I've tried several and have settled on the 24mm 2.8 AF-D, at least for the time being. It approximates the field of view of a 35mm WA, is sharp and contrasty and is small, light and unobtrusive. Works well and you can carry a 50mm in your pocket if you occasionally want to get a little closer.
It depends on where I'm walking around. If I don't think I will need anything shorter than 70mm, I love my new Nikon 70-200 f/4; otherwise it is the Nikon 16-85. I often have the 16-85 on the camera and the 70-200 in a pouch on my belt.
>The 16-85 sounds interesting. Gonna check it out. > >Jim
Hi Jim. Well, I have the Nikkor 16-85 AF-S DX Zoom for my D5200, and the resulting images are quite sharp and contrasty for a zoom! That said, I am very much contemplating returning the D5200 to Adorama and upgrading to the D7100, mainly because of the D7100's lack of AA filter, Commander flash capability, AF Adjustment, better build and external menu button controls. I would imagine that the 16-85 (or any lens, for that matter) would yield even sharper images on the D7100!! However, I must figure out why I cannot re-install Photoshop on my Windows 7 64-bit system. I also installed the ViewNX software but it won't launch. Will try an uninstall/reinstall. Thanks, Steve
Fri 05-Apr-13 12:54 AM | edited Fri 05-Apr-13 12:55 AM by Pugzilla
I have to agree with Toby01 there; it depends on where I'm going and how lazy I am. For lightweight carry, the 35 mm. f/1.8 G DX is great, as long as I can back up or move forward a bit as needed. If I want one and ONLY one lens, I'll take my old original (made in Japan) 18-200 mm. f/variableG DX (or for better quality, but less range, the 17-55mm. f/2.8G DX). And if I feel I need a bigger kit, I'll carry that 17-55mm., the 70-200mm f/2.8 (early model w/ VR 1) and even maybe a 12-24 mm. f/4G.
Can't carry what I used to - I'm a 76 y.o. cardiac patient now - so I do need to be a little selective.
Never criticize a man until you walk a mile in his shoes. Then you'll be a mile away and have his shoes!
Excellence is an art won by training and habituation. We do not act rightly because we have virtue or excellence, but we rather have those because we have acted rightly. We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act but a habit. - Nicomachean Ethics
Quote>Right now, I'm using a 18-70mm. > >I commute to NYC so I'm using a Lowepro Urban Photo Sling 250 >with the D7100, 18-70mm, 70-200mm and a SB800 flash. > >I'm thinking of adding the 35mm f/1.8 since I've heard rave >reviews about it and it looks tiny enough to fit with the rest >of the stuff. <Quote Chomper<<<
All the kit and 18 to something DX lens are surprisingly good, expecially for the price.
The little 35 f/1.8 was my favorite Video lens, but probably too sharp for portraits.
18-135 f3.5. Originally a kit lens on one of my old Nikons, it has become my favorite lens. It's a great portrait lens and is very, very sharp. Not really considered a great lens by most, it just works extremely well with my D7000 and I'm sure it will work very well on the new D7100
Sun 07-Apr-13 12:33 AM | edited Sun 07-Apr-13 12:33 AM by Castlk
I have been using the 18-105 kit lens as my walk around lens and have had great success with it so far. I find it to be surprisingly good for a kit lens. I also keep my 50/1.4 with me for low light shots.
I "grew up" on a D70/18-70 combo. I bought the 16-85 when I moved up to the D90 but never quite fell in love with it. You can't fault the image quality and zoom range, but something didn't quite thrill me.
When I tried the Sigma on the D7000 I realized it was focus response. The 16-85 is lazy whereas the Sigma snaps immediately into focus like the 18-70 did. Of course this is all relative, it's not as if the 16-85 takes a minute to focus or hunts, and practically speaking if you're taking your time to shoot it makes absolutely no difference. But to me, the feel just isn't there.
If you can wait a couple of months I'll gladly sell you my 16-85 at a good price when I'm next in the US. I'll be in the southwest suburbs of Chicago.
From the responses I have to wonder why the D7100 was needed. It is a high res high end camera in a mid to low price class. If lenses like the 18-300 or 18-200 are all that is needed to satisfy owners, they could have saved $1200 by keeping whatever they had before. A D7000 can test the limits of many of the mentioned lenses, and the D7100 probably is lens limited without excellent lenses. Walking around lenses fall into a few different categories such as serious street photography without a pre-defined goal or scene, on one end of the spectrum and casual grab shots for memory on the other. Point and shoots are getting so good that a number of the possible definitions of "walking around" photography can easily be satisfied by them. I find that as I got more sophisticated gear and lenses, my total shot count drops by the month because random memory shots are not taken at all. It is not easy to grab a heavy lens and camera from a bag to get a grab shot that is just popping up so I do not even bother. When I got the D90, my first DSLR when it was introduced, it went everywhere with me and my shot count was very high. That camera was a pretty darn good balance between weight, size, cost and performance with its kit 18-105 lens. My first good lens was the 70-200 and it became my go to lens even for walking around because it excels at candid shots and street portraiture. Today when I go out to meet friends, I am taking the D7000 and a 24 1.4 prime, no flash or accessories. Anything more casual and it would be my cell phone 8mpx camera. Stan St Petersburg Russia
>From the responses I have to wonder why the D7100 was needed. >It is a high res high end camera in a mid to low price class. >If lenses like the 18-300 or 18-200 are all that is needed to >satisfy owners, they could have saved $1200 by keeping >whatever they had before...
One answer to the question is that sometimes an 18-200 or 18-300 is the best lens for the purpose at hand (walk around?), but other times a different might work better. One reason for an interchangeable lens camera is to use the lens that is best-suited for a particular purpose. A D7100 can be a good camera choice when that lens is an 18-300, or a 24 f1.4.
My walk around lens is the Nikon 50mm 1.8G... I walk forward or backwards depending which way i want to zoom
On the 18-x00mm super zoom subject...
I have sold all of my lenses down to three (that i tell people about): Tokina 12-24 f/4 Nikon 50mm f/1.8G Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VR1
These are the only lenses i use... so everything else went to the classifieds.
except... a hidden Nikon 18-200mm VR2. My other lenses give me better images and i hardly ever use it, but i cant bring myself to sell it. Maybe because its worth 1/2 the price i paid for it .. Maybe because i'll need it on my next trip to ___ (fill in the blank with someplace exotic) .. Maybe its because i like the idea of not having to swap lenses. So it sits in my camera cabinet collecting dust.
The hardest part of owning a superzoom? Admitting you have one on forums
>16-35mm f4 VR and the 28-300mm VR both return wholly >acceptable results. > >Richard
Richard, I like your lens choices, as well as your Einstein quote! FYI, I was in Princeton NJ in the '70's, and had a personal tour of Einstein's house on Mercer Street, by his Caregiver/Admin, Ms. Helen Dukas. A defining moment in my childhood! Thanks, Steve
Einstein must have been the master of quotations, overtaking the likes of Oscar Wilde and George Bernard Shaw. Two other quotes which to me are particularly relevant to today's society are these. Whenever I see a group of people queuing at a bus stop who are not interacting with each other, but inanely punching digits into their mobile phones, I remember this quote.
"“I fear the day when the technology overlaps with our humanity. The world will only have a generation of idiots.”
For those suffering in the world today perhaps this applies:
The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it.
I've been trying to decide between two lenses for my D7000, the Nikon 16-85 or the new release, now shipping, Sigma 17-70 2.8-4. Contemporary series. I find it difficult to use one prime for what I think of as WA on travel - including street, portrait and landscape. I'll probably carry a light normal prime for low light - indoors and at night. It'll be hard not to have my 70-300 along, but easy not to travel with and carry the 70-200.
I plan to keep my D7000 for awhile, but look at this lens as a step up from my 18-200 and a commitment to keeping a DX camera for what I like to do best, wildlife and birding.
>I've been trying to decide between two lenses for my D7000, >the Nikon 16-85 or the new release, now shipping, Sigma 17-70 >2.8-4. Contemporary series. I find it difficult to use one >prime for what I think of as WA on travel - including street, >portrait and landscape. I'll probably carry a light normal >prime for low light - indoors and at night. It'll be hard not >to have my 70-300 along, but easy not to travel with and carry >the 70-200. > >I plan to keep my D7000 for awhile, but look at this lens as a >step up from my 18-200 and a commitment to keeping a DX camera >for what I like to do best, wildlife and birding.
David, I too, use the Nikkor 16-85, but on a D5200. Please see attached sample image. I love the lens, and am trying to decide if I should upgrade to the D7100, mainly for the lack of AA filter and resultant sharpness increase. That, combined with all the other features like AF Fine Adjustment, Commander mode, weather-sealing, etc., make me think it's worth the $400 difference in price. If I'm wrong, any comments would be appreciated! Thanks, Steve
I have my 50 1.8 on my camera more than any other. I just zoom with my feet. If not that, then the 18-200.
That said, I really like the Nikkor 70-200 2.8 vr2 I used recently. The weight for me wasn't an issue. I used a blackrapid sport strap connected to the tripod foot and it was quite comfortable for a weekend walking around Circuit of the Americas. I can't currently justify owning it for 5-6 times a year use since I can rent it for 70 bucks, but that could change. We'll see.
Fri 17-May-13 12:42 AM | edited Fri 17-May-13 12:45 AM by VictorSuarez
I was trying out the Nikkor 17-55 for the last 3 weeks but have decided on what is I feel a more versatile lens that has proved to be every bit as sharp as the 17-55. I went with a Nikkor 16-85 DX VRII f3.5-5.6 instead, great lens. It is in fact producing sharper results than the 17-55 I am quite surprised.
>I was trying out the Nikkor 17-55 for the last 3 weeks but >have decided on what is I feel a more versatile lens that has >proved to be every bit as sharp as the 17-55. I went with a >Nikkor 16-85 DX VRII f3.5-5.6 instead, great lens. It is in >fact producing sharper results than the 17-55 I am quite >surprised.
Hi Victor. I too, am quite pleased with the sharpness and overall image quality of the Nikkor 16-85 (on my D5200). Please see attached image of 3 Texas Boys. (For a larger version, please check out my website. Thanks! Steve
Hi, I rented the D7100 and for my Walk-Around lens, and I know many people will disagree, but for me it is excellent: The Nikon 28-300mm VR -- might be a bit heavy for some. I also keep a wide angle in my photo vest pocket -- the Nikon 12-24mm. I went on a Seal Watch cruise with this camera and mounted a Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VR with the Nikon TC17e II -- this is not a Walk-Around lens -- but on the boat with a monopod I was able to get some very nice photos.
I think your 35mm equivalent is a great walk-around; I have a D800E with a Sigma 35mm f/1.4, and I mostly love it, especially for night street photography. However, I really miss the flexibility of my old 24-105 f/4L on my old Canon 5DII.
My walk around lens if I had the D7100 would be the upcoming Sigma 18-35 f/1.8. It doesn't have VR, but f/1.8! At an FX equivalent f/2.5 (f/1.8 x 1.414), that's faster than the fastest f/2.8 FX zoom lenses. As freaking awesome as recent Sigma lenses have been lately (35mm f/1.4, 85mm f/1.4, etc.), this one looks really promising!
>I think your 35mm equivalent is a great walk-around; I have a >D800E with a Sigma 35mm f/1.4, and I mostly love it, >especially for night street photography. However, I really >miss the flexibility of my old 24-105 f/4L on my old Canon >5DII. > >My walk around lens if I had the D7100 would be the upcoming >Sigma 18-35 f/1.8. It doesn't have VR, but f/1.8! At an FX >equivalent f/2.5 (f/1.8 x 1.414), that's faster than the >fastest f/2.8 FX zoom lenses. As freaking awesome as recent >Sigma lenses have been lately (35mm f/1.4, 85mm f/1.4, etc.), >this one looks really promising!
I don't have much experience with Sigma glass. Would you rate it equal with top named brand lenses?
I just received the 18-85 f3.5-5.6 Nikkor. Will be working with it today and tomorrow for the first time. I also ordered the 12-24 f1.2 Nikon WA. Or maybe that's 1.8. Correct me if I'm wrong. Anxious to put that one into play.
>I don't have much experience with Sigma glass. Would you rate >it equal with top named brand lenses?
No way, not as a whole. But their recent releases have gotten gushing praise at about 60% of the price of Nikon equivalents. Read reviews of the Sigma 35mm f/1.4, most place it on par with or almost as good as the Nikkor 35mm f/1.4, and most reviews of the 85mm f/1.4 place it on par with or slightly better than the Nikkor 85mm f/1.4. Every lens including Nikkor lenses should be thoroughly researched before buying.
That said, a mediocre lens in the right hands will produce far better photos than a superb lens in the wrong hands. And as much as people make of corner to corner sharpness and bokeh, that's not what makes a great photo.
>I don't have much experience with Sigma glass. Would you rate >it equal with top named brand lenses?
There isn't a simple "yes/no" answer to that question; it can only really be addressed by comparing a particular Sigma lens against the equivalent Nikkor.
Some Sigma lenses - and not just recent ones like the 35mm f/1.4 - have garnered great reviews and perform every bit as well as some Nikkors. The 120-300mm f/2.8 EX is one example, and their various Macro lenses are up there as well. As well as that, Sigma offer several models that simply don't exist in any of the OEM ranges - like the new 18-35mm f/1.8 DC
We're getting way off-topic for the D7100/D7000 Forum - much more information on lens options may be found over in our Nikkor Lenses and 3rd Party Lenses Forums.
Thanks to everyone for the input. This thread will now be closed.