[quote name='paz9x']yes its a 18-70 f/3.5-4.5 typo a bit =)
The extra focal length of the 70-300mm is needed for my sons soccer games primarily. 200mm is a tad bit short.[/quote] Fair enough, though have you actually tried it with a crop sensor body? I ask because I use a 70-200 to shoot Autocross, and I have no problem filling the frame with a car (granted, bigger than your son) from 200+ feet away. I wouldn't have suspected you'd be that far away from the game, but then again I haven't attended a soccer game since I last played in one 15+ years ago.
But I used to use my 70-300ED all the time on my old film body, and I think it's been mounted to the D70 maybe once. People in the oldern days didn't use 400-500mm lenses to shoot soccer games, so it would surprise me if you actually need the extra reach. But if you do you do.
[quote name='paz9x'] Ive heard the praise for the 18-200VR. for the price, I could have the 18-135mm, (which ive heard is better within its range) the 70-300mmvr which ive heard is similar through their shared range and of course longer, and the 50mm[/quote] Actually the 18-135 and 70-300VR together are $30 more than the 18-200 even without the 50. But if it suits your needs better, that's the way you should go. The 18-135 is very sharp, but also has a lot of distortion. The new 70-300VR seems to be a much better lens than my 70-300ED.
[quote name='paz9x'] though after seeing several sets of shots with the d80/70-300ED im questioning the need for the VR version at twice the price.[/quote] If you're really looking to save on the tele, skip the ED version and get the standard G version. It's 1/3 of the price (about $110), has the EXACT same optical formula, but is missing the aperture ring (which you don't care about) and the single, tiny ED glass element buried in the center of the lens.
But if you're going to be doing a lot of shooting at long focal lengths, VR can be indispensible. Camera Shake becomes more and more of a factor the farther out you shoot. And remember 300mm on a crop body is akin to 450mm on a film body, so the effect is further magnified.
[quote name='paz9x'] How does your 18-70mm perform indoors?
this is my primary concern. i want a good lowlight lense for my kids indoors.[/quote] It does fine. You either need to boost the ISO or use a flash (I use an SB-800) if the lighting is particularly low, but it works just fine. The 18-70 is on my D70 about 60% of the time, with the 70-200 another 25-30%, and the 12-24 the remaining 10-15%.
By contrast (not that you care
), my film body (FM3a) has the run of the 50/1.8. Probably 75% of the shots I take with that camera are with the little 50, with another 20%+ using the 28-105, and the 70-300 for the extremely rare long shot.
[quote name='paz9x'] my thinking was the 50mm f/1.8 would do it and when needed the 18-135mm would be servicable as well.[/quote] The 50 is great, I can't say enough good things about it. Sharp, contrasty, etc etc. But also remember that if you're shooting wide open (at f/1.8), you have to be careful about how you compose, because your depth of field is extremely small. If you compose improperly, your son's nose may be in focus while his cheeks and eyes are blurry.
But any of the "normal" range lenses are fine for indoor use. The 18-70, 18-135, 18-200, or the 50 will all do just fine.
