if you have the wide end covered it would be stupid to buy an 'all purpose' lens like the 28-300 if you are mostly needing it for the longer end. save a few hundred dollars and buy the 70-300g vr. it is sharper and faster at the long end than the 28-300 and with less distortion. if you need a 2.8 lens to freeze action or shoot in low light, get the 80-200. i wouldn't even consider the 28-300 unless i was using full frame because the wide end is not wide at all on dx, and something like the 18-200 is useless for sports/action, etc. think of the 18-200 and 28-300 as the 'jack of all trades, master of none' lenses for dx and fx respectively. in some situations they are necessary [like on a red carpet where you need to get full lengths AND head shots in the 10 seconds that the celebrity is in front of you] but unless you absolutely need to cover both wide and telephoto there are always more specialized tools which will provide more desirable results.

This is an interesting question, my reflex answer is to not get any telephoto without VR. I've used both the 80-200 and the 70-200 VR, I would get the newest 70-200 f/2.8 VRII but it's over 2K so over your limit.

I don't have any experience with thw 28-300 DX lens. I have the 18-200 DX and it's a great lens for general purpose work, you can shoot everything. The two big limitations are sharpness and it's slow. I imagine any of the very long zooms are going to suffer with being a little soft.

I have both lenses but I have not yet used the 28-300. I bought it for the D800 FX body I was expecting to see many months ago and has yet to surface. The limitation will be the 3.5 to 5.6 aperture, if that is a limitation for the light you are shooting in. I think it would be great on the new D4 IF the D4 has clean high ISO even better than the D3s or on any FX camera when you are not needing fast shutter and large aperture. I don't see a good reason to buy the 28-300 for the DX 7000 since you don't get wide angle. The 28mm is only equal to 42mm.

I love my 80-200 2.8 because it lets me shoot indoor sports in low light and is sharp at f 2.8. That is wonderful to have. But are you shooting on low light such that you need both telephoto and f 2.8? If so, get the 80-200 f 2.8.

You don't need the 28-300mm (which is an FX lens) for the DX D7000. Wait until you are getting an FX body to get one. You already have the range of 18-105. You can increase that range with a 70-300 (also an FX lens for $600) or with a 55-200 (a DX lens for only $150).

All,
I am a relative newbie -- had a Nikon D7000 for the past year, came with the basic kit lens 18-105mm. Looking to upgrade this Christmas (with some pointed gift requests).

Here's my question: I plan on buying for myself a 50mm f/1.4 to serve as a prime lens... what would be the best compliment to that, in the $1000-1500 range? I'm considering either the 80-200 mm f/2.8 (i.e. the older but still "new" lens in that family -- http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/80200.htm ) or else the 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6 VR (http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/28-300mm.htm). Looking for something for longer distance, sports/nature, with something of a range...

I like the f/2.8 of the 80-200 (I do like some sports and fast-action photography), but other than that, I have a hard time understanding why the 80-200 is so much more highly touted. The 28-300 gives a broader range on the near and far end, its lighter, has VR, and is a little cheaper.

NOTE: While I have D7000, I am shopping with an eye towards the possibility that I may one day buy an FX camera - so I'm trying not to limit myself, nor overspend given the limitations of my current camera.

I would love any help or suggestions, thanks!!