Daisy61 Loc: New Hampshire

I have a nikon D-3100 camera. I am looking for a good wide angle zoom lens. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
thank you in advance for your help.
daisy

67skylark27 Loc: Fort Atkinson, WI

Tokina 11-16 f2.8 is a good one, built like a tank. You will need to get the in lens autofocusing
version - DX II I believe. Great for wide angle shooting and Milky Way shots.

SusanFromVermont Loc: Southwest corner of Vermont

Part of the answer to that question involves how much you can spend on the lens. In my opinion, a lens with f/2.8 or larger maximum aperture is best, but those will be more costly. Nikon makes good lenses at all levels, so you should be pleased with pretty much any lens you choose! Go to Nikon's website and look at their selection of DSLR lenses. By default they are arranged according to focal length, so all the wider lenses are at the beginning of the list. From there you can look at all of them in your price range, read the specs and reviews. Don't worry if a lens is FX or DX, FX lenses work just fine on DX cameras, they just lose part of the angle of view [crop sensor = cropped in the camera - the DX sensor only "sees" the middle part of the lens]. The specs usually will tell you the specifics on that, which will help in the decision. Here is a link to that page: /www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-products/camera-lenses/dslr-lenses/index.page

Make sure you don't pick a fisheye lens unless that effect is what you want!

Daisy61 Loc: New Hampshire

thank you!

Daisy61 Loc: New Hampshire

thank you

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

How wide Daisy? For many photographers with a camera such as yours 18mm is more than enough. Nikon manufactures many excellent wide angle lenses. I use a 12-24 f4 AF-S and it has served me well. Tokina also manufactures excellent wide angle zooms and the 11-16 f2.8 comes to mind.
I am sure your camera came with a kit lens starting at 18mm. If you have not explored its possibilities I suggest you do. Shoot a whole day using only the 18mm setting. Zoom with your feet meaning walk forward or backward to frame your subjects. Experiment with different shooting angles and I bet by the end of the day you will surely know if indeed you need a wider lens.
Wide angles need an understanding of what the lens do, among other things distortions. Because they make the background recede it is important to get closer to the subject. Extreme wide angles are not necessarily useful for landscape photography.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Definitely!

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

If your camera is compatible with and can use AF-P lenses (check online to be sure before buying), the Nikkor AF-P 10-20mm VR DX would be a great choice. It's reasonably compact and light for a lens of this type, is one of very few ultrawides that have image stabilization... and it's one of the least expensive.

If your camera cannot use that lens, there are two AF-S Nikkor ultrawides: 10-24mm and 12-24mm. Good lenses, but ridiculously expensive.

Someone mentioned Tokina and they've made several possible lenses. Their 12-24mm f/4 and 11-16mm f/2.8 are discontinued models you might find used. On a D3100 you will need the "II" version of either if you want the lens to be able to autofocus. The prior versions for Nikon mount did not have an in-lens focus drive motor... relied upon a motor in the camera body instead (which your D3100 lacks). While they are nice lenses and quite capable, both these Tokina are nicely built, moderately large and heavy. The 12-24mm has decent image quality, though with some chromatic aberration. The 11-16mm is very sharp and one of the few ultrawides with an f/2.8 aperture (is popular for astrophotography), but has a very narrow range of focal lengths and is highly prone to flare problems. I know folks who really like it... but I also know some who tried it and found it's susceptibility to flare made it unusable for their purposes. f/2.8 isn't really necessary for a lot of wide angle photography, either. It does make for a brighter, more usable viewfinder if shooting at night.... and might be desirable for photojournalism. But for many other types of wide angle work, we're stopping our lenses down to middle apertures anyway, so the f/2.8 serves little purpose.

Tokina has replaced both those lenses with new, improved models: 12-28mm f/4 and 11-20mm f/2.8. I haven't had opportunity to closely compare them, but most users seem to feel they are solid improvements in most ways. The 11-20mm is more flare resistant, but also now one of the largest and heaviest ultrawides (it uses more expensive 82mm filters.... while most of the other use 77mm or 72mm).

Tamron offered an 11-18mm lens way back when... avoid it if you shop used. It didn't have very good image quality and is slow and hefty. Their 10-24mm replacement for it was an improvement, but I still preferred and bough the Tokina 12-24mm instead. More recently, Tamron has updated and improved the 10-24mm and added VC image stabilization to it. I have not compared it to the others, but it seems a good update.

Sigma has offered more different ultrawides than anyone. You might find a used 10-20mm f/4.5-5.6, which is a pretty decent lens... pretty good image quality, reasonably compact and affordable. They currently are offering a 10-20mm f/3.5, which is one of the largest and heaviest ultrawides (uses 82mm filters)... also with decent image quality. Also currently available is a Sigma 8-16mm, which is the widest of the ultrawides.... fairly expensive, has quite strong wide angle distortion effects, and has a convex, protruding front element that precludes using standard filters on it. Finally, Sigma has made a series of 12-24mm lenses, including a pricey one that's part of their "Art" line now... these are actually full frame capable lenses (and among the widest made), which is why they are large and expensive. The earlier Sigma 12-24mm had some complex distortion (correctable in post-processing with certain software). Any of the Sigma 12-24mm would be sort of a waste of money to only use them on a DX camera like D3100.

Of them all, if it will work on your camera I'd recommend the Nikkor AF-P 10-20mm VR lens. My second choice would be one of the two current Tokina AT-X Pro models: 12-28mm f/4 or 11-20mm f/2.8. Between those two, I'd probably opt for the 12-28mm for it's slightly smaller size and lighter weight... and typically lower price. Tokina lenses are similar to Nikon... their focus and zoom rings operate the same direction and they use the same FX and DX designations as Nikon, among other things. The style and finish is similar, too. However, Tokina lenses use a somewhat unusual "focus clutch" mechanism. They are shifted from manual focus to autofocus by sliding the focus ring slightly forward or backward. This generally works fine, but prevents using some techniques (such as quick de-focus/re-focus). It's also a micro motor focus drive, which can be slower in telephoto lenses but isn't a problem in ultrawides which have great depth of field and only need to move their focusing group slightly to achieve focus. I've used several Tokina over the years and still have one in my kit. They are good lenses.

My third choice would probably be the older, discontinued Sigma 10-20mm f/4.5-5.6.... But there have been some highly discounted sale prices on the bigger, heavier f/3.5 version lately, so that might be tempting.

I list the Tamron last here, but haven't had opportunity to compare their newest version with VC (image stabilization). I wasn't impressed with the earlier non-VC model (but I have used various other Tamron and currently have their 60mm macro lens in my kit).

Have fun shopping!

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

Lots of good choices depending on your budget:
Sigma 10-20
Tamron 10-24
Nikon 10-24
Tokina 11-20
Tokina 12-24
All between $400 and $800

Keep in mind the Nikon AF-P 10-20 is NOT an option on your older camera body as it will not function. No AF-P lens will.

Daisy61 Loc: New Hampshire

Ok thank you ! Not looking for extra wide angle. Mostly for city scapes and some landscapes

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

The 12-24mm F4.5-5.6 DG HSM II for about $950.00 is a very good lens. I had one until it was stolen from a job site. A rugged and real workhorse.
Well worth the money if you can afford it.
Otherwise the Nikon AF-P DX NIKKOR 10-20mm f/4.5-5.6G VR is a good lens for those of us on a budget for about $307.00.
I did the same with a Canon 10-18mm after my Sigma was stolen and could not afford an expensive lens at that time.
The Nikon 10-20 is actually and incredible lens and the VR in it makes it 1000 times better than others in the range without VR.

rcarol

I have this lens and it is terrific.

IDguy Loc: Idaho

D3100 no go w AF-P lenses: https://www.nikonimgsupport.com/eu/BV_article?articleNo=000035705&configured=1&lang=en_GB&sfdcIFrameOrigin=null

IDguy Loc: Idaho

Nor AF or older lenses that require in-camera focus motor.

IDguy Loc: Idaho

So you do not need a more expensive f2.8 lens. For those purposes you will generally want to use f16. And, since you also will want to use ISO100, VR will give you the ability to shoot handheld in more situations.