KenProspero

The lenses you have are certainly provide enough range in the field of view for almost anything you're going to need.

So, the question I'd ask is what do you plan on doing that you want more lenses.

Right now, I'm shooting with a mirrorless Nikon.  I bought the 24-200 f/4-6.3.  (I would have gotten a 24-105mm, but it's not currently made for the Nikon Z mount) Admittedly it's a little slow on the high end, but when shooting landscape or with the zoom, I'm usually at f/8 or f/11 anyway, so it's a good starter for me.

How much money do you have to spend -- You can get either  Nikon 35mm f/1.8 or the 50mm f1.8 for a couple of hundred dollars, perhaps less if you're willing to buy used.  I'll be honest, I don't use my nifty-50 much, but I always have it with me, and it has bailed me out a couple of times with low light. 

Another thought is to get a travel-zoom something like the Tamron 16mm-300mm f/5.6-6.3 -- which you should be able to find used for ?400 or less.  (If you wanted to spend much less, there's the Tamron 18mm-200mm for a couple of hundred.  Sigma also makes third party travel lenses that are inexpensive.  As far as quality, these lenses probably won't be better than what you have, but the advantage is you don't have to change lenses.  When travelling, I've found myself in dusty or rainy conditions more than once where changing a lens wouldn't be a good idea.  Alternately, a number here have mentioned.

Otherwise -- it again comes down to what you're going to shoot -- for example, when I was shooting an APS-C camera, I began to do some milky-way shots.  I got a 14mm f/2.8 lens for this purpose.

In any event -- I think your decision should be governed by what you expect to shoot.  More important -- if  you're just starting out, TAKE LOTS OF PICTURES, maybe take a course or two.  For a beginner or an intermediate, learning composition and learning the craft will do more to improve your pics than an extra stop of light or a tiny bit of sharpness.

Let me add a bit more --

Crop factor basically tells you how much Zoom you have in your camera.  Things are compared to 35mm (full frame cameras).  To make the comparison, you multiply the crop factor by the lens length.

Now, with Bridge Cameras, they often do the multiplication for you.  A one-inch sensor has a crop factor of about 3.  So if they tell you it has a 450mm lens -- it's usually a 150mm lens multiplied by the crop factor.  So, if you're thinking of getting a Bridge Camera instead of a new lens, read the fine print for the Bridge Camera.

FWIW -- there's absolutely nothing wrong with shooting in the automatic mode or the program mode.  You get a perfectly good picture and the camera makes the decisions for you.  However, if you ever decide you want to improve your photography skills, you'll be glad for the features the Nikon D7100 has.

OP

If you already have a Nikon 7100 -- I'd see no reason to get a bridge camera, you can use the Program or Auto Mode.  When released, this was a 'semi-pro' camera, APS-C (or DX in Nikon terminology) so, I expect it would meet all your needs.

As far as lenses a 300 mm lens on a DX camera has about a 1.5 crop factor.  Essentially it means that as far as your image, it would be about field of view as a 450 mm lens on a Full-Frame Camera.  I don't know how steady your hand is, but my experience is that unless you're using a very fast shutter speed it's hard to hand-shoot with this much lens.  So unless you shoot with a tripod, I wouldn't overly worry about getting more lens in any camera.

FWIW

For men -- if you're going to want to have a portrait taken (why not, if you don't like it, don't buy it), you may want a sports jacket anyway, and a Tie takes up no room in packing. So that's what I wear. I no longer take a suit, and a Tux is by far the exception rather than the rule.

On my last couple of RCCI cruises -- I'd say the rule is not really enforced, so it's more what you're comfortable with.

Sometimes, it can even work in your favor.

Had a cruise where we were supposed to have to Tender to a port 45 minutes out of Stockholm. However, because seas were high, the Captain decided to take us right into the City (gave us 3 extra hours in the city, and no transportation hassles) the Captain did 'apologize' for the inconvenience.