dennis2146 Loc: Eastern Idaho

Thank you very much. I don’t know why I didn’t consider the 24-120 when I bought the 24-85 but it is what it is OR I am what I am. Who knows why we make different choices? My brother has a 16-35 lens I am interested in. It is just a matter of finding what he wants to trade for it. I know he hasn’t used it for years and it is like new.

I do love the 24-85 for its light weight and sharpness. Great lens.

Dennis

SAVH Loc: La Jolla, CA

The 24-70 mm 2.8 Nikkor lens is a fabulous lens. It took me a long time before I could afford it but now that I have it, I love it! Previously, I used the 28-300 mm zoom Nikkor as my "walk-around" lens. I was worried that I would miss the extra "range" by using the 24-70 but I have not. I still enjoy using the 28-300 but the 24-70 is so flexible and so sharp that you will love it. If you can afford it, I certainly recommend it. If not, you will be settling for a compromise of some sort, in my humble opinion.
Scotty

therwol Loc: USA

I have one. It's very sharp. You can get them used in decent condition for between 100 and 200 dollars.

MidnightManiac

I shoot Canon but I can tell you my favorite walk around lens is my Sigma 24-70 f2.8 lens. It's very sharp. Not a cheap lens but the results are excellent. Between that and my Canon 70-200 f2.8 L, these are my 2 favorite lenses and use these lenses most of the time...

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

It really depends on what camera you use and what your expectations of image quality are, and what shooting situations do you anticipate.

I have Nikon FX cameras and a bunch of FX lenses - all of which I have walked around with and gotten very satisfying image quality from. I tend to stay away from the lightweight variable max aperture lenses - not because of poor image quality - they are often quite good. But they are slow - slow to focus, smaller max apertures that get even smaller as you zoom out, etc. But they are light. I tend to be fussy on image quality and don't mind a little extra weight if I don't have regrets when I look at my images in Lightroom - wishing I had taken my "good" lens(es).

But if I understand the concept of "walk around lens" in it's proper context - then I'd have to say the best walk around lens out there is a Zeiss 8.8-220mm F2.8 -F4.0. Nothing on the planet beats it for it's light weight, awesome image quality, and fast aperture. Nothing.

It just so happens to be permanently attached to a Sony RX10M4. It's equivalent angle of view is 24mm to 600mm. Total weight, with the camera, is 2.5 lbs.

ronpier Loc: Poland Ohio

My walk around lense for my D3400 is the Tamron 18-200. Also use it on my D50. Performs nicely on both. Currently looking for a second lens of different focal length for the D50.

therwol Loc: USA

I'm leaning in the opposite direction, depending on circumstances. To me, a walk around lens is one that I wouldn't mind carrying around all day long on a vacation. A big, fat constant aperture zoom is just too heavy on an already heavy camera like my D810. My "don't mind it" lens is the old Nikon 28-105 D, light and sharp as a tack over most of the frame below 85mm, my sample anyway. But if I really want to be mobile without the burden of a DSLR, I'll carry my Canon G7X Mark II. Not the same, and it depends on the circumstances and what my goals are.

AndyT Loc: Hampstead, New Hampshire

Many good suggestions. I have Nikon's 18-140 lens. Lighter than most mentioned, reasonably compact with a 67 mm filter size. 3.5-5.6 is not lightening fast, but a bump in the iso and its never let me down. I like the image quality.