A number of wide angle lenses go as low as 10mm, there's a selection of lenses that i have found that range from 11mm however have heard the extra mm makes quite a significant difference.
Here, have a play with the
Nikon Lens Simulator; (Make sure you select 'DX' format)
Select 35mm which is the 'normal' focal length for an APS-C camera, and the angle of view (AoV) is 43 Deg. Rack-out to 18mm, and the AoV is 76Deg, almost twice as wide. At 16mm it's 82Deg... but now every mm of short is a lot more deg of wide... and 14mm gives 90Deg... (and where edge distortion starts to get more pronounced), 12mm gives 100 Deg, 11mm (as Tokina lens mentioned) gives 104Deg, 10mm, 109Deg.. and there simulator stops....
The 8-16 @ 8mm gives 114Deg AoV, but also gives quite a lot of fish-eye like distortion to close up subjects there... with more concervative AoV the shorter 10-20, at the wide end, doesn't seem to suffer as much, but still does. BUT, as you see, those small mm extra short do make a much bigger difference to the amount of wide.
I have the Sigma 8-16, its the widest rectilinear lens for APS-C cameras available, and known as "The Estate Agent's Friend' because that extra couple or more mm of wide, really IS a lot of extra wide, and it can really open up small spaces... B-U-T... its twice the price of the 10-20, and does offer more fishy distortion at the wide-end, and it wont take filters like the 10-20 will... it IS a great lens though, but you really need to want that much wide, and to be able to get that close with one, and I wouldn't recommend it unless you really need it, and if I admitted it to myself, I would probably have been as well or better off with the 10-20.. but still...
The lens ideally will be used for interior, exterior and architectural shots.
Outside... all wide angle lenses will have a problem, when you are shooting from ground level, that verticals will converge as the tops of buildings and things get further from the camera.
This may be 'corrected' to some extent in post-process, using a technique called 'Key-stoning', basically stretching the image to a false square 'as if' the camera was at a higher view-point and the subject more 'square' to the camera lens.
It used to be done in the dark-room, by tilting the enlarger base board; but the more professional way about it was to do much the same 'in-camera' with a "tilt-shift" lens that tilts the lens in relation to the film or sensor, before taking the photo... rare, expensive and of very limited use, but if you are taking a lot of these sort of photo's on a regular basis, thats probably the best 'solution' to the problem.
Thing is you should take note of this problem... a wide angle lens will exaggerate it an awful lot, and you will get similar 'distortions' in interior shots, where working so close to subject perspective is skewed, and even if you do use post process manipulation or key-stoning, ever so slight changes in the view-point and vew angle will make an enormous difference in resultant picture.
Say it time after time, BUT tele-photo's, cropping a very small section out of the scene, and making it that much more prominant in the photo, do an awful lot to add 'instant impact' and simplify an image for a viewer. Wides and Ultra wides, are the opposite, and cramming SO much into the frame, they dont simplify anything they complicate it, and cram in clutter and detail the viewer probably wont pay attention to let alone be drawn to, as well as giving you these perspective and distortion issues.
Where tele-photo lenses can offer instant impact, and flatter a photographer, wides dont; to get the best from them you REALLY have to work that much harder, you have to look that much closely at what's going on in the view-finder, and you have to pay oh-so-much more attention to your view-point and angle of 'incidence'... there is only so much you might correct in post, and even if you do, you need to know how to shoot the shot 'best' to be able to get what you hope for at the end, even with post-process manipulation.
Sigma 10-20mm f3.5
- Reports appear to show is a very good lens with sharp results heavier to handle and the most expensive. Haven't had much experience with Sigma lenses on Nikon bodies.
The Sigma 10-20, is probably the bench-mark UWA for enthusiast DX. Its a great all round lens and build quality is good, and IQ far better than the Nik-Kit 18-55.
The older f4.5 version used to be cheaper; and reports/reviews, oft suggested that the later 3.5 version wasn't worth the extra for the slightly faster aperture, which in such a wide, short close-focus lens wasn't likely to be exploited much for DoF shrinking, and wan of marginal benefit for interiors, where if light levels that low as it made a difference, you had problems before you started!
Last time I looked, there were still retailers offering F4.5 lenses 'New-Old-Stock' and they were often very much discounted over the f3.5... IF you go for this lens, shop around, and do not discount the 2nd hand market, where an f4.5 version is likely top be more available and a bigger bargain than the f3.5, and for almost all practical purposes as good.
Nikkor 10-20mm f4.5 - 5.6 VR
- Tests show good all round lens with slight drop in quality at the edge of image. Appears lighter and smaller
The Nik-Kit 10-20 was introduced as direct rival to the f4.5 after market Sigma, with the genuine Nikkor badge more than doubling the price, but NOT necesserily making it a much better lens. Good.... but if funds a big factor, then likely that you are looking at a
second hand version of the Nikkor, to a brand new Sigma, and on a VFM balance, you would likely still get more for your money, with the Sigma, and more still, especially
second hand the older Sigma f4.5.
Tokina 11-16mm f2.8
- Images look to be very shap through focal range and reviews report very good results. However slightly more expensive and heavier than the Nikkor. Some reports of trouble focusing on some Nikon bodies? Also narrower focal range than other lenses - would the slightly narrower image be a good trade off for superior image quality
This was launched as rival to Nikon's older UWA 12-24, with a tad more wide. Its a very well regarded and very polpular lens, A-N-D I would possibly say the one most suitable for you.
It was always well rated for VFM, it just lacked that extra bit of wide.. if that's important.
Lack of that bit of extra wide, though did 'hide' where wides are that much more demanding, and where distortion does start to become most noticeable, so the lack of that little extra wide does a lot to 'flatter' the perceived performance of the lens.
As such, it will let you get in the game, and you will more quickly get results with it, but you are also more likely to get frustrated with that lack of more wide, earlier.
Wondered if anyone could provide any help wirh narrowing down the search for a wide angle lens for my crop sensor D3300.
Hmmmm... MY answer would have to be the Sigma 10-20, preferably the cheaper f4.5 version if you can get one at best price.
It's not the cheapest, but it could be if you hunt a bit, and its probably the most bang for your buck of the pack.
There's swings and round-abouts to any of the alternatives; the Nikkor offerings, mostly trading the VFM for the Nikkor badge... that probably isn't so valuable if you are hanging it on the front of an 'entry' level D3300...
Widening the selection, ISTR that there used to be a Tameron offering, that was about the cheapest, if not the best lens, and then there's a load of non Auto-Focus options, from much older manual-focus film cameras, both from Nikkor or 3rd party makers... Given the merit of AF on a lens with such a short focal length, and such huge Depth-of-Field, and the fact I so often turn 'off' the ruddy AF on my wide lenses to stop the ruddy system 'hunting' and focus manually anyway... these could be even better value for money... B-U-T... lacking pin-connections and couples metering modes etc, may not be the easiest to get to grips with.
SO, the sigma 10-20, tops my suggestions; it has that little extra wide; its a good lens, its more than well enough made, and its good VFM, especially if you can get one 2nd hand or New-Old-Stock, and can get a good deal on the older f4.5 over the newer f3.5.
OTHERWISE, there is really not an AWFUL lot to make a choice between any of them, and you will likely be happy with pretty much any of them, and they will ALL beg you up your game as a photographer to get the best from them... and in THAT the biggest differences likely lie... they will NOT do the job for you, they WILL make you work harder to get it... be prepared!
Add on edd: Worth mentioning,
flash coverage, for interior shots, . Your 'pop-up' flash on the camera probably has a reflector angle, around 60Deg, Ie less than the 'kit' lens at the wide 18mm end; Its critisised on the D3200 I have particularly for giving a lot of 'flash fade' across the frame,, and I suspect flash on later D3300 isn't any different., with more exposure in the middle of the frame than at edges and corners.
Go wider still with accessory lenses, and this is only going to be worse, and far more pronounced as the disparity in AoV to flash coverage gets larger, and, subjects at the extremes of the frame are further away from the flash than anything directly in-front, and the 'inverse-square-law' starts to bite, and big exposure discrepancies start to occur.
Some accessory flash guns have 'zoom' heads to work better with wide angle lenses. Mine, an old Vivitar 283 for film camera has a 'wide angle' diffuser as well as a zoom head, but even there, it only offers the 75ish Deg Field-of-Flash that matches a 28mm lens on full-frame/35m film or 18mm wide side of APS-C kit lens, and will still give this exposure fade across the frame from center to extremities, due to the flash-to-subject distances.
This niggle begs numerous suggestions, including ramping ISO in available light, or using reflectors and or alternative artificial lighting, or such as multiple flash stacks, or 'multi-flash-bursts', with a long shutter speed or locked open shutter, walking around the scene firing off the flash on 'test' into different parts of the scene to put light where you want it..
In this sort of situation, the extra 'stop' of aperture the Siggy f3.5 has over f4.5 may seem that much more significant, but really, it's not, It's one stop, and ramping ISO one stop would make as much difference; using longer shutter speed the same, and dropping out of hand-holding range, a decent tripod so you can use much longer shutters is far more influential/useful.
See also:
Ultra-Wide-Angle vs Kit & Stitch, featuring a fish!
