So I've been toying with my D7100 for some time now and I love it. I'm very happy I purchased a refurbished body and a new lens. I purchased a AFS Nikkor 55-200 1:4 lens with the camera body and a member here was nice enough to gift me a AFS Nikkor 18-55mm lens to help me get started. While I'm partial to the 18-55mm I'm looking at buying another lens for everyday walking around photography.

I'm going on a trip to Los Angeles in the summer and New York this winter. I've been looking at the AF FX NIKKOR 50mm f/1.8D Lens for use as my primary lens while walking around. It's around $130 so it's not too crazy compared to others.

Should I spring for a new lens or make the two I have work for me?

Thanks everyone!

I don't really see it doing anything for me that I can't already do. I suppose I'm looking for one that's a little bit more compact and versatile for carrying around for long periods.

I feel well prepared with my current two lenses. I know I'd also like to tackle a more wide angle lens for landscape shots, but those are a little too expensive for what I'm doing right now.

Zack's right.

FWIW when I bought my D7100, funds were limited for lenses and stuff.
I bought the 50mm f1.8D for $99.  I found an 85mm f1.8 AF-S FX lens locally for $320.  Already had the 35mm f1.8 DX prime.
I used those lenses exclusively for a year.  The 85 is a good walking around lens and an excellent portrait lens.

Nobody's mentioned a flash.  The on camera flash is woefully inadequate.
Spend the $105 for a Yongnuo 685.  It's an excellent flash for the money.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1247484-REG/yongnuo_yn685_n_yn685_wireless_ttl_speedlite.html

Get the 1.8.

It will ruin you to those crappy kit lenses though.  Lenses with variable f/stop are trash (generally) You will be able to shoot in lower light and without going crazy with the ISO and get better results with that 50. Next you need to get the 24-70 2.8

Keep an eye on the deal of the day for BH as well as the refurbished section for nikon.

Canon crop sensors are 1.6, Nikon are 1.5?

so your 18-55 is ~ 24-82 and your 55-200 is 82-300.

kit lenses on a full frame nikon are 24-120 or 24-85? canon run 24-105mm and 24-70mm.

a 50mm lens wont get you a tighter shot than your 18-55 and barely tighter than your 55-200.

I am in the same spot with a Canon T6i crop sensor camera. I spent a lot of time thinking about lenses (and bouncing around) and decided that instead of replacing what I had I was going to fill in the gaps. B&H ended up having the Tokina 12-28 on sale. Canon had a refurbished 24-105 on sale as well. These lenses cover a wide range but arnt ideal for a crop framed camera. So for a while I will be carrying my 18-55 and 55-250 along with these lenses to make sure I dont get frustrated with lens changes and can focus on shooting.

if you want a wide shot look at getting something 10/11mm-16/18mm. Tamron and sigma have a few GP lenses that run 16/18mm-200/300mm but you are looking at $500 for a lens that while covers everything might be softer than your kit lenses.

wide angle nikon zooms

all in one

It took me a long time to realize what lenses I would be wanting to shoot with, and I have gone back and forth between preferring my 18-55 and my 55-250. I keep my camera in a tamrac bag with a JJC lens pouch on the strap, tamrac now has "MAS" gear which is modular like molle gear. the easier/faster lens changes are the less you will stress them. dump the lens you arnt using in the big bag and zip it half shut.

I plan on some day upgrading to a full frame camera, so my intentions were to buy all of the common full frame lens sizes so that I will be golden when I upgrade. But lenses designed for full frames dont cover the ranges that will be most useful on crop framed sensors, and crop framed lenses wont cover the ranges that are most useful on full frame.

price watch is a good resource. The B&H Deal of the day had the Tokina lens for $200 vs $450... I thought "it must be a junk lens" or "normally sells for $250" jumped on amazon and a few other places to check reviews and prices and ended up finding it was one hell of a deal. I have missed out on a few because they sell out before you can do the research. I have been keeping a spread sheet of different lenses with good reviews and tracking the prices. but price watch helps. Also keep an eye on slick deals.

I can totally relate to the desire for a small walk around lens.  Who wants to lug a wide-telephoto zoom around all day?  

I'd second the suggestion of a 35mm:  either the 35mm f1.8G DX lens already suggested or even the 35mm f/2 D AF lens if you want to go non-DX.  Of course the effective focal length for those would end up 50mm on your D7100.  Both are small, light, and relatively cheap, especially used.

I bought a used Tokina 12-24 f4 a while back.  I think I paid $299.
Decent lens.  Worth the price even though I don't use it much.  
I'm learning the DxO software that straightens things out.  Emphasis on learning.
If I need to go wide I use a Sigma 17-50 f2.8 most of the time.

I think you can do quite well with what you have, but for a small, light walk around lens specifically for use on a DX camera,  the 35mm f1.8G DX lens would be hard to beat.  I've never used one, but by all accounts it's a fantastic lens.  And it would be much more capable in low light, than what you have now.  It is a DX only lens, however, so if you ever move over to a full frame camera it would be a no-go there.  

They are around $200 new, or you can pickup a used one in excellent condition at KEH, and save a few bucks.

The 35mm shows up at Adorama. B&H and Nikon's Store as a refurb from time to time.
If I remember I bought mine new at the Nikon Store.  They were having a sale.  $199 I think.  That was five? years ago.

Thanks for all of the input guys! In a nutshell I'm just being lazy and want something smaller for carrying it for hours a day on vacation.

I already need a bigger pelican case now that I'm adding an extra lens to my collection.

I'm thinking the 35mm 1.8 will be perfect for walking around all day since it's relatively cheap.

And I will probably hold off on the 24-70 2.8 until I win the lottery.

Here's a size comparison between the DX 35mm/1.8 and the FX 35mm/2.  They seem to be similar in weight.  The DX lens is a bit bulkier but not by much and is of course a faster lens.  If you intend to stay with DX the 1.8 is a great choice.  

On the DX bodies, I would definitely get the 35mm over the 50mm.
The 50mm length is kind of an odd-ball length on a DX body.

Your 18-55mm is a great walk-around lens.
The 35mm is a great add-on for it, especially for lower light or wider aperture work.

The Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8 DX ended up being my walk-around lens on my DX bodies back when I was shooting with DX bodies. However, it is very large and very heavy.

(edited for typo)

I plan on sticking with the DX so any lens purchase should reflect that.

I'm thinking the 35mm f/1.8G lens and then maybe a nice wide angle lens after I conquer this new one.

The 35mm 1.8 is a great lens on a DX body.

For super-wide I highly recommend the Tokina 11-16, but that's about $450 new.  Cheaper used, of course.

Two good "walking around" lenses are the
18-105 f/3.5-5.6.  This is a DX  kit lens but it's a pretty good kit lens.  About $300 new, maybe $150-$175 used.  I used it for years before I got my new hotness, the
24-120 f/4.  This is a "gold ring" (pro line) FX lens.  Fixed minimum aperture at f/4.  Great glass, works fantastic on a DX body.  This one costs about $1,000 new but can be found for about $500 used.

You can buy once, cry once, and get the 24-120, or do what most people do and get something like the 18-105.  You'd probably be happy for years with the 18-105, I was, but came down with a bad case of GAS (gear acquisition syndrome) and started looking at the 24-120, then I think Adorama had some factory refurbs for about $500 and I pulled the trigger.  I LOVE the 24-120.

Here's a 4-frame panorama I took yesterday with the 24-120, at 24mm
Storm Pano 20170328 by FredMan, on Flickr

And a single frame at 38mm with the 24-120
Mauna Kea Cloud Cap by FredMan, on Flickr

Another member of the 24-120 f4 bandwagon.  Mine was $550 used from Adorama.  It's a pretty good all around lens.

Those shots are all amazing. Those 24-120 shots put my 55-200 to shame

I can see myself dropping that much on lenses. But I'd rather master my entry level lenses before I start getting too gear obsessed.

I already picked up a cheap amazon basics tripod and that's working out well. After my walk around lens I'm going to get a nice flash, and maybe a remote since taking long exposure landscape shots is kind of annoying having to manually press the shutter release.

That last shot is the best!!

Agreed!  Not sure I would have included her in a post about lens porn, however.  

Better than the human tripod, that's for sure!

Bump for a stupid question. I've decided on the 35mm 1.8 DX. I'm curious though, would the lack of VR on the lens matter too much if I'm used to it on my other two lenses?

Also, I'm only really seeing these for around 200. I don't see any decent refurb options. Anyone got a better lead on these?

Good to know. I think I've been spoiled by my VR for walking around. I think this new lens will be everyday lens for a while.

Thanks for the help!

The 35MM DX lens is fantastic on that camera and will give you vastly improved low light capabilities.  The 50MM is also a good choice, but may be a little too long on the DX, but is fantastic for portraits, as is the 85MM.  For about $200 You really should own the 35MM DX lens, your pictures will be so much sharper, the colors and contrast will blow away the kit lenses.

I really didn't need top spend any more money, but I did. I picked up the 35mm 1.8 this evening and am going to play around with it this weekend!

Thanks for the help everyone.

Those crappy kit lenses have improved an awful lot in the last 10 years or so. Though I have a huge affinity for faster glass.

-shooter

The 35mm 1.8 doesn't really need VR.  It's short and very fast, the opposite of what VR was developed for.