Some terrific advice, guys. So, I went to a Nikon dealer last night to look things over. It seems they have a 18-200mm lens, VR2, 3.5-4.5--reasonably priced. Would that be a good "general" lkens to get? And then get some wide angle (Tamron 10-24, 3.5)?
AQlso--what about getting a 105 macro for flowers, close up wildlife, geology, etc?
the 18-200 is indeed a great one size fits all lens - basically combines the two light VR nikon lenses I have, except at a much higher price, plus it isn't quite as good in terms of overall performance when compared to these two separate lenses. So you're paying more to have massive zoom range, but your image quality goes down. In fact, the more zoom you get, the more problems in the optical design will creep in. All a matter of compromise if you must save weight and time (lens swap on the trail does suck when it's raining or you have no kids around to hand you the other lens)
Macro lens - on the trail, well, weight again. I used to get away with a simple +2 or +3 diopter close up filter screwed on my tele in the 80s - works fine until you get demanding and want mega magnification with depth of field, which is when you need to carry a ringflash and other junk along. Most non-dedicated macro lenses don't do any better than a $20 filter on the old 50mm lens. The really good nikkor micro lenses are mega $$$ and vintage only - they don't make that stuff any longer.
