24-85 f/3.5-4.5, smaller and lighter (465g) than the 24-70 f/2.8 VR (1070g) AF-S NIKKOR 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G ED VR It would complement either 70-200 or 70-300 lenses. The 24-120 f/4 is the closest to the 18-105. AF-S NIKKOR 24-120mm f/4G ED VR from Nikon Bit wider on the short end, and bit shorter on the long end, which is what I like. I found the 18mm not quite wide enough. I used a 24 on my F2, and the 18 is equivalent to a 27. Those few mm makes a difference. Comments have been made that the Nikon 24-120 is not as sharp as some of the 3rd party lenses. The 24-120 f/4 (at 710g) is not a light lens, but it is 35% lighter than the 24-70 f/2.8 VR (at 1070g). As a GP lens, I would take the 24-120 over the 24-70. For me, the extra zoom range is the key. If you are working in the 50-100mm range, you don't have to swap lenses or carry two bodies, like you would if you had the 24-70 and 70-200. I admit, I am spoiled by the zoom range of the 18-140 on my D7200. I used a 43-86 for MANY years, but as soon as I got a 35-105, it replaced the 43-86. Not for optical quality, but for the extra zoom range.