Best Everyday lens

Hello Fellow Nikonites,Good to see so many useful tips and comments here. I use a D7100 now, upgraded from a D3100 and D5200. Looking for an all-purpose lens.Was looking at the Nikon 17-55mm 2.8, did it rent couple of times and loved it. But hefty price tag to buy.Also looking at Sigma 18-35 1.8, Sigma 17-50mm 2.8 and Sigma 17-70mm 2.8-4. Budget wise the 17-70 Sigma is the best deal, but don't know how it will compare to the Nikon.Any suggestions?

Nikon 18-200.

Kind of depends on your shooting style and what you need. My current daily-carry lens is the Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 APO DC HSM. It's a lot of glass to carry around (3 Lbs.) but you get used to it. Sharpness and contrast compare with that of my best primes (e.g. Nikon 50mm & 85mm f/1.8G) but it doesn't go wide and it's not what I reach for when I want to be... Shall we say, "discrete".

The Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 is, hands down, a superb lens.

...

I really like my 18-105mm as a all purpose, carry lens.

Since then the 18-200mm & 18-135mm are out there now, those would be nice as well.

18-135 without doubt. My longer zoom was in for a repair, and the shop lent me this for a couple of weeks for free.On a cruise to the Eastern Mediterranean, I found myself using this almost exclusively. I bought it on my return! It was used, and I paid £100

Nikon 18-135mm, if you're "on a budget" and really need that "reach". Nikon 18-70mm, better built&slightly better optics. Best choice, built-quality and optics quality wise (but quite expensive) is a Nikon 16-85mm. All of these are better solutions than aforementioned Sigma's models (except for the "faster" aperture value, of some of them). Yesterday I purchased a used (mint condition) Tokina AF 20-35mm f/3.5-4.5 - what a lens! So, if on a budget, consider buying a good second hand lens...

Hi and welcome...I see you have progressed from a D3*** to a D7***...If your thinking full frame in the future buy FF glass...

16-35mm F4...24-70mm F2.8...Buy once and save money...

I have to say since I got my Sigma 18-35 1.8 it has been my carry around lens. I also have the nikon 18-140 but its just not as sharp as the Sigma.

If you happen to spot an older Nikon 28-105D lens at a cheap price, it too can be pretty good on the D7100. It's not super sharp, but it certainly is sharp enough, for my needs at least. It also has a handy pseudo macro feature which allows very close focusing. I paid $200 for a mint condition used one and I'm quite happy with it. A couple of images attached below.

My Tamron 18-200 is my usual daily lenses. Takes great pictures and it was decently priced.

If you are on a budget, I'd say the Nikkor 18-105mm, simply because there are a lot around so prices are competitive. Other than that, I'd say go for an FX compatible lens.

I have a rule for buying lenses - I just got my D7100 a month ago, and plan on it lasting at least 5 years before I go full frame. Therefore any lens I buy will be FX if the cost is more than £100 a year before upgrade.

I'd suggest saving for the Nikon 17-55 2.8...I was looking at refurbished or good condition used ones and was all set to get one until I fell in love with the 24-120 4. My thinking is lens last a lot longer and hold their value more then bodies. I will eventually upgrade to FF camera and I'll already have a decent lens collection...it really just depends on how you shoot and how you look at it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm looking at the Nikkor 17-55 and the sigma 50-150 but I don't know too much about these lenses yet...

Sent from my HTC One S using Tapatalk

It depends on the range you want. If I were shooting Dx again, I'd try the new Sigma 18-35 1.8. The Nikon 16-85 is one of their best Dx lenses, but not "fast".

The 17-70 is a very good lens. The 18-35 is spectacular. If price is really the deciding factor, you won't be disappointed with the 17-70.

mauckcg said:

The 17-70 is a very good lens. The 18-35 is spectacular. If price is really the deciding factor, you won't be disappointed with the 17-70.

Click to expand...

Yeah that 18-35 sounds good, I wonder what the focal length is like to use...

Sent from my HTC One S using Tapatalk

I love my Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 non VC model as an every day lens. It's great in terms of quality, it's a relatively fast lens for the low price and it's quite small too.

Just bought the latest version of the Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4, part of the contemporary line, as I was looking for an all around lens. It's a very sharp lens. I usually use a 35mm f/1.8 as my go to lens but sometimes I just need the little extra reach, which is why I got the 17-70. Thought about getting the 17-50 f/2.8 but after shooting the 17-70 for a few days, I decided to keep it.

What was the benefit over the 17-50? Was it the extra reach or better image quality?

Didn't get a chance to try out the 17-50 but a couple of things made me decide. First I used to have an 18-55 which I always felt was lacking In reach, although the difference is probably just a step or 2 away from the subject. Also, I'm looking at getting a 70-200 at some point so it would go perfectly with it. Finally, the 17-70 is a much newer lens than the 17-55 and from reviews I've read the 17-70 is sharper even without the constant 2.8 aperture.

Sent from my Q10 using Tapatalk 2