First FX lens suggestion: I'm currently shooting a D7100 but anticipate adding a full frame body in the near future. Most likely that will be a D750. My current lenses are, in...

bettis1 Loc: Texas

I'm currently shooting a D7100 but anticipate adding a full frame body in the near future. Most likely that will be a D750.

My current lenses are, in decreasing order of usage: Nikon 55-300mm f1:4.5-5.6; Nikon 18-55mm f1:3.5-5.6; Nikon 85mm Macro f1:3.5; Nikon 35mm f1:1.8; Tokina 11-16mm f1:2.8.

Since all of these lenses are DX format, I will need to begin adding FX glass. Based on my current usage I am inclined toward the first one being a midrange variable.

I would appreciate your recommendations on specific lenses.

Thanks,
Bob

traveler90712 Loc: Lake Worth, Fl.

My walk around lens is the Nikkor AF-S 28-300mm F/3.5-5.6 ED VR
No cheap, but well worth it.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=Nikkor+AF-S+28-300mm+F%2F3.5-5.6+ED+VR+Lens&N=0&InitialSearch=yes&sts=ma&Top+Nav-Search=

In fact, before you go out and buy a FX camera, get FX lens first. They will work very well on your DX camera, then when your ready get your FX body.

Mac Loc: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia now Hernando Co. Fl.

bettis1 wrote:

I'm currently shooting a D7100 but anticipate addi... (show quote)

You will receive many opinions on this.
My suggestion is a 50mm either the f/1.4 or the f/1.8. They are small, light weight, great in low light situations, offer very shallow DoF, are fun to shoot with, and are inexpensive.

Db7423 Loc: Pittsburgh, PA

traveler90712 wrote:

My walk around lens is the Nikkor AF-S 28-300mm F/3.5-5.6 ED VR
No cheap, but well worth it.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=Nikkor+AF-S+28-300mm+F%2F3.5-5.6+ED+VR+Lens&N=0&InitialSearch=yes&sts=ma&Top+Nav-Search=

In fact, before you go out and buy a FX camera, get FX lens first. They will work very well on your DX camera, then when your ready get your FX body.

I agree. The 28-300 is a great all purpose FX lens. Depending on your eventual goal a better choice might be the Nikon or Tamron 24-70. ;)

MarkD Loc: NYC

The Nikon 24-120 VR is a good all around lens.

RKL349 Loc: Connecticut

Mac wrote:

You will receive many opinions on this.
My suggestion is a 50mm either the f/1.4 or the f/1.8. They are small, light weight, great in low light situations, offer very shallow DoF, are fun to shoot with, and are inexpensive.

Think about the Nikon 24-120mm f/4. Very versatile. Stays on my D610 most of the time.

RRRoger Loc: Monterey Bay, California

traveler90712 wrote:

My walk around lens is the Nikkor AF-S 28-300mm F/3.5-5.6 ED VR
No cheap, but well worth it.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=Nikkor+AF-S+28-300mm+F%2F3.5-5.6+ED+VR+Lens&N=0&InitialSearch=yes&sts=ma&Top+Nav-Search=

In fact, before you go out and buy a FX camera, get FX lens first. They will work very well on your DX camera, then when your ready get your FX body.

I have one I dedicated to a D800 and a second one on my D5300.
Only in low/poor light do I use my holy trio do to their f/2.8

Another lens to consider is the 24-120 f/4.0 because it is slightly better for Video due to fixed aperture.

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

bettis1 wrote:

I'm currently shooting a D7100 but anticipate addi... (show quote)

There are many fine lenses to choose from.

Let me suggest the Tokina 24-70 2.8. It lacks VR but that is not essential for this range and the quality for the price is untouchable.

Don't be in a rush to divest yourself of your DX lenses. You can still shoot with them in the crop mode. You may be surprised how good the 16mp image can be.

Quixdraw Loc: x

Have the D 750 both the 24-120 and 28-300. I prefer the 24-120 as general walk around, and 50 for low light. The 28-300 is great for use in the country and as a car lens, Long and heavy. You might also consider the 24-85 -- lighter shorter and a lot cheaper than the other two zooms. One lens only? 24-120, I think -- not cheap. Money an issue? 24-85.

glgracephoto Loc: Arlington, WA

bettis1 wrote:

I'm currently shooting a D7100 but anticipate addi... (show quote)

If you can afford it, and it covers the range you want, I would suggest the Tamron 24-70 F/2.8, cheaper than Nikon's version, rated better for image quality, and has image stabilization.

I just ordered a D810 with this and the 70-200 version. I haven't gotten it yet to test first hand, but knowing how satisfied I was with the DX version 17-50, as well as satisfaction from other owners, I am confident it will work well.

The 24-120 others have suggested has also had some very good reviews, and I thought long and hard about that also. I have went crazy in the last two weeks reading every lens review imaginable!

The 28-300 also, certainly is a handly general all about walk about, but in ANY zoom of such wide variation, there is some loss of image quality. For what it does, though, I hear it does it well.

Mac Loc: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia now Hernando Co. Fl.

RKL349 wrote:

Think about the Nikon 24-120mm f/4. Very versatile. Stays on my D610 most of the time.

I have that lens. f/4 is not as good in low light or creating a shallow DoF as f/1.4 0r f/1.8.

RKL349 Loc: Connecticut

Mac wrote:

I have that lens. f/4 is not as good in low light or creating a shallow DoF as f/1.4 0r f/1.8.

Agree that the 20 mm f/1.8 would be better in low light for a wide angle. I was looking at the OP's request for suggestions in the midrange variable area.

bettis1 Loc: Texas

Thanks to all for the excellent suggestions. That is just what I needed to begin my analysis.

Bob

Macronaut Loc: Redondo Beach,Ca.

The Sigma 24-105 f4 warrants serious consideration. After a lot of research, I chose it over the Nikon 24-120 f4 and could not be happier. It is an outstanding lens.

sloscheider Loc: Minnesota

I would suggest deciding on what you want the lens to do for you - do you need a constant aperture lens? Do you deal with low light situations much? Sports?

Also how does price fit into this? There is some nice used glass out there for relatively low $. Your 7100 has a built in focus motor so can run them decently enough but this loops back to the first question, what are you shooting and do you need the faster focus capabilities of newer lenses?