What do you want to achieve/photograph?

If you are getting the 18-200, I would not get any of these, they are basically a duplicate focal length but with less range, but slightly better quality, and the last 2 are a faster lens.

24-85 is an oldish FF lens, will give equivalent of 36-130mm on D700. Not really much faster.

17-55 is a DX lens with decent apperture

the 24-70 is (essentially) a FF equivalent of the above lens.

I don't mind having 2 different lenses. I wanted a smaller lens and then a bigger one, along the lines of ?-300mm. Something like that. But I wanted it to have a better 'F', so to speak. Something lower than 4 or 4.5. I was thinking something like 2.5 if there is one. I want a nice fast shot for sport etc.

__________________
Respect Mya Authoritaaaaaa!!!

Well the 18-200 is not really small and the others will probably be unsuitable for sport as they are not a long focal length. If you are shooting in good light, you normally dont need a fast lens. a fast telephoto like a 80-200 f2.8 is very big and heave, get tiring after a while, I havent used mine in ages and will get rid of it.

Will you need to shoot in low light at the tele end?

F 5.6 lets in double the light to a f4, which again lets in double of a f2.8. each one of these represent a "stop" of light, you can achieve a stop by bumping the ISO up (doubling = 1 stop).

Will you be doing wide-ish shots?, ie will you need to go below 50mm?

If you want one lens that does most things quite well, get the 18-200vr (or tamron 18-270 if they are decent pic quality) and see how you go, ie if you need more tele or if you need a faster lens?

I'm used to using a 300mm all day everyday so the weight isn't an issue. I think maybe the 18-200 will do the job for now I guess.

__________________
Respect Mya Authoritaaaaaa!!!

Which 300mm have you been using? Weights vary a fair bit, the basic 70-300 is around half a kilo, a 80-200 f2.8 about triple that.

There is also the 55-300vr. or even the 28-300vr FF. I guess it depends if you really need the 300mm, and if you are willing to carry more than one lens, and swap them around etc.

Where did you see the D7000 for $973?

The 300mm that I use normally is a Sigma. No sorry, it's a bloody Tamron. The 500mm I use is a sigma. The price i found was on one of the links the lads posted in the previous page.

__________________
Respect Mya Authoritaaaaaa!!!

Actually, I would prefer to get one of these:

$2069.

What should I then get for a smaller lens to cover the smaller end of the scale?

Please also explain the difference between these 2? Besides the $400 difference in price.
http://www.eglobaldigitalcameras.com...vr-lenses.html

http://www.eglobaldigitalcameras.com...vr-lenses.html

__________________
Respect Mya Authoritaaaaaa!!!

Thats a fantastic lens, its the latest version of the fast tele 80-200 f2.8, great if its in your budget and you dont mind lugging it around.

the 16-85 is marginally wider and has a metal mount compared to the 18-105.

So a good set up would be the 80-200 above and also the 16-85 then? I reckon that package would last me a while.

__________________
Respect Mya Authoritaaaaaa!!!

the 70-200 f2.8 will last you for years, they are a pro lens and very well made, just make sure it will give you enough reach. You can always get a teleconvertor for it, but the good one isnt cheap. They also tend to have great resale.

If you want that calibre of lens for your others, then you shoudl get a decent "standard" zoom. something like the 17-55 2.8.

are you going to want go full frame later on?

are you going to want very wide lens?