Well, I'll be honest. I'm not familiar with that exact lens. However, I'd be happy to give you a bit of advice about lenses generally.
Whatever you do, don't cheap out on the glass.
Indeed, I don't expect you to make an initial foray into photography by dropping $10k on bodies and glass and the 16-85 appears to be a relatively good lens. When it comes to lenses though, much more than the zoom range is important to determine the quality of the lens. The "F number" is one of the easiest ways to tell if a lens is any good or not (not always true, of course). The lower the F number (numerical representation of the physical size of the iris), the more light that the lens lets through to the sensor.
Because designing a lens with a larger iris is more difficult (read "more expensive"), this is generally a good indication of the overall quality of the construction of the lens. Further, a larger iris makes a lens more versatile, particularly in low-light situations.
Unfortunately, the DX line of lenses are somewhat limited in this regard as they are geared toward hobbyists and amateurs. If I were to pick from the lineup, I'd go with the Nikkor 17-55 f/2.8.
This does come at a much steeper price. Remember though, your glass will last much longer than your body if you take care of it properly. Glass is an investment, bodies are not.
Keep in mind also that the DX cameras are able to mount FX lenses at a "crop factor" of 1.5. (a 70-200mm lens effectively becomes a 140-300mm).
You may also want to look into prime (non zoom) lenses.
And I like to answer questions so if anything here was helpful at all, I'd be happy to advise further.