What lens to get?

[greybeard]

From what you say, you seem to wanting to replace what you have with exactly the same thing, only higher quality. I'm using a D5100 with the 18-55 Kit lens. Yes it is a cheap zoom lens, I think they cost a little over $100 bucks or so. With a higher quality lens you will see a very marginal difference. It won't help your composition and it won't help with lighting. Singers constantly go through the same thing buying microphones. (another hobby of mine). With that said, I use the kit 18-55 and I also have a 70-300 tele zoom (Nikon) It is an older Nikon AF and doesn't auto-focus but I took pictures long before auto-focus was around so it isn't much of an issue for me. It does give me the REACH I need for some shots where the 18-55 just doesn't have. As for the quality? Maybe someday when I'm rich LOL I'll buy the good stuff, but for now it is plenty good enough for what I do. If I were you, which I'm not, but this is what I would buy.
Amazon.com: Nikon 55-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR AF-S DX Nikkor Zoom Lens for Nikon Digital SLR: Camera & Photo

 

[analog.universe]

As much as I love primes, it actually sounds to me like a 17-50 f/2.8 or some such would be best for what you describe. I love my 35 for street, low light, and it works for certain portraits, but it's not as versatile as it sounds like you need it to be. I think a 35 prime is nice if you also have something wider and something tighter. If you're on a budget and looking for one lens, a 17-50 seems more appropriate.

 

[jake337]

For the greatest versatility, hop on eBay or your favorite vendor at get yourself a 18-200mm VR. It's designed for DX cameras, and covers everything from your ultra-wide to your telephoto in one lens. You'll pay about $400 if you get a great price. At this point, that's probably the best choice.

Also, IMO, stay away from "the other guys" if at all possible. Sigma, Tamron, etc. Their lenses are generally much lower quality optics and much less dependable. Stay Nikon.

I would generally disagree with you.

So your saying go with a slow kit lens over a fast f2.8 third party zoom just because it says Nikon on it.


Not good advice at all.

 

[analog.universe]

For the greatest versatility, hop on eBay or your favorite vendor at get yourself a 18-200mm VR. It's designed for DX cameras, and covers everything from your ultra-wide to your telephoto in one lens. You'll pay about $400 if you get a great price. At this point, that's probably the best choice.

Also, IMO, stay away from "the other guys" if at all possible. Sigma, Tamron, etc. Their lenses are generally much lower quality optics and much less dependable. Stay Nikon.

I would generally disagree with you.

So your saying go with a slow kit lens over a fast f2.8 third party zoom just because it says Nikon on it.


Not good advice at all.

I'm with Jake here.

18-200 is an extremely poor lens (no matter who makes it)... it's only positive feature is the range. In every other respect it's outperformed by pretty much every other lens on the market.

Sigma, Tokina, and Tamron all make great lenses. There's the occasional dud, but that's true from Nikon and Canon as well. The 17-50 and 17-55 2.8 lenses are generally pretty good from all these manufacturers. (Although Tokinas are not stabilized)

 

[djacobox372]

I'd suggest a tamron 17-50mm f2.8 VC if you can afford it (make sure it's the VC version, the older version does't have a built in motor). You can get one used for around $450.

If that's too steep, I'd suggest the 35mm f1.8 af-s. It's a better "all around" focal length for your crop sensor dslr.