First of all I am an amateur who would love to get better and maybe (if I ever get to be worthy enough) later get paid (portrait). I'm taking a photography class now and really enjoying it. My main subject now are my kids and when we travel it's landscape and architecture. Currently I have a Canon XTi (my husband uses this now) and a Nikon D300 + 50mm lens. The Nikon is what I'm wanting your thoughts on. I'd like to get a nice all around lens. I'm not a big girl and I often go places with the girls (a 5-yr-old and a 4.5 mo. that I carry around in a carrier -- so far she does not like her stroller). I'd like to get a nice all around lens that's not heavy but with a good quality lens and decent range. I love the 50mm that I have. Light+fast and honestly I haven't needed anything more but we will be living in England for the next four years and would love something decent for landscape, architecture, and people. I did some reading and even though the 18-200mm has a nice range and not that heavy, the image quality isn't very good and since my goal is to get better so that later I can charge I'd want something that's decent in terms of image quality. I also read up on the 17-55mm and even though it seems like a great lens, it's heavier. Oh, we have a 70-200mm (I think) for the Canon and I've only used it twice (our trip to Neuschwenstein). I guess if it's too far I'm not interested. I rather get a wide angle than a zoom. So, should I get the 18-200mm or should I go for a wide angle (10-24mm maybe or the Tokina 11-16mm) + something in between (16-85mm) and maybe later get a longer lens? I also like fast lenses (and bokeh) but they're all so heavy it seems. Between the weight of the D300, the 4lb Manfrotto and baby I don't have a lot of muscles left Budget: $1,500. Also, how do you know if you're good enough to charge people? I have friends asking me if I'm for hire but I don't feel confident. Thanks!!!!!