lens recommendations for italy trip

18-105. I would not bother hauling the 55-200.

I think the 18-105 hits the sweet spot of flexibility and minimizing what you have to lug around

I love my Sigma 10-20 - it's wonderful for anything - great for architecture. Leaving Sat for Rome and she is coming with me!

Too often folks just think about zoom range, thinking that will give them maximum flexibility. They tend to ignore the maximum aperture.

I recommend the 16-80. Its maximum aperture is 2.8-4.0. The 35mm equivalent focal length is 24-120.

The 18-105 lets in half as much light at each zoom range, 4.0-5.6. It may have image stabilization, but IS doesn't help with subject movement. It's a cheaper lens, which may indicate less image quality. It wouldn't seem like 2mm would make a difference, but being 18mm vs 16mm (~28 vs 24 equivalent) can make a big difference. You'll need more on the wide end that on the telephoto end.

The 18-55 is also a "slow" lens, f3.5 5.6. The 55-200 would probably not be used much. It you are trying to reduce kit size, don't take it.

Last time I went to Europe, I took a full frame Canon with a 17-40, 24-70, 70-200, 85 and 135. Most photos were taken with the 24-70. My camera bag weighed >20 pounds! We leave for London and Paris in 3 weeks. This time I'm taking the new Fuji X-E3, the 18-55 kit lens and a 12mm wide angle. I may throw in a legacy 60 year old Nikkor 35mm Leica mount lens with an adapter.

I agree with the recommendations for the 18-105. I use a 18-300 on my Nikon 5200, and while I know I sacrifice some picture quality with a slower lens, when I'm traveling the flexibility of zoom means the most for me. I can get wide enough to take decent architectural and city photos, and zoom enough for wildlife or to zoom in for details. I am able to sharpen photos to a satisfactory level in post processing. Obviously I am not a professional, but I hate changing lenses, so this works for me.

First, I am not an amateur. IMO, full-frame sensors are a better choice camera for Venice architecture, but everything depends on your desired composition. In Venice, I tend to shoot "wide."

On a full-frame sensor, a 16mm lens (at 16mm) will push architectural distortion, weaken sharpness at the outer edges, and can offer vignetting problems if you are a filter user. Venice is a great place for filter use. I'm not a fan of architectural distortion or vignetting, even though a lot can be fixed in Photoshop if you are an expert user (which I am). I tend to favor 18mm on a full frame sensor in Venice when shooting cityscapes. However, you can capture some great compositions at 35mm.

I would never own an APS-C camera, so I don't have first-hand experience on the behavior/results of an 18mm lens on a cropped sensor. Typically, the wider you go, the more distortion you get.

I rarely have a need for a zoom lens in Venice. There are a few lovely images that can be captured with a 200mm zoom, but for my needs, the yield is usually not worth the price of insurance and the weight in my luggage.

To answer your question, if you own the 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6, I would not rent or take anything else. That lens should be enough, especially if you take and use a tripod. Some claim sharpness is better on the 18-55mm, but since you have an APS-C camera, it's difficult to engage in a discussion concerning perfection details.

Wife recently marveled at the performance and utility of her Pentax K-50 with 18-135mm 3.5 - 5.6 lens. Not interested in owning an additional lens or switching out lenses while on travel. More weight, more time messing, less touristing. Consider how much time you want to spend with your camera on your vacation.

I'm not a fan of architectural distortion or vignetting, even though a lot can be fixed in Photoshop if you are an expert user

Or you could use Lightroom, which for these sorts of lens correction functions is both much easier and, at least I have found, better than Photoshop.

Thanks for the suggestions! much appreciated

I own a D7100 myself and I got a Toking 11-20mm, F 2.8 for my first trip to Italy in November 2016. It's an amazing lens for the price and the ultra wide range makes it my favourite for cathedral interior photos as well as for landscape photos. I also carried a 35mm F 1.8 for portraits, a 300mm F4 (unnecessary for most people, but its my lucky charm!) and the kit 18-55mm, but the 11-20mm was the one which stayed one the camera and I have no regrets.
Since then I have had one more trip to Italy and this time I left my 18-55mm kit lens at home without missing it a bit.

If you can rent and try out one for a week before committing that is always ideal.
Have a great trip!

I would also recommend an 18-105 for your general walk-around lens but I would also suggest a wide angle 10-20 or something similar. I used my wide angle lens a lot in a Italy.

Last time I went to Europe, I took a full frame Canon with a 17-40, 24-70, 70-200, 85 and 135. Most photos were taken with the 24-70. My camera bag weighed >20 pounds! We leave for London and Paris in 3 weeks. This time I'm taking the new Fuji X-E3, the 18-55 kit lens and a 12mm wide angle. I may throw in a legacy 60 year old Nikkor 35mm Leica mount lens with an adapter.

Since this thread has popped up again, I thought I'd do a follow-up. I did take the Fuji kit listed above. It was amazing to travel with a really small kit in a Tenba DNA 8 bag. The new camera performed flawlessly. The three lenses I took did a good job of covering everything I wanted to shoot. The 18-55 was the workhorse and covered >80% of the photos I took. Cathedrals and some street photos were done with the 12mm (~17mm equivalent).

For general travel, I think I could do everything I need with just three Fuji lenses - the 10-24, the 18-55 and the 55-200. There are better and faster Fuji lenses, but they are much larger.

I love my full frame system and use it when size and weight is not a factor. However, for travel, I'm not giving up much with the APS-C Fuji. I came to this conclusion after examining travel photos taken with both systems.