Thank you everyone for all the input. So much to respond too.
If the budget or size is not an issue, just go for the 16-35.
I am at this point more slated to spend more on my wide than I am on my tele. I use my wides more often and it would certainly get more use. But I don't want to buy a less expensive tele and then end up with a less expensive paperweight after I buy my better tele. I realize I could sell it at that point but it's cheaper in the long run if I can afford it (which I can) just to buy the better one now. To put it this way. I've already got 130k worth of loans for art school on their way, another 2 or 3k on top is no big deal. 5-9k is.
The 80-400, the 28-300 and the 70 -300 are only f 5.6 at their max focal length
I have not used any of these lenses but most reviews indicate, they are better if stopped down to f 8
the 70 -200 is still f 2.8 at 200mm and can be used wide open at all focal lengths
The 70-200 ( with out a TC ) will focus faster then any of the other lenses
you stated "The tele however needs to be FAST"
if you want a FAST tele, sady , there is no budget option
Sadly f8 is just too slow. Those are great for sports where there a big bright lights, but getting a blue bird at dawn is a different story. the f2.8 70-200 blue a 1.4x or 1.7x TC is amazingly attractive besides that 2,400 price tag. Which I can muster up the dough for, But basically I was hoping to find a less expensive ~almost~ equivalent. Which doesn't seem to exist as you mentioned.
At the wide end I chose the 16-35 over the 14-24. The 14-24 has better image quality - especially in the corners. But I photograph a lot of moving water and the ability to use screw on filters is a big deal. I use either a CP and a Vari-N-Duo for 90% of my water images. VR is also a positive as there are situations where a tripod is not possible or not helpful - for example from a small boat. The corners bother me, but the 14-24 just won't meet my needs.
Which is exactly why I dont want that 14-24 because I have all my 77mm & 58mm NDs and polarizers that I use CONSTANTLY for exactly that, water shots and long exposures.
I would suggest the 28-300mm f/3.5 ED VR only as a walk-around lens for snapshots. The 70-300mm VR is much better for wildlife. If I had the choice, I would take a 16-35 over the primes for the VR and more usefulness.
If you have noticed, everyone here loves to nudge people towards really expensive and heavy glass. Nothing wrong or incorrect about it - everything everyone has said is correct. I'm afraid coming from a m4/3 system where everything is light, you might be put off by the weight and choose not to take you camera. If I'm out shooting birds that I will see again, I use my 70-300vr. Yes it is cheaper, but it is a top notch lens and I don't get tired of carrying it. The D800 + 70-200vr is close to 7 lbs and it gets heavy. I normally take that only for things I may not see again. Special occasions like shooting the Sandhill cranes, I take the 70-200 and the 300mm f2.8 - and two Advil in the morning.
If you are committed to taking everything (close to 10 lbs of gear) by all means the 70-200 is top notch (I have the VR1 and never saw any advantage over the VR2 - used one would be a good option) and I personally would add the new TC 1.7 or the 2.0 for the reach if you felt the need. If you are "just starting out" and don't have much experience, I would go with the 70-300vr, and get a feel to see if you want that extra 100mm first before dumping $2k on something you are not familiar with. It also sounds like you would want a walk around lens as well - doing that would give you the funds for something in the middle as well.
It seems many just want the justification or convincing to spend a ton of money - I just look at things more practical. When I bought my 70-200, I knew I needed it and there was no question and plopped the money down. That came from experience. I shoot my 70-300vr more do to the practical limit of my back to carry a lens for 2-5 hours. To me photography is all about taking your camera everywhere. If you leave it home due to the weight, bulkiness, or the felling it is "just too much" - then you have a 7Lb $5,000 paperweight.
Well for 1- I'm certainly not a beginner. I was a beginner in 2008, I know my way around a lens or two and could certainly handle the 70-200 adequately, or if not I could figure it out fast. I don't mean to sound offended, Im not. Just sayin... I know what I need its just finding whats best for what I need from a brand I'm not familiar with.
2- I'll pretty much have two walk arounds. In my first post I mentioned I already had a nifty fifty. Thats my every day walking around the park shooting people and architecture. I love my 50. Really keeps me focused on my subjects and my framing. For my forest hiker lens I'll be lugging around the 70-200 with a 1.7 TC on my camera and have the 16-35 in my bag for any nice vistas I come across.
3- I'm quite used to lugging around 3-4 lenses in my backpack on my nature hikes. 10-15 pounds for camera, lenses, tripod, GPS, water, etc... weight is of little importance unless we're talking like 30 pounds.