My favorite for my grandkids is my 18-35mm Nikon lens--it is quick focusing. I also set my camera to AF-C when they are engaged in an active activity where they will not be seated.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

If you don't want to spend a lot of money, and quality is not an issue than the Tamron will do. For my money the Nikon 10-20 DX lens is super and you can get mint off ebay for about the same price as the Tamron new.

WayneT Loc: Paris, TN

Tokina's newest entry is the 11-20mm f2.8. I just got one and like it very much. The f2.8 is great for indoor work i.e. real estate photography.

http://www.adorama.com/tn1120dxnkd.html?term=tokina+11+20mm

Nukepr Loc: Citrus County, FL

I also own the Tokina 12-28 f4 and it is a solidly built lens with good optics. It would match well with your d3100.

tomcat

And remember, go RENT the lens first.......

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

If the kit lens is the 18-55 lens consider that for many amateur photographers 18mm is a very nice wide angle. I do not know what "decent zoom" you have but many zooms are very handy not only to photographs kids but also for nature, portraits and landscape photography. Case in question is my old 28-105 AF-D lens.
Before expending your money consider if the 18 or 35mm settings in your kit lens are good enough for your intended purposes. There are many excellent wide angle lenses available and I am sure you will get lots of info from other members of this forum.

WayneT Loc: Paris, TN

That was the primary reason I purchased the 11-20 as I had a kit lens of 18-140 that I got with my d7200 and is one of my most used lenses. I also have a fisheye 8mm lens but there was a gap between the two. The f2.8 also gives me the ability to use the camera in lower light than I can with my 18-140. The 11-20 really gives me a solid wide angle that's great for panoramas.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

You mentioned having the kit lens with your D3100... that is probably an 18-55mm.

And you mention having a "zoom", which actually isn't very informative because both the kit lens and the Tamron you mention are also zooms. Any lens that has variable focal lengths is a zoom. Lenses with only one focal length, such as a 50mm f1.8, for example, are often referred to as "primes".

I suspect what you mean is that you have a telephoto zoom or tele-zoom lens, probably a 55-200mm or 55-300mm, or maybe a 70-300mm. There are a number of different telephotos, both zooms and primes.

For wide angle, such as you might want to use for landscapes and scenic shots, there are a lot of possibilities. For a DX camera, most will be zooms (there simply aren't many wide angle prime lenses made for DX format).

The suggestion of the Tokina 12-28mm f4 is a good one. It's an excellent lens (I use an earlier model Tokina 12-24/4 on my Canon cameras.)

Some others mention the Tokina 11-20mm f2.8... which is also a fine lens, but is larger, heavier and more expensive. And, frankly, few people actually need f2.8 ultrawide lenses. They just think they need them. Aside from photojournalists and astrophotographers, on wide angles f4 is more than adequate.... plus makes for overall sharper images, better flare resistance, lower cost and smaller size/less weight. (Yes, f2.8 or even larger apertures can be desirable on moderate wide to standard range and telephoto lenses... just are of a lot less value on ultrawides.)

You probably are referring to the Tamron 10-24mm (not "18-24mm", which I don't believe they make). That's a rather older lens now and, for the money, I'd look at the Tokina instead. It's not only got better image quality throughout, it also is better built and has a non-variable aperture (f4 throughout.... while the Tamron has f3.5-4.5 aperture). The Tokina even appears to cost a little less right now!

Nikon themselves also offer a 10-24mm DX... But it's quite expensive (roughly double the Tokina or Tamron) and not as well built nor as good optically as the Tokina!

There also is a Nikkor 12-24mm.... Even more expensive, with more "pro quality" build (similar to the Tokina), but not really any better optically than the Tokina.

There also are Sigma 10-20mm (two versions: a cheaper one with variable aperture and a more expensive one that's f3.5 non-variable).

And, Sigma offers the widest of the wide (short of a fisheye lens0... an 8-16mm.

Sigma makes a 12-24mm too... but it's actually an FX or "full frame" capable lens. It would work fine on your camera, but you'd be spending a lot of extra money and not getting any benefit from it. Aside from the two Nikon, all the above lenses cost a lot less than the Siggy 12-24mm.

Any of the above wide zooms can serve well for landscapes and scenics... but are unlikely to help very much with shots of the grandkids. For those you are more likely to want at least a mid-range zoom (which your 18-55mm is, with some limitations). Or, perhaps a short telephoto prime such as a 50mm or 85mm. Mostly, you would probably want a high performance autofocus lens, to keep up with faster moving targets. If the kids are into sports, your tele-zoom should be up to much of that task....Although, again, what you can capture with it depends a lot upon it's autofocus performance.

I really am not familiar with what's available for Nikon, in terms of higher performance AF zooms and primes. I'm sure some of the pro-oriented lenses such as 24-70/2.8 or 70-200/2.8 offer that... but those are rather big and expensive. If it were Canon gear, for fast moving kids I'd point you toward their USM lenses (and possibly Sigma HSM and Tamron USD), some of which are reasonably priced. Maybe other folks can make some specific suggestions for Nikon.

Note: vintage manual focus lenses? Those might be fine for sedate landscape shots and still life... Except that there aren't any particularly wide vintage lenses for a DX camera like yours. That's because everything was FX back then... DX lenses didn't even exist yet. So the very widest vintage manual focus lenses were 21mm, 20mm, 18mm and 17mm, all of which you already have pretty well covered with your kit lens. (Plus many of the vintage, manual focus lenses in those widths are rarer and highly collectible, so even well used ones aren't very cheap today). And manual focus for grandkids? Well, good luck with that! I shot sports for many years with manual focus cameras. And, I was pretty darned good.... But the right combo of today's AF cameras and lenses are far faster and more accurate focusing than I or anyone else using manual lenses ever was, back in the good/bad old days. Back then, the best odds to get a good sharp action shot with a manual focus lens meant pre-focusing somewhere and waiting for the subject to arrive at that point, then timing the shutter release perfectly. Taracking moving subjects meant a lot more missed focus throwaways. Today with fast, accurate and good tracking AF systems, I get a much higher percentage of in-focus shots, as well as more flexibility than ever was possible with manual focus gear.

jethro'spal Loc: Oklahoma

You might consider either the Rokinon 10mm or 12mm (both f2.8).