k c

<p>Whoa~ now I wonder why you need another lens to your massive collection. Just kidding. :D Show us how it works for you later.</p>

<p>I think most of the replies are about VR, while Clive seems to be more concerned about 16-85's sharpness, distortion and the focal range (although he questions about VR's usefulness).<br /> <br /> Clive, probably you can make your choice easier if you narrow down the features you want. As a travel photographer (and lazy enough to not switch between lenses), I'd definitely go for a 16-85 VR if I'm in your situation. But if you need a faster, sharp lens and don't mind switching between lenses, you'd be better off with a faster standard zoom with a rather shorter focal range. Sigma's 18-50 f2.8 (approx $420) and Tamron's 17-50 f2.8 (approx $500) can be good alternatives for a much pricier Nikkor 17-55 AFS f2.8. Having a more dedicated wider zoom (10 ~ 35mm range) as an addition to your 35-70mm could be a solution too.<br /> <br /> I would rather see the VR feature in 16-85mm as a really good bonus to a slow and very sharp lens with a good focal range (although VR pushes up the lens price a bit).</p>

Sad news... I am sorry to hear about Sarah Underhill, too...

woops, i uploaded twice by mistake.

i'm sorry...

<div></div>

<div></div>