Mike,

Kinda unusual but I bought a D70s three months ago and got the very same
lens you were looking at.  The Nikkor DX 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G IF-ED AF-S
is a good all around lens, and I like mine.

I went ape after I got my D70s and the lenses and starting shooting sporting
events (mainly baseball).  I mainly used the Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor
55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED for the games, with reasonable results.  Here is a link
to an album with shots solely from the 55-200 in the "white sox" folder and
photos in the "team pictures" folder were taken with the 18-70:
http://www.photostockplus.com/home.php?event=46744  Game photos were shot
through the fence and the league would not give me field access because I
was not the "official" photographer.

I just wasn't completely satisfied with the 55-200 for what I wanted to use
it for (I also doing wildlife).  So my wonderful wife bought me a 300mm f/4D
ED-IF AF-S Nikkor which I absolutely love.  I bought it through
http://www.normancamera.com/shop/SearchResults.asp?ProdStock=1909 for $1099
and will get a $75 rebate back from Nikon (offered through July).  A friend
encouraged me to get the f/4 instead of an f/2.8 and spend the price
difference on a spare body, which is what I am doing.  The 300mm f/4 is a
great lens and with the adjustable ISO setting on the D70S I can still get
those low-light action shots.  Here are some taken at night with just the
field lights, I was just experimenting
http://www.photostockplus.com/home.php?tmpl=37&user_id=19678&action=viewalbum&al
bum_id=46719&event=46699

You still can't go wrong with the ones you've chosen.  I am certainly not an
expert, but if I can help with anything, let me know.  If you are interested
in the 55-200, I might be interested in a sale or trade.

Dave

The 18~70 lens that comes with the camera is a great all around lens that
gets super reviews, so it's hard to wrong with that one.  As for the second
lens, take a hard look at the 80~200 2.8.  It's a great lens, and the large
aperture will give you many options making it a good telephoto as well as a
portrait lens.  It ain't cheap, but they pop up a lot on eBay.  IMHO it's
always a good idea to have a lens with a large aperture in your bag, as you
never know when you will want a really shallow depth of field.

Also, don't forget the 1.5 multiplier on every lens you use.  A 200 becomes
a 300, and a 300 becomes a 450.

As been said the 18-70 is a decent but slow lens, an alternative would
be a Tamron 17-50 f2.8 reportedly a very good lens, about $100-150 more
than the Nikon, but the nonvariable f2.8 helps at the long end. Then
look at the 70-300, it is not so hot above 200mm, or the 70-210
f4.5-5.6,  both are overall better than the 55--200.
Avoid the long range zooms, Nikon itself has pulled it off with their
18-200, but with most other manufacturers the lenses are real dogs.

Tom

I have both of these lenses, the Nikon kit lens and the Sigma 18-70.
I think the Nikon 18-70 is one of the great values in photography and should
be purchased with the camera.
I tried and returned several Nikon 55-200 lenses: I believe this is one of
the worst lenses ever to have the Nikon badge. It is slow to focus, unsharp
and prone to flare. I could never figure out if the slow and hunt/peck
autofocusing of this lens is due to a poorly engineered  mechanical focus
mechanism or due to low contrast that bedevils the sensor in the camera.
Regardless, I really don't think anyone can be happy with this lens for very
long.
The Sigma 18-200 performs far, far better than the Nikon 55-200 in that
focal length range. However in the 18-35mm range, where most pictures are
made, there is barrel distortion, easily corrected in Photoshop, that is
much more noticeable than with the Nikon 18-70. The Sigma has surprisingly
good contrast, sharpness and low flare and very precise autofocusing. As a
one lens solution for travel it is very convenient--I trekked through China
and just got back from 2 weeks in southern France with this lens on a D70.
However it is increasingly incovenient to lug these heavy lens/dSLR combos
around while travelling. I truly hope that what are currently considered
insoluble problems with smaller lenses on smaller sensors will fall to
technologic solutions.

I've been using the 18 to 70 for some time and find it to be a very
good lens.

I have no experience with the 55-200.

I have the 75 - 300 4.5-5.6 which is very handy with the  push-pull
zoom and the focus ring right ahead of the zoom barrel. It works well
and is fairly sharp, but I've had it for a long time (well before
digital) and it's getting a bit loose in the focus/zoom.  Let the
camera tip down and the zoom will go full forward.

Which is primarily due to the wide zoom range of 11:1
How does it compare to the Nikor 18 - 200?

Although I'm keeping the "kit lens" I picked up the Tamron 200 to 500
zoom which has turned out to be far, far better than I expected. It's
fast enough in daylight to shoot hand held at 500mm with my shaky
hands. Of course that's with a shutter speed in the 1500 to 5000
range.  Anything under 1/500th is pretty much either tripod or laying
against something solid.  It is not a low light lens without either a
remote or cable release.  I'm still waiting for the Nikor 18 to 200 to
come in.  After that I'll be using the two zooms for most of my casual
work. (I think)

I have the 12 - 24 wide angle zoom for the occasional need and I also
have the  28-105 Macro which is very sharp.  That lens is on the
camera most of the time.

I know I ended up a bit outside the original question, but I hope the
excursion was of some use.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com