Gee...all these suggestions - no wonder Nikon makes so many lenses. Seems like everyone has a favorite.
So, here's my favorite travel set. A 50mm f1.4, or f1.8 if on a budget, a 35 f1.8 would be excellent. You need a low-light lens.
For the D80 I like the Nikon 12-24mm - I used one from Panama to Alaska and it became the lens that lived on my D200. Unless you are going to Africa I suggest leaving the long lenses at home.
You can not take pictures if your camera and heavy camera bag are in the hotel room. Take a small bag - one that is just big enough for a 2nd lens, memory card and 2nd battery. The larger the camera bag the more 'stuff' your grilfriend will want you to carry for her.
Be a camera minimalist and get creative with the lenses you have...there is an old saying, "you can't buy a good photo."

Snaketail

With what you already have i think the 16-85 vr may be a good choice for you. On holiday you dont want to be changing lenses a lot and 16 is nice and wide and at f3.5 its only 1/2 a stop weaker than a f2.8 zoom.

Grab your 70-300 or 70-200 or your 105VR and a TC as well.. just in case you need the long end (or have a Fav of one of the 3).

And if you find you really need wider than 16 the the tokina 11-16 would compliment that set up nicely.

Always nice to bring along a small bright prime.. like a 35mm 1.8 or the nifty 50mm.

If you are just a vacation shooter go for 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 AF-S VR if you are using Nikon DX camera of course.
Give it a try and if you ever find you need something wider you could always choose from one of many current ultra wide lenses in 10 to 24 range.

Yeah well if the weight isn't an issue than you should go for the most useful rang for you. None of us here can say which one is that. I would be inclined to say to go with 17-50mm though.

If you can afford it and you are serious about photography (and are constantly looking for that great shot to print out and hang on your wall), then I would suggest avoiding the kit 18-55 at all costs. While it is better compared to other manufacturers' kit lenses, it is still of poor quality. I initially got my camera with the 18-55 and was sorry I did that from almost the very beginning.

Thank you all for your time and advise.

I have a Nikon D80 and the lenses I have at the moment are the AF-S 105m VR Micro, the 70-200 f2.8 VR (I have this to take pictures of my girlfriends concerts and indoors) and the AF-S 70-300 VR (I use it for plane spotting one of my hobbies).

I did not think of the weight issue of the lenses and that for travel is important.

I was thinking of the lenses I mentioned because I wanted a standard zoom (~17-50) and a wide angle.

I'm going to consider the sigma, thank you for the suggestion.

Tokina and Tamron option are half the price of the Nikkor Kit and that also is important.

Once again thank you all for your help :)

Kind regards,

Michael

I would go with Tokina 11-16mm and Tamron 17-50mm.

Tokina 11-16mm has been tested and outperformed both Nikon 12-24mm and Sigma 10-20mm.

Tamron 17-50mm performs similar to Nikon 17-55mm, they both have vignetting & CA problems and they're both equally sharp.
Nikon has less vignetting and less CA.
Built quality for Nikon is much better than Tamron.

Tamron is $460 vs. Nikon @ $1230, Tamron is 434 gm vs. Nikon @ 755 gm (almost double the wt.).

If money is not a problem, I would get Tokina 11-16 & Nikon 24-70mm(but @ 900 gm.)!

gentoo as for sigma lenses, indeed there's a huge problem with the QC issues, although sigma 10-20 is one of their best lens with at least not too many known issues. I have this lens for more than a year now, and never faced any problems with it, which I can't say about other sigma lenses I had during the last couple of years.

Poster: "Sure there is a difference between those two lenses. hell 1mm makes a difference in DX when it comes to wide lenses. But seeing as he also posted a 17-50, 17-55 as his potential lenses 18-55 would be most importantly cheap and light compared to those lenses. Considering that he want to take holiday photos why bother with heavier lenses of similar rang( 17-50, 17-55)"

I addressed the 17-55 lens as well. I just did not directly compare it to an ultra wide since that's not what it is. I also said, "if he could afford it" then get that lens. My suggestion is only get the best if you have the money right off the bat. It makes little sense to go cheap, only to but the better stuff later anyway. Even if you do sell the cheap stuff to do it, you will still take a loss.

If you have the money to get the 17-55 now just do it and be done with it.

Hello Micheal,

What cameras and lenses do you currently have? When I am on holiday, for fun, I take my 18-200vr. When I am on holiday for photography. I grab 3 cameras and as many lenses I can put in the bag and the car! LOL! Where are you going for your holiday? What are you intending to take?

@ Gentoo

Sure there is a difference between those two lenses. hell 1mm makes a difference in DX when it comes to wide lenses. But seeing as he also posted a 17-50, 17-55 as his potential lenses 18-55 would be most importantly cheap and light compared to those lenses. Considering that he want to take holiday photos why bother with heavier lenses of similar rang( 17-50, 17-55)

Surly constant aperture would be awesome, but so would be saving a bunch of cash by getting the 18-55 and a small portable spider legs tripod.

I would advise you to get a flash unit instead.

Unless you plan to actually do some serious work or photo shoots or what not, keep it light, cheap and portable.

Tokina 11-16mm, 17-55mm Nikkor if you can afford it or 16-85mm Nikkor.

Personal choice, Sigma 12-24mm, Nikon or Sigma (New version) 24-70 f/2.8 and any 70-200mm f/2.8 zoomer. I want to switch to full frame some day ;)

I'm gonna disagree with poster to a point. I have both the 18-55 and the 12-24 and I can tell you there is a big difference in their field of view! If a wide is what you want and by your initial post I can see it is, then the choices are between the wide angels that have been listed. Another advantage of those is the constant aperture unless you change it. That is something you'll get used to very quickly. If the choice is between the 18-55 and the 17-55, if you have the money, I'd go for the 17-55 hands down.

Now to share my opinion here, I tend to view Sigma with caution. Their are well known for their spotty quality control. Often they don't connect well to the lens mount among other issues. We use them where I work and they are always having issues with them. They have no problems with their Tokina.

Here's my adivice take it as you want

If I was going on vacation I would take a light lens. Considering the ranges you shown. I would get a cheap Nikon 18-55mm . Of course for me vacation is a relaxed time, to enjoy yourself and lay back, and not carry heavy lenses. With today's DSLRs you can just bump up the ISO and your good to go if you have to take an occasional picture at night. Hell carry one of the small portable tripods with spider legs, it will do. It's small light and easy to store in a camera bag. You can take some marvelous shots with this setup, all you need is some creativity and a good eye. Enjoy your vacation.

Michael I would suggest You to take a closer look also to sigma 10-20 as it's for sure a good alternative to nikkor 12-24, as for the standard lens - nikkor 17-55 is a quite good lens, but it's obsolete by 24-70. as for a direct comparison between these nikkor and tamron lens it's really hard to tell, as both of this lenses are in two different leagues. Nikkor is in the first, while Tamron somewhere on the border between second and third, both on optical and build side.
If I were You I would go for sigma 10-20 as a wide lens and probably for nikkor 24-120 as it will give You a wider coverage for a very acceptable price and size

Hello to all of you.

I'm looking for a new set of lenses mainly to use during my hollidays (vacations) and taking the typical holliday photos.

This is where i need some of your help, I do not know wich set I should choose between the following :

I was thinking of this Nikkor Set:

AF-S 12-24mm f/4G IF-ED DX
&
AF-S 17-55mm f/2.8G DX IF-ED

My other option is:

Tokina AT-X Pro DX 11-16mm f/2,8
&
Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2,8 XR DI II

Is the Nikkor set much better ? does it justify the price difference when looking at the Image Quality and Build Quality of the lenses ?

I have read some reviews of all these lenses and I'm having a hard time to decide. I would like to read your opinions.

Sorry for my poor english.

Kind regards,

Michael Vasconcelos