Beginner Nikon D3400 lens advice !

[Dan85H]

Hi everyone.

New here! Just wanted to get some advice from some more experienced minds than mine about my lenses for the Nikon D3400.

I adore the camera and I have recently purchased the 35mm prime lens which is great, but I do like to take photos of architecture and landscapes, and I am finding that I am struggling to get everyone I want into my shots, just short if moving back out into the middle of a road or something! I have the 18-55mm kit lens also which does a decent job but I read that there are better ones out there.

I have been reading up and I know that my camera is a DX, which essentially means that the 35mm length on my lens will actually be appearing as more of a 50mm length, so I am not getting as much into my images as I would like. The 35mm has been excellent when just exploring the streets etc but I was wondering which lens would be best to get better shots for what I want?

I have seen there are 24mm prime lenses around, which would then appear more towards 35mm on my camera, but I have also seen a 10-20mm wide angle lens being spoken highly of. The 24mm one doesn’t seem to get spoken about much? Is it worth getting that or is the quality not as good? Should the 10-20mm be the way to go? Or any other suggestions? My budget isn’t massive at the moment.

Thank you in advance!

 

[Bobsyeruncle]

I'd go for the sigma 10-20
I used one on my nikon D7000 and it's a decent lens.
There's 2 version's I think.
The f/3.5 was the one I had.

 

[jonbeeza]

I have the D3300 and the 35mm 1.8G stays on it, most of the time. I have gotten some decent results with the 18-55 kit lens. I used to have the 10-20mm, but I hated it as it was too heavy, and the distortion was pretty bad.

 

[Compuwight]

Nikon 12-24 f4 AF-S DX gets good reviews and used circa £300

I am not an expert but I think you only get 24-35 if the 24 is an FX lens on your DX body, DX will be 24 !

Q is your 35mm prime a DX lens, I suspect the 18-55 kit is DX

 

[Bobsyeruncle]

I have the D3300 and the 35mm 1.8G stays on it, most of the time. I have gotten some decent results with the 18-55 kit lens. I used to have the 10-20mm, but I hated it as it was too heavy, and the distortion was pretty bad.

Too heavy?
Can't say I had any issues with distortion to be honest......are we talking about the same lens?
It gets some great reviews.....

 

[Dan85H]

Nikon 12-24 f4 AF-S DX gets good reviews and used circa £300

I am not an expert but I think you only get 24-35 if the 24 is an FX lens on your DX body, DX will be 24 !

Q is your 35mm prime a DX lens, I suspect the 18-55 kit is DX

Thank you for the response! Yes it is a prime DX lens and the 18-55 is kit DX

 

[jonbeeza]

Too heavy?
Can't say I had any issues with distortion to be honest......are we talking about the same lens?
It gets some great reviews.....

I may have mentioned in other threads, that I am old and frail. So yes, the Sigma 10-20mm was a little heavy for me, on my little D60. Only good thing about it, was you could take candid's so easily with it. You could point the lens straight ahead, and get people either side in the frame.

 

[Ahhyes]

I used to own a Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8, and found it great with my D7000, Not sure how it performs against the Sigma but it was great when visiting Yosemite and Sequoia.

 

[Scots_quine]

I would go for something more versatile like the Nikon 18-300mm lens. Not only good for landscapes but at the 300 end would be great for picking out detail on your architectural shots.

 

[Retune]

You mention that sometimes the 35mm isn't wide enough, but how about the 18-55? Apart from quality, does the range suit you or do you feel you'd like something wider? If you are considering a 24mm prime, how do you get on with the 24mm setting on your zoom? You might try leaving it at 24mm the next time you go out to get a feeling for this. Personally, I think that's a pretty versatile focal length on DX, very close to the 23mm fixed lens on my Fuji X100T, and (as you point out) with a similar angle of view to what you'd get with a 35mm lens on a full-frame or film camera (a classic combination). But unlike the 35mm primes, Nikon only offers 24mm primes in FX - no problem using them on a DX camera, of course, but even the f/1.8 version is substantially larger and more expensive than your 35mm DX. The old 24mm f/2.8D is smaller and cheaper, but won't autofocus on your camera.

 

[Retune]

Nikon 12-24 f4 AF-S DX gets good reviews and used circa £300

I am not an expert but I think you only get 24-35 if the 24 is an FX lens on your DX body, DX will be 24 !

Q is your 35mm prime a DX lens, I suspect the 18-55 kit is DX

The focal length of (say) a 24mm lens doesn't change depending on whether it's an FX or DX lens, but only the FX version will be guaranteed to cover the full frame of an FX camera's sensor. On a DX body, FX and DX lenses of the same focal length will give you the same angle of view, but the FX lens will probably be larger and heavier.

 

[Erty]

The Nikon 24mm 1.8G prime ( which will give you equivalent to 35 mm field of view) is fantastic but is big and expensive. None of the older manual/screw driven lenses will work well on a D3400 so that is it for 24mm primes. But... If you don't need the low light/fast moving capability of a big prime then the AF-P 18-55 and 10-20 lenses will work fine. Both are surprisingly good in decent light conditions or on static subjects. If you need wider than the kit lens then the 10-20 is a good option.


The Sigma f/2.8 equivalent to the kit lens is better but it is also a lot heavier. I've got one and for most pictures, the standard kit lens can do the same job. If I was carrying my D3400 on the off chance of taking pictures, I'd have the kit lens on it.

 

[Suvv]

Just to add, as no-one else has mentioned it, all the talk about equivalent focal lenghts and equivalent fields of view is irrelevant unless you have experience of full frame and know what effects certain lenses give on full frame or if you have both full frame and crop bodies and want to compare / contrast them.
If you only shoot DX then ignore all the equivalent stuff.
Someone who shoots large format would consider a full frame DSLR a cropped sensor

 

[drsilver]

I used to own a Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8, and found it great with my D7000, Not sure how it performs against the Sigma but it was great when visiting Yosemite and Sequoia.

Here's some shots I made recently with a Tokina 11-16 2.8 on a Canon crop body. They were all made at f/11.


11mm


14mm


16mm

 

[Stegosaurus]

Personally I wouldn't hesitate to use your kit lens. There might be lenses that are technically 'better' but that doesn't mean the kit lens isn't good enough. The difference between zoom and prime lenses isn't nearly as stark as it used to be. Its also feather light, suitable for 95% of ordinary photographic situations, and has the massive advantage of being a lens you already have. I have a pile of exotic lenses for specific scenarios but the kit lens is the one I use most of the time.