Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 as well. I would add the Nikon 17-35 f/2.8 that I don't have but seem performant

"Ummm, all the suggestions are retarded, the guy shoots with a D3!!!!"

You don't really have to resort to this attitude when pointing it out :)

But I did gather from the OP that the D300 is gathering dust most of the time. Also when you have two same brand cameras then it is really worth getting one good lens that fits both cameras. If you can't afford it then save some money until you can. If you buy a lower quality lens you will soon start thinking of a better one. Based on what I've read (sorry on experience with the 24-70, only the 14-24 which is superb) the 24-70 is the best lens. Also it comes highly recommended by the photographers that I know. Of course I'm talking about the Nikkor one, not Sigma.

I do understand going for a cheaper lens if you have a cheaper camera that can't cope with the detail that the lens has to offer but with D3 there really is no question.

"Ummm, all the suggestions are retarded, the guy shoots with a D3!!!!"

I though the same thing at first .. but then ... he does have a D300 too.
I carry 2 camera bodies when I am in the mood to take photos.

The 28-80 is actually quite a decent lens.. What do you what to use the short zoom for? is it going to be your Main Lens for serious work? Or is it for general carry around and opportunistic photos?

For serious work do you currently only use your Primes? How do you currently use your lenses and what do you see that your new lens should do for you?

I've heard really great things about the 17-35 2.8, but that may be too short a range for you. Personally I didn't have the cash to spend on a 17-35, and got the 18-35/3.5-4.5 instead, and I love it to bits, it's always on one of my bodies, while the 85/1.4 is on the other.

As the others have said, 24-70 seems to be best for you, and there's no doubt it's a fantastic lens.

Ummm, all the suggestions are retarded, the guy shoots with a D3!!!!

Yeah, get the 24-70, it just came down in price too, back to $1699 on amazon. . .Sigma has splotchy batch issues in the first gen 24-70, although I gather the 2nd gen one is pretty kick ASS!

Since you are shooting a D3 and appear to be well aware of the 24-70 f/2.8, then I'll make it easy for you.

Go buy it.

It will become the best lens you've ever owned, and you'll be glad you got it, and sad that you waited so long.

Go buy it.

Anything else you get will not be as good, and you will end up getting it anyway, so you might as well....

Go Buy It. Now.

I guess I shouldn't judge, but a 28-80mm on a D3?!

The 24-70 is excellent. In addition to being sharp, there is a certain intangible quality to it that really makes the images taken with it pop (of course that extra something could be my subconscious trying to justify the purchase). I find that it works for most of my shots on DX, but I also carry a Tokina 11-16 on a second body if I'm going to be shooting indoors.

If you get it, be sure to fine tune the AF. In fact, you should do this with all your lenses. It can make a very big difference if your camera or your lens isn't quite on spec.

Nikkor 17-55 f2.8. The 24-70 is a great lens, but it's nowhere near wide enough for me on a DX camera (which, i suppose, is why it's an FX lens).

16-85 is a DX lens and the OP has a D3.
The best zoomes AFAIK are Nikkor AF-S 14-24mm f/2.8G ED N and Nikkor AF-S 24-70mm f/2.8G ED, but they cost a lot also.

18-70, as it's nice and sharp from f/5.6 - f/8. It's also a stop or two faster than most every other zoom nikon makes in this range, except for the 17-55 and 24-70 of course.

True, the 16-85 is a bit sharper, but it's 2 stops slower than the 18-70 through most of it's zoom range.

-- Dave

Nikkor 18-135, because it's the only lens I have. Nothing wrong with it, it's just that there is noticeable barrel distortion, and it's horrible in a darker area. But I expected that. It's better than the 18-55 and 55-200 combo in my opinion because I have better flexibility. I don't have to keep changing lenses, ever. The 18-200 is way too expensive for me anyway. I thought long and hard about it when I was getting my D40.

Edit- what qualifies as a short zoom anyway?

Go for the 24-70 from Nikon, it's truly an amazing lens - worth every penny. As for sigma, all depends on the return policy of the shop You gonna get it from, as the quality can vary dramatically from one lens to another. Although, if You manage to get a good quality one than You will save some money, and still be happy with results.

I want to upgrade my cheap-o 28-80 3.5-5.6 lens. I have been slowly getting all my lenses and this is the last step for me.
Currently I have:
24 2.8
50 1.8
85 1.8
80-200 2.8
and this crappy 28-80. Even though you are never done buying lenses I think once I get this one I will have a decent kit in hand. I dont shoot ultra wides, but sometimes need/want the versatility of the 20ish mm range.
I am considering the 24-70 2.8 (either Nikon or Sigma, Ive heard good and bad on both, but generally most seem happy).
What other considerations should I be making?
What do you LOVE.
I am shooting a D3 and occasionally my poor neglected D300. Although that one just sits and gathers dust since I got the D3.
Thanks all!