Need additional lens but can't decide

I' needing another lens to fill the void between my 20/2.8 and the 80-200/2.8 AFS. I'll be taking a self guided trip through France and eastern/southern France by car. All my equipment is Nikon.

I thought I'd just cut the 60mm void in half and go with a 50/1.4. This will allow great light and is very quick amd small/light. ANd fairly cheap at $275.

Then I saw a 24-85 AFS zoom with/3.5-4.5. This is a bit more expensive but will allow more versatility and less lens changing. The lens is a bit slow but pretty affordable.

Another option I came across is the 24-120/3.5-5.6 AFS VR. Seems like it solved my issues. Great range, AFS and VR. Now, I have never shot with a VR lens but it seems to a favorite among many folks. The 3.5-5.6 could be a bit better but that would have put me out of the proce range I want to stay in. And that about $500. The VR should allow me to shot later into the evening.

One thing I'm not used to is the lengthening of lenses with focusing/zooming. I guess both the 24-85 and 24-120 do lengthen quite a bit but I believe both are IF lenses so OK.

I will have a tripod and monopod with me. This trip is a relaxation type vacation with a heavy emphasis on photography. My wife is my travelling partner and she is dabling with digital so we should have quite some fun.

If money was not an issue I would have simply purchased the 28-70 AFS and been done with the dilemma, but financial restrictions are in place (and will be enforced, so hence my current dilemma.

Now the question, keeping in mind the rough $500 estimate, what should I consider? Please do not limit your recommendations/sugggestions to the above 3 that crossed my mind. I'm pretty sure I want to stick with Nikon lenses, so any help will be greatly appreciated.

I thank you in advance for your suggestion and look forward to seeing things from other points of view.

Regards

I have the non-VR version of the 24-120 (the "D" version) and have been extremely happy with it. Of the four lenses I have (12-24 DX, 80-400 VR, and 200 mm macro) the 24-120 is the lens I use the most and for that reason I keep it mounted on the camera when my gear is stored in my bag. I've found the lens to be quite sharp for a 5X zoom and the coverage (36-180 mm equivalent with my D200) is a tremendous convenience. I've heard nothing but praise for the VR version of this lens, but can't vouch for it first hand.

I have no experience with the 24-85; hopefully someone who's used both will chime in.

Really, it ALL comes down to what you want to photo. Your subject always dictates your lens. Add to that the fact that different photographers have different needs. Me, for example. I use my Nikon 18-35mm (on F100 body) the most on travel trips. A fixed 20mm f2.8 would rarely work for me. I want the versatility of the ultrawide zoom. I tend to not worry at all about "gaps." I used to, but over the years I decided that there just wasn't much "happening" for me between 35m and 80mm. So, I end up only taking three lenses: Nikon 18-35mm, Nikon 50mm f1.8, Nikon 80-400mm VR. Add the Canon 500D for compact macro capability. I have a lens for everything in a very compact package. I can shoot the interior of a small country church or a distant antelope as the situation calls for. On my last two urban trips (Chicago) the only lenses I took were my 18-35mm and 50mm f1.8. In fact, on my first Chicago trip I only took my 50mm f1.8 and nothing else! I only took photos late at night and the lens was about perfect. I figured a million photos have been taken of downtown Chicago during the day, so I took mine at night just to do something different. At any rate, I looked at but didn't buy the 24-120mm. I didn't simply because it takes a 72mm filter and my other lenses all take 77mm. The 50mm is compact and gives you night shooting capability. This is extremely important to me but not be for you. That's what I mean about asking others about what lenses to have. Your own photos should tell you. as for the Nikon 50mm, I looked at both the f1.8 and f1.4. I did some research and found the f1.4 was NOT any sharper and the half stop increase just was not worth the 2.5X price increase to me, and I am a serious night time photographer. If you are mostly shooting architectural, why not buy a 35mm PC? You see, it all depends. If you shot digital, I'd say buy the Nikon 18-200mm VR and a 50mm f1.8 and be done with it. The VR really is nice, but IMO, based on experience, it does not really substitute for an f1.8 for night photography.


Kent in SD

Ive heard and read a lot of good things about the 35-70 2.8 and there happens to be one for sale on these forums

I've used the 35-70 2.8 (non-D version). It's a push pull zoom and the ones I've used have been effected by gravity. In other words, you point the lens up or down and the zoom can move.
Also, the front element rotates with focusing, which is definitely annoying when using a polarizer.
Again, this was with the non-D version, I don't know if the D version exhibits the same "features".

Thanks for the responses.

I purposefully omitted personal info about needs etc just so I could see what direction others would go.

Kent, I appreciate the commentary provided and of course my needs must be matched up with the lens requirements. After reading some reviews, I decided to pass on the 18-35. I feel to many compromises were made when compared to the 17-35/2.8. Seems like the initial quality issued of decentered elements on the 17-35/2.8 have been sorted out but who knows until you get your own and test it a bit. The non-77mm filter on the 24-120 is not ideal but a step ring will sort this out and using Lee 4x4 or 4x6 filters makes this almost a non-issue for me.

So it looks like the 24-120 VR, 50/1.4 and 17-35/2.8 are in the mix. hopefully I can track these down locally this weekend and see what feels good and works out for me. 17-35 is very pricey but is probably worth it in the end and after the bill comes I'll forget about the cost.

Again, thanks for the responses.

Regards