lensmaster Loc: Chicago

Nikkor 24-120mm.
Unless you are photographing wildlife or birds, where you would need a Long lens, the 24-120 really covers 95% of what you will want to shoot.
I used to carry three lenses on personal trips...and picked up the 24-120 for a trip to Hawaii (got a reconditioned one from the NIKON STORE so I was pretty confident it was in excellent working order and condition). Cost less than buying a new one as well.
Took the 24-120 with me and never regretted purchasing it.
Not very heavy, SHARP optics and served all my photographic needs.

Since you did not describe exactly what you want to photograph, I would recommend the 24-120.

Moondoggie Loc: Southern California

I take my Tamron 18-400mm everywhere. Works fine for me.

neillaubenthal

Yep…if you're really trying to be light then I take my Z 24-200. If I'm willing to carry a little more…I add the 14-30, and if a little more I substitute the 24-200 with 24-70, 100-400, and the 1.4TC and I'm pretty much covered. I only do the latter swap if I'm thinking I'll see some nice wildlife at distances that need it but if I'm going that far with gear then I'm not in the travel lens camp any longer.

wjones8637 Loc: Burleson, TX

Some tears ago I took a D5000 with the 18-270 Taron and found it worked well. Now when I travel I carry a D7100 with the Tamron 18-400. A few times I wished for something a bit wider and I have since purchased the 10-24 Tamron I usually carry it, but seldom use it.

Bill

bschafer

If you have a newer phone, it may provide you with a very viable option for the majority of your shots. And then you can just use you camera for longer shots (if needed) with a telephoto lens.

glwalden Loc: MISSOULA,MT.

I've had an 18-200 on my camera for a few years and very seldom regret it.

revhen Loc: By the beautiful Hudson

Your 18-270 should cover about 99.99% of you photographs. I have a 18-135 0n my Canon 80D and, although I have several other lenses, I rarely used them. That one lens is all you need.

b top gun

When I went on my first Nikon holiday to the Left Coast, I swapped out my Nikkor 18-200 DX VR for a Tamron 18-270 on my Nikon D7100; I should have tested the Tamron before I went. It disappointed me with its overall image softness, at least my copy. It could not compete with the Nikkor when it came to wanting to make large prints like 16" x 24"s; I spent hours after that trip post processing RAW files to rescue the best shots. I stuck the Tamron on my D80; it is still on it but I gave that combo away....no regrets. When I travel now I still take the D7100 and also take either a D780 or D850, and a Nikkor 24-70 f/2.8. For my personal purposes I prefer that lens on either a cropped sensor or full frame Nikon body. Again, MY opinion based on having made 7 trips to the Left Coast and 2 trips to Arizona.

lreisner Loc: Union,NJ

You might want to consider bringing a fast fixed back up lens, like a 35 or 50 for low light and as a backup.

flip1948 Loc: Hamden, CT

That is only going to give him the equivalent of 36mm at the wide end with his DX camera. That may not be wide enough.

The 16-85 that a few have recommended would cover the range of the 24-120 with a few extra mm at the long end.

The 16-85 is discontinued, but available used for significantly less than the original price which was about $650.

MPB has a couple in Excellent condition for $179.

Lagoonguy Loc: New Smyrna Beach, FL

My wife and I just completed a 40 day trip to Iceland, The Faroe Islands and a small ship cruise from Malta to Venice and we each took a Sony RX100 VII that worked very well for anytime we did not want to carry our heavier photo gear. At f/2.8-4.5 it does OK in low light but not great, all other scenarios it is hard to beat. We also both use the Panasonic G9 (2X crop), her’s with a Oly 12-100 f/4 and mine usually a 12-60 f/2.8-4 and supplemented with 12mm f/1.4 for low light cathedrals which I really enjoyed using. Also my 8-18mm f/2.8-4 was used far more often than I thought I would for close street and canal shooting. I used a 50-200 with a TC 1.4 for an impromptu birding opportunity in a lagoon near Venice where a friend and I attempted to photo flamingoes, he more successfully than I with his D500 and 500 PF lens and superior skill. When all else failed the iPhones came out (that’s how we photographed the northern lights in Reykjavik). My wife used her Sony Camcorder once. Did we take too much gear? Yes! In all my travels I still come back to a 24-105 or 120mm f2.8-4 equivalent lens with a fast prime works best for me but could we do it with a Sony RX100 and an iPhone? You bet. Same memories with just a tad less sharp photos but a lot less weight and consternation as what to use each day. I used a D7100 with a 18-300 for years and was quite pleased with it except it was a little soft and a little to narrow. Have a great trip.

dbaird2495

When I travel, I also carry my Tamron 18-270 on my D7200. Great combination. If I want to keep my weight down, I carry my Panasonic FZ1000 instead.

Mr Bill 2011 Loc: southern Indiana

I used a Tamron 18-270 for years on my Canon D 40 and found it worked fine for every day carry for most things. Biggest problem was that on occasion the 18 mm just isn't wide enough on the crop sensor Canon. These days I have their 18-400 on a D-70 and love it except for its weight.

gvarner Loc: Central Oregon Coast

Take the flash.

Jack 13088 Loc: Central NY

You are already on the right track. If I were in your situation I would carry and have carried my D7100 with an original version of Nikon’s 18-200. And either the 50mm f/1.8 or the 35mm f/1.8 in my pocket. The prime is useful for either low light or pano for wide angle. Not to mention a backup in case of disaster. Personally I wouldn’t bother with the flash because an on camera flash almost always leads images I will discard. I will also disclose even though I own some extreme wide angle zooms have been rendered obsolete by use of longer primes and stitching. Pretty much after age 70 a series of patches have been necessary to keep me alive and mobile so the lighter kit is welcome. I’m just 81 so I am still “good enough”.