I've always been set to buy a Nikon 18-200 mm with VR-II. I was going to by Christmas. I also want a Sigma 105 mm macro lens, "but that would have to wait," I told myself. Last night, I got to thinking about lenses, since I just helped my friend go and buy a Canon 50mm f/1.8 and thought what a nice lens it would be for low light. I've been out plenty of times and wished I had a faster lens for low light and depth of field reasons. A fast 50 mm lens sounds nice, but a fast wide lens sounds good too (ie: a 35 mm fast lens). I quickly made a quick and impulsive change of plans. Instead of the 18-200 VR and the Sigma 105 mm macro, I've decided to buy a Sigma 24-70 mm f/2.8 + Sigma 105 mm f/2.8 macro. I actually wanted a Tamron 28-75 mm f/2.8, but I thought 28 mm wasn't wide enough, since I find myself taking lots of photos between 18 and 27 mm. And by replacing the 18-200 mm purchase with the 24-70 mm, I also saved myself around $450 USD where I live. My friend is in Hong Kong, and I asked him to purchase the Sigma 24-70 mm there for me, since I'd save around $150 USD by having him buy it there instead. Was ditching the 18-200 mm VR lens a smart move? I only did it because the 18-200 mm seemed so slow, although the VR could help make up for that. I also like the constant aperture of the 24-70mm, and the control over depth of field with an f/2.8 lens. Would getting an 18-200 mm VR, Sigma 105 mm macro, and adding a Nikon 50 mm f/1.8 have been a smarter choice?