amehta Loc: Boston

Do you have a link for the specific review. What I have seen on dpreview uses data from DxOMark. Looking at the zooms mounted on the D7100, there several sharper options.

georgevedwards Loc: Essex, Maryland.

Some people have a lot of money and like to buy things that are too expensive for other people, this separates them from the rif-raf. On the other hand, I inherited some money once and was finally able to buy that expensive but fine item I could never afford before. To have that state of the Canon for several thousand and that Gibson Guitar for several thousand, I certainly can say my finished creations were better than anything I had done before, and the joy of using an instrument that gives such easy and excellent results boosted my joy and creativity levels tenfold, and you just want to use them all the time. Then the money runs out (banks destroyed my stocks and they never recovered) and the bridge on my Martin 12 string pulls off and I can't afford $120 to get it fixed. Oh well, no primes for a while...

georgevedwards Loc: Essex, Maryland.

I have the 18-55mm zoom (kit and Nikon D5200) and am also in love with the range for landscape. Then one day I went to the local garden where the tulips bloom once a year and it was useless. Oh, for a good zoom like up to the 300mm or more range, even my 50-200mm did not do the trick at 200mm, to stand above a flower with your tripod and try to get a closeup, it was too soft at that range;, worked great around 90-120 though but couldn't get that good sharp zoom closeup. I had the same problem with my older Canon and the 28-300mm Tamron (circa 2005 or earlier, maybe they have something better now), just never could get that sharp extreme closeup. I won't even mention depth of field problems. (arghhh!!!).

RichieC Loc: Adirondacks

Nope.

Comparing only the top of the line lenses. Zooms are better at zooming and they are pretty darn great- no argument there. But there is a cost.

Primes are better at whatever focal length they are than a zoom set to match. There would be no market for expensive primes if not.

Physics- you can't argue with physics. Half the glass, half the surfaces, half the air spaces, half the size and weight, 1/4 the precision of all the complicated grouping interactions involved, no aperture control… .

But you gain one thing you loose another. A zoom represents a suitcase of primes. A prime is generally 1/4 the size & weight of a zoom ( not always accurate- but generally) . A zoom is almost as sharp, a prime is the sharpest. A D800 or med format can "make use"/benefit, and deliver the result of the sharpest in large prints. an image only used on the net- does not benefit… you gain one thing you loose another.

So if you get a 24-70 and find you have it at 24 90% of the time and only wish it was a bit wider… and are sick of carrying a lead weight around your neck, get an 18 or 21 prime.

As far as the sharpest zoom for the OP: look at used prices- they represent what people have come to value an item for as a reflection of their "worth". A lens that does't cut it, won't sell well.
The Nikon Holy trinity is a best bet for a set of zooms that will hold their value.

lone ranger Loc: Port Saint Lucie, Florida

True, but the photograph"s that you shoot with a high quality lens like that truly are steller works, if composed and shot properly, the lesser lenses are a crap shoot, in my opinion!

WereWolf1967 Loc: Knoxville, TN

After looking at the replies to the original question, I find it amazing that in many instances the aftermarket lenses performed much better than the Nikkors. Originally, the major aftermarket brands sold on price point alone but now, more of us are demanding at least as good a quality from ALL lens manufacturer's products. They've had to adapt to survive and Tamron, Sigma, Tokina & others have adapted very well to the consumer demands.
T they too
While Nikon, Canon, Pentax and others have their reputations riding on ALL of their lenses, the major aftermarket manufacturer's are now finding out they too are being judged on the same criteria by the discerning consumers. It's a dog eat dog market out there and it's survival of the fittest.

The Fonz Loc: Queensland, mate!

I'd second what reinaldokool (p.5) said: Check your camera settings. On better cameras you can adjust the AF focus point; it may be off on your camera, be it across several lenses, or just one. But those lenses, if they're technically ok, can give very sharp results. Or you have to work on your technique.
Or change formats if you're unhappy in general. I doubt that being an issue though.

romanticf16 Loc: Commerce Twp, MI

Everything suggested has been Nikon. Now you want a less expensive bargain, or do you want the sharpest, as posted?

amehta Loc: Boston

Several Sigma and Tamron lenses have been suggested, starting on the first page.

country Loc: back woods

no one has mentioned the tokina... on my d7000 I get great results with the tokina 11-16 f/2.8 for landscapes...

OddJobber Loc: Portland, OR

There's a Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 AT-X 116 Pro DX due to arrive in my driveway on Thursday.

I compared specs and reviews for Sigma 8-16 f/4-5.6, and 10-20 f/4-5.6 and f/3.5, Tamron 10-24 f/3.5-4.5, Nikkor 10-24 f/3.5-4.5, and Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 and 11-16 2.8 DX II.

Prices were from $450 to $750, with the upper prices being for image stabilization. I don't think I need image stabilization for this lens.

Surprisingly the older version of the Tokina got better ratings and reviews than the newer DXII version and as good or better than the Nikon 10-24. The zoom ratio is less (1.45 compared to the 10-24's 2.4), but I believe that leads to fewer compromises in IQ.

In this case the cheapest lens turned out to be the best for what I wanted, regardless of the cost. :-D

EDIT: I didn't post this before because Ambrose wrote, "I'm looking for any specific brands or models folks have had solid experience with." But I think the specs are worth looking at.

country Loc: back woods

I think you will like this lens... pretty sure the more expensive one also has focusing motor in it, which I didn't need since the d7000 has that in the body... got mine on ebay for $450, like new, works great....

OddJobber Loc: Portland, OR

60 hours and counting. :)

kymarto Loc: Portland OR and Milan Italy

It's an excellent lens, but you will have to be careful about flare (if you have a bright source in frame), and it tends to have a lot of chromatic aberration (blue/yellow) near the borders if the image is defocused there. Sometimes they are decentered. Check your corners carefully--they should all be equally sharp.

twillsol Loc: St. Louis, MO

Nikon's three sharpest lens; have all three and love them.