<p>Hello everyone, this is probably a same old-same old topic but I wanted to ask it anyway. <br />I own this amazing entry level camera (D3300), and i have been shooting so many photos in 2 years the camera feels a bit old already :). However, this summer I will go to Mexico and I was thinking of reducing to 3 my 4 lens set. I have:<br /><br />Sigma 10-20mm f3.5<br />Nikon 35mm f1.8<br /><br />and then:<br />Nikon 18-55mm f3.5/5.6<br />Nikon 55-200mm f4/5.6<br /><br />But I wanted to replace the range 18 to 200 with just one more luminous lens.<br />I have seen some comparisons and read some reviews, but I am still a little undecided. <br /><br />I know all the lenses mentioned in the title cost more than my camera but my camera would be replaced next year, either by a 7200 or a full frame (maybe d750), so for me it make sense to buy already a more serious lens that could be enjoyed also when I upgrade it.<br /><br />I've taken wonderful photos with my camera but I feel I could do better.<br />I am covered by the 10-20mm for the wide angle, but I'd like a "one lens for all purpose" to go around and shoot on the beach, in the temples/nature, and even if i see some animals far away so I was oriented towards the 24-120mm. <br /><br />However from some reviews and some sample photos it seems that the 24-85mm is a little more luminous, and shots better skies. <br />I know it lacks of sharpness compared to the 24-120mm and there is less zoom but it seems to be more luminous which for me is important and to consider.<br /><br />The last one, the 16-80mm could maybe be the best one as it goes down to f2.8 , but i have not seen enough reviews about it, and it is considerably more expensive. Plus, if I'd upgrade to a Full Frame, I might not be able to use it all, so it kind of is a drag, as this one is for the DX if I recall right, the best one in numbers, it seems.<br /><br />What do the experts around here think of this ? Would it be completely senseless to buy the FX lenses for my DX? <br />I know i won't use their full capacity but I also know i would get a little more zoom as well as per the 1.6x moltiplicator factor. <br />I know there are other brands out there, but frankly i'd stick to Nikon as preferred to Sigma/Tamron in the long run. My brother bought a very expensive Sigma for his Canon and has focus troubles, so i'd steer clear of it and Tamron in this range cost also a lot and if I have to invest around 800-1k$ I'd stick to Nikon.</p>
