Which combo would you rather have? I will be mostly shooting event and occasional interior photography. The 16-35mm f4 VR offers wider range, has VR for handheld shooting, but doesn't have the fast aperture for DOF separation. The 18-35mm G + 20mm 1.8 G is more versatile, with the 20mm 1.8 excelling in low light/subject isolation, but this combo lacks that extra 2mm wide-end which might come in handy for tight spaces. Though I've compared 16mm and 18mm and I'm not sure how much I'd miss it in terms of practical real world shooting. Saying that I consider the 16-35mm more of an "anchor" lens, since it's better constructed, N-coated and has VR. the 18-35mm G is more consumer level, with more plasticky parts. Not sure I'd want to rely on this class of lens for work-type shooting (though I'm sure it's fine), but I do have the contingency of the 20mm to fall back on which is N-coated, fast aperture and the simplicity of a prime. Opinions welcomed! I wish Nikon would just update the 17-35mm 2.8 AF-D, because ideally that's the focal length and aperture I really want, but not sure it's a safe bet to buy due to squeaky AF-S motor and soft'ish corners. Thanks!