Decent Wide Angle for a D3100?

[H4X1MA]

Anyone have any recommendations? I don't even know where to start. the only person I know with a wide angle just has the screw on adapter (um, I think?), it's not an actual lense.

Some example shots would be cool if available

 

[KmH]

I recommend the Nikon 12-24mm f/4G ED IF Autofocus DX Nikkor Zoom Lens

Other wise start by CLICK HERE! :

Visit Nikonusa.com, click on Nikon Products, then click on Camera Lenses, explore to your hearts content.

Visit SigmaPhoto.com, click on lenses.

Visit Tamron.com, click on Photo Lenses.

Visit TokinaLens.com, click on Photo Products.

 

[Dao]

- First, set your budget.
- Then, figure how wide you want.
- See any lenses that is wide enough for you and are within your budget.
- Read reviews on the lenses in Lens review sites such as photozone.

 

[480sparky44 44]

What I would recommend for a wide angle depends on what you've already got.

I would assume you have something that reaches out to 18mm, most likely the 18-55 kit lens.

You can look at the Nikkor 10-14, Tamrom 10-24, Sigma 8-16, or Tokina 11-16. I can't speak for the latter 3, so here's some samples with the Nikkor 10-24:

 

[H4X1MA]

Lol, nice link KmH I do like the sample pics that amazon has up there. 1200 bucks, ugh.

Budget, not really sure. I spent ~800 on my last lense and figure that that is a good price point. I can't justify spending 1k+ on a lense since this is just a hob

480, the only difference I notice in the images you posted is with the first one. The rest of them look like a typical lense to me. The first image is more of the effect that I would like though.

 

[480sparky44 44]

.........I can't justify spending 1k+ on a lense since this is just a hob....

I think the Nikkor lists for $900, and it's (I think) the most expensive of the four I listed.

...480, the only difference I notice in the images you posted is with the first one. The rest of them look like a typical lense to me. The first image is more of the effect that I would like though.

Not all of them are taken at 10mm. If you've got the 18-55 kit lens, then they will look 'normal' if taken at 18-24mm.

 

[RichardsTPF]

Like ur 4th pic. Looks like this len is great for indoor low lighting + the width+ clean detail. Do you mind telling me your exif?

 

[480sparky44 44]

Like ur 4th pic. Looks like this len is great for indoor low lighting + the width+ clean detail. Do you mind telling me your exif?

It's an 5-frame HDR.

From the EV0 frame:

Camera Maker: NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model: NIKON D60
Image Date: 2010-11-24 13:25:29 (no TZ)
Focal Length: 10.0mm (35mm equivalent: 15mm)
Aperture: f/8.0
Exposure Time: 0.400 s (1/3)
ISO equiv: 100
Exposure Bias: none
Metering Mode: Matrix
Exposure: Manual
Exposure Mode: Manual
White Balance: Manual
Light Source: Cool White Fluorescent
Flash Fired: No
Color Space: sRGB
GPS Coordinate: undefined, undefined

 

[H4X1MA]

480, duh on my part, and yeah I'm used to the 18-55 kit.

Comparing the Nikon 10-24 to the Nikon 12-24, what reason does the 12-24 have to be more expensive? Still a complete noob when it comes to tech specs, but it looks like the 10-24 has a small apeture which I have been told makes a huge price difference. Smaller the more expensive. Everything else SEEMS about the same to me. What am I missing?

I really liked the pictures I found with the Sigma 8-16mm, but they keep calling it a "slow" lense. not sure what that means. I am guessing that with a price tag of $300 less than the Nikon that you are getting what you pay for in this case. Are Nikons just price jacked because of the name behind them, or are they price jacked because they are just that much better? Also noticed that the Sigma cannot accept any filters, even to protect the glass which just plain old succckkkss.

 

[480sparky44 44]

The 10-24 is a variable aperture, meaning at 10mm, it's f/3.5 and at 24mm, it's 4.5. The 12-24 is a constant aperture, so it's f/4 all the way through the zoom range. Don't confuse it with the 14-24 f/2.8, which is for the full-frame (FX) Nikon format. I can't speak for the 12-24, but it's supposed to be a sharper lens.

 

[H4X1MA]

Guess I'll be saving my pennies for the 12-24 then. I wonder how much of a difference 10mm to 12mm would actually be taken from the same location. A mission if you're bored sometime

 

[480sparky44 44]

I prefer the 10-24, not only due to price, but I really don't need constant aperture. Most of my work is landscape, so I'm not zooming in and out all the time. I rarely use the maximum aperture anyway.

I also prefer the shoot as wide as possible sometimes just so I can correct perspective in post. I'm sure the 12-24 is great for pros, but it doesn't really trip my trigger.

 

[kundalini]

Comparing the Nikon 10-24 to the Nikon 12-24, what reason does the 12-24 have to be more expensive?

The gold ring on the barrel.


I have it and it is a wonderful performer. But OTOH, I also have the 14-24mm f/2.8. I do not care for variable aperture lenses, but that is a personal thing. YMMV.

 

[H4X1MA]

That actually is good to know, I'm typically doing landscapes as well.

 

[kundalini]

Nikkor 12-24mm f/4 @ 14mm, f/5.6, 1/250s