>I think you're better off with 8-16, 24-120/f4, 70-200/f4. >Although the 70-300 has more range, I think it's dangerously >slow at the long end for much of what you want to do. >Unfortunately that will put you with three lenses that are >either bulkier or heavier than perhaps is minimally required, >but between the range and quality requirements, that's where I >end up.
So you would do the Sigma 8-16 over the Sigma 10-20? I had not considered that one. I could do some crazy portrait work with the kids at 8mm...could be fun. I was going to choose the Sigma 10-20 3.5 over the 4-5.6. Does the 8-16 have better distortion control? Since this will be my interiors and landscape lens, I would like the sharpest/contrasty/deep color choice. You would take the Sigma over the Nikon 12-24 or 10-24? Certainly more cost effective with the Sigma.
I am 100% sure on the 70-200 f4 and nearly decided actually on the kit lens 18-105 instead of the 24-120. I can then add the WA lens and a flash for just over 3K and I'm good with that. I can always choose a different mid-range later if need be. I guess I should upgrade my membership here so I might upload some images when I get my new gear? Thank you much for helping me think it through.