spdmn54 wrote:
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.
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.