I've analysed more than 15000 digital images taken over the last three years and identified the following: about 70% of my images are in the 16-80mm (actual focal length, not 35mm equivalent) range, and 30% 80 to 200mm range, of which about half are at the 200mm end; 80% are between f8 & f11; shutter speeds are typically 1/60th or faster. Most shots are hand held, some are monopod supported & still fewer use a tripod. My 18-200 has a clear weakness at the 200mm end. My sharpest lens at the wide end is the Tamron 17-50mm & at the long end I'm using the 70-210mm f4-5.6 push-pull zoom. I also have the Nikon 18-70mm & Sigma 10-20mm to call on if needed. Surprisingly, I find the gap between the 17-50 & 70-210 a pain since the 50 to 70 region is where I take quite a lot of pictures. I'm not a tripod fan & prefer VR to buy me a couple of stops. However, I will use a tripod in challenging light if needed. Wide maximum apertures are of limited appeal due to my type of photography where greater depth of field is usually preferred. Landscapes, architecture and people are my main subjects. I'm looking for a two lens walk-about solution. I see three possibilities: (1) Get the 70-300 VR & keep the 18-200 for the wider end (2) Get the 70-300 VR & keep the 18-70 for the wider end (keeping the 18-200 for when I REALLY can manage only one lens) (3) Get the 70-300 VR & the 16-85 VR & sell the 18-200 I've dismissed the Nikon 80-200 on the grounds of weight & lack of VR (I'm aware that VR does not freeze subject motion, but neither does a tripod!). Opinions from those who have used the Tamron 17-50 and Nikon 16-85mm would be welcome, and especially when compared with the 18-200 in the 18-85mm range.