Walkaround/ Travel Lens for D7100?

Hello everyone, I just purchase a D7100 not too long ago and was looking for some opinions in terms of what lens I should get as an upgrade to the Kit lens. Personally, Im looking to get a lens that is tailored for travelling. I already some prime and zoom lenses that I use for specific situations. But for the next lens, Im looking to buy one that can cover my needs when travelling. I am not a big fan of carrying a bunch of lenses when I go travel so Im really looking for one lens to do it all!.

Specifically, I have been very tempted to buy the Nikon 17-55 f2.8 DX lens as Ive seen and heard tremendous review on that lens. But I was wondering what everyone's opinion would be on that lens and the d7100 combo and whether or not there are other lenses I should look at. DX or FX lens is not really an issue to me, though I suspect that I wont be upgrading to FX not for a long long time. Please let me know what your thoughts are in terms of what lens I should get for D7100. Many Thanks everyone!

To give more info and help you guys narrow down the choices for lens:
For: Travelling and Walkaround
Want: Constant Aperture
Zoom Range: short to mid
Weight of Lens: N/A
Cost of Lens: N/A
DX or FX Lens: N/A

I basically want to get the best lens I can in terms of a travel/ walkaround lens!


Cheers!

24-70mm F2.8...A bit heavy but do a great job in all departments...Plus if u go FX...

16-85mm but not constant aperture

Nikon 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6 is a nice DX lens that won't break the bank, and will offer great service. It's a neat lens. Read the reviews on it. It used to be my walk-around lens and was on my camera 70% of the time. But, I just looked at the pricing on the 17-55, that you're considering. The 17-55 f/2.8 is a faster lens for about the same price. Also, I like Pedro's suggestion, if you ever decide to go FX.

I use my 28-70 F2.8 for a walk around lens especially if I have family with me....

Why does it have to be constant aperture?

The Nikon 18-105mm AF-S DX VR would be the perfect choice, in my opinion, but it's an f/3.5-5.6 lens.



...

I just went through the same dilema, I wanted a good walkaround lens for my D7100.
I ended up going with the Nikon 16-85, I am happy with it so far.

The things I wanted were,
1- VR or equivalent.
2- Longer than 50/55, as with my old 18-55, I was always wishing it had a bit more on the long end.
3- Good IQ.

​The 16-85 fitted my bill the best. If Nikon bought this lens out in an f4 version, it would be perfect.

I love my Sigma 17-50 2.8 with OS as a "walk around" lens. If the 2.8 isn't necessary I use the 16-85 Nikon.

I, like Fish, have been using the 18-105 as my all purpose dailey walk-a-round on my D7100.

Pat in NH

I have the 16-85 on my cam when I go out for do something. In the car I got my Cambag and if needed I change the lens.

If I go on a specific shooting, such as today 55-300 I take it and not more.

As I reported elsewhere, the 18-70 3.5-4.5 turns out to be my lens of choice these days

RockyNH said:

I, like Fish, have been using the 18-105 as my all purpose dailey walk-a-round on my D7100.

Pat in NH

Click to expand...

Same here on a D7000. If I know I'm going to be mostly indoors, the 35 1.8g.

My original purchase of a d7000 came with a AF-S DX 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR kit. I bought a new Nikkor 55-300mm lens to go with it.

However, I exchanged that kit and the 55-300mm for a $200 off d7100 body only and got a great deal for like new Nikon AF-S DX 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR on ebay, which seems to me be a better all around "If I can take only one lens" setup. The overall deal turned out to be about $50 bucks more than the d7000 kit + 55-300mm. I know my net focal length is now minus 100mm, but I think the lens construction is better than either of the 18-105mm or 55-300mm. In time, I'll find good deals to build my collection of lenses to give the versatility I need.

Given that, help me to understand as I noticed you guys mentioned walkaround/travel lenses with much shorter focal lengths. The 18-200mm is only slight longer/heavier than the 18-105mm, and the aperture range is about the same as well. You got me thinking that maybe I missed something.

Wondering in So Cal - just outside Riverside.

I tend to prefer wider angle lenses out to medium zooms for day to day photography unless I know I'm going to need the long reach of a super zoom for some specific reason. I can get more of the scene in my shot, they're faster shooting (f/stop), faster handling and lighter.

I say the 16-85 too. It is on my D7000 90% of the time. I too agree that a constant f4 would really be good. For several years I used the 24-120 and I understand the new f4 version of that is better than the older version.

Horoscope Fish said:

I tend to prefer wider angle lenses out to medium zooms for day to day photography unless I know I'm going to need the long reach of a super zoom for some specific reason. I can get more of the scene in my shot, they're faster shooting (f/stop), faster handling and lighter.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the explanation. Having the wide angle is a plus in many situations.

​Just a thought....

The technology's likely there or (considering scientific applications) close to produce an initially hideously expensive, faultless 10-500 f/2 macro the size of a small kit lens and as R&D costs were recovered competition would reduce end user cost to.......kit lens levels. That would eventually decimate the extremely lucrative market of supplying various "specialty" lens to enthusiasts and pros. It is a for profit business with long range revenue requirement influence.

That said, we all have different requirements at different times for our walkaround/general purpose lens. That's one interesting aspect of photography - the variety of individual requirements and, thanks to the net, the ability to share that experience.

Nikon's 16-85 VR is the best solution for a walk-around lens, in terms of image quality vs. weight, size, zoom range, and cost. 18mm lenses are equivalent to 27mm ( re. full-frame ) whereas 16mm is equivalent to 24mm, a pretty sizeable difference in wide angle terms. 85mm gives the equivalent of 127mm, but that is not much different in angle from 105mm=157mm, and the Nikon 16-85 has a metal mount, the lens-mount being my main reservation about the 18-105, which has a plastic bayonet.

16-85 DX is a much better range than 18-105.
The difference in actual angle between 24mm and 27mm ( converting to full-frame or 35mm film terms ) is alot greater than the difference in angle between 127mm and 157mm. Changing positions (getting a little closer) is most often easier on the telephoto end than being able to back up in tight situations, and cropping also can get you closer, but not wider.

Not exactly sure why you require constant aperture, but it's going to limit your choices, primarily on the end where you really want it for a DX camera. If you're willing to forgo that then the 16-85 everyone is mentioning is likely your best choice if you're doing more around town walking around than out in the open walking around. I had the 18-105mm and a 28-300mm with me in Yosemite and found myself using the 18-105 much more than I expected because 28mm isn't wide enough on a DX (it may be the perfect walkaround for an FX body, however).

If you absolutely require constant aperture, get the Sigma 18-35mm f1.8 when it comes out. You lose a little range, and no real telephoto, but I'd imagine it's the perfect lens for travel in the city.