brent46 Loc: Grand Island, NY

28-105 AF D

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

When I had the D7100, the 18-200mm was usually on the camera. Now, the similar 28-300mm is usually on my D750. The 18-200mm is an older lens, and I'm sure there are better choices available now. I like something with a decent range, but something that isn't very heavy or very expensive for a "walk-around."

waywest Loc: las vegas

can the 300 end be handheld?

GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City

The old 1/focal length is a rough guide. Even without VR, if you keep the shutter at or higher than 1/300 (or 1/450th with a DX) you should be good if you're careful. With VR, you can go even lower.

nytexano

What aren't you pleased with?

sinderone

I use the Nikon 18-200 on my D7100 and am very pleased with it. It's gone with me to China and Japan as well as parts of Europe and I have some great shots to show for it. I find it a good balance of weight vs function. Sometimes I wish it was lighter and sometimes I wish it was longer but not very often. I also take my Nikon 35mm with me for use at night as a tripod is a pain, especially in a crowded city like Tokyo. Good luck.

GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City

He answered this question on the first page. Helps to read the whole thread.

Bravo

Like most of those responding, I have gone back to a fixed focal length lens and have abandoned the "do it all, Swiss Army type lenses". Because I like turning and manually manipulating things, I use my old Ai lenses and carry a 28, 50 & 135 mm lenses. I also shoot manually and use my Seconic 508 meter which is a do it all, "Swiss Army Knife" type device. I also carry a Swiss Army, Champion knife for those unexpected situations that come up, like sawing through branches, opening cans, driving screws, etc. 😅.

dcampbell52 Loc: Clearwater Fl

It really depends on what you are shooting when you walk around. If you are shooting people, then you want something in the mid range to short telephoto. Keep in mind that your 16-85 on the D7100 is giving a field of view roughly equivalent to a 24-127 (or so) on a full frame camera. This range should be good for general walking around. Now, the other issue is what f/stop are you shooting at? If you are shooting on '"automatic" with Automatic ISO, then the camera is probably using the widest open f/stop it can, meaning your depth of field is EXTREMELY narrow making general shot appear "mostly" out of focus. You can cure this by setting your ISO to 100 (note: this will cause a reduction of low light sensitivity, but you can manually adjust your ISO up and down to higher ranges as needed) or you can use a monopod / tripod (cumbersome) for stability at slower shutter speeds. Another option is to go to a 50mm f/1.2 or f/1.4 lens. This option (one of my fallbacks for museums and places where lowlight is common and flash photography is frowned on) is one of my favorites. I have a Nikkor 50mm f/1.2 lens that (on my D7100) gives me the approximate field of view of a 75mm lens. (this is also my favorite portrait lens because of the extremely low light capability and the very tight depth of field at larger f/stops. At f/16 (the max of this lens) it is still pretty fast. But, I have a Tamron 10-24mm wide angle (not as good as the Nikkor but works ok at all but 10mm where it tends to fisheye just enough to be noticeable.) I have an 18-70mm, a 70-300mm. (the 70-300 is an okay lens but is the older NON-VR Non anything version but is auto-aperture, auto-focus so is serviceable. My favorite is the Nikkor 80-400 (full frame and the older version so slower to focus) lens. It is sharp and reliable. It is extremely heavy compared to the Nikkor 70-300 but it is a "professional" lens compared to the 70-300mm "kit lens". The wife hates it because it is so heavy to carry around (another plus since I don't have to "fight" her for the lens). In short (I know its too late), your 16-85 f3.5-5.6 is a decent lens that you need to learn to control. The 3.5-5.6 is the "wide open" aperture at the 16 and 85mm zoom positions so the lens is "fast enough" and you probably need to be shooting at f/8 to f/16 at the max so you would want to shoot at aperture priority. Nice lens for walking and, while the 24-300 will give you the equivalent field of view of a 36-450mm full frame lens and is a good all around lens, there is nothing wrong with the one you have except at the distances where you would want to shoot further than 127mm or so.

Fotomacher Loc: Toronto

Many are satisfied with that lens, but you may be experiencing an issue with the aperture range. In the "old days" a 50mm prime was everyone used to get good pictures. Smal, light and inobtrusive. On your camera body - cropped sensor - look at at 35mm f/1.8. You'll learn to zoom with your feet and that is a good thing. Get FX version of the lens for better optics and an upgrade path should you ever decide to shoot FF.

Kmgw9v Loc: Miami, Florida

For me, a super zoom just doesn't fit as a walk around lens or a street photography lens.
I won't try to articulate a logical explanation--I simply prefer a prime on the street.

avemal Loc: BALTIMORE

Same here. Love & great shots📷📷📷📷📷📷📷📷📷

Bugfan Loc: Toronto, Canada

In my case it depends on the camera and what I'm after.

On my D200 DX camera I like to mount an 18-300 mm lens. I use that for travel mostly. It allows me a really good range and negates the need for a second lens in the suitcase.

On my D3 and my D800, both FX cameras, I walk around with a 28-300 mm lens. That's basically the same range as what I have on the D200, I got rather spoiled by that range.

Sometimes I like to go for a walk in the bush where I don't go for scenery but rather insects and other small things. In those cases I like to wander about with a macro lens, either a Sigma 150 mmm (if I want to use a ring flash or Nikon macro flash) or a Sigma 180 mm when I don't use a flash.

Once in a while I go out for wild life only and for that I carry a 150-500 mm lens though sometimes I just go back to the 28-300 since that range is often enough.

Tigger1 Loc: Surrey, BC Canada

My favourite walk around lens is the Nikon 18-200 DX VRii mounted on my D7200. FF equivalent field of view is 27-300mm. Is it equally sharp at all focal lengths, No it is not. Is it as sharp at 35mm as my 35mm f1.8 Nikon DX prime lens, No it is not. Is it as sharp at 200mm as my 200-500mm f5.6 Nikon FX lens at 200mm, No it is not. Nor is it as sharp at 100mm as my 70-300mm Nikon FX lens at 100mm. But, it is IMHO a great walk around lens. Moderately light, small, compact, reasonably priced with a very usable hand held zoom range of 11:1. If your highest priority in any lens you buy is "tack sharp" images, then consider prime lenses. The technology incorporated in all lenses, particularly consumer level zoom lenses come with compromises. Only you can decide what compromises you can live with and choose your lens accordingly.

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

We must have different versions of the Nikkor 28-300; the minimum focus distance on mine is twice that of yours, 18 inches or 1/2 meter on mine, but mine is fairly new so this is something that may have changed from an older version.
I got the 28-300 nikkor lens because I use my EF 28-300L lens on my Canon bodies quite often and wanted something similar for my Nikon bodies. I really like the Nikkor version, it's a whole lot smaller and lighter, cost less than half of what the Canon cost, has really good VR and is almost as sharp as the Canon, although the Canon lens would definitely make a better weapon.

I was just up in Nazareth the other day. I use to go up there fairly often before they turned the race track into a parking lot. When I first met my future (now present) wife she lived in Nazareth.