Tough decision (18-70, 18-105 or 16-85). Can you recommend one lens over another?

There are reasons why the 16-85 are more expensive. If you can afford it, buy it. If you need more reach, 105mm probably isn't enough anyway. The 70-300 is an excellent companion for the 16-85. Add the 50/1.4 AF-S, and you have enough to travel the world.

16-85VR is a really great standard DX lens.

"I will use the camera for some casual family shots plus some landscapes, vacation snapshots...."

Every lens will work well in good daylight and each of those lenses are slower as the focal length increases. Having been there, I would opt for at least one of the lenses with VR. Since you don't want anything longer than about 100mm, that narrows it down to only two lenses.

If I were chosing between the 16-85 and 18-105, I would go with the first one. Yes it is more expensive but yes, there is a reason for it. The 16-85 may well go down as one of the finest consumer grade lenses Nikon has made and it fits perfectly with the range you are trying to achieve.

You are right, it is slow at the long end but such is the case with all the 18-xx lenses. To make up for that, consider either something like the Sigma 30mm (for a 'normal' range), a Nikon/Sigma 50mm (short tele) that will autofocus on the D60, or even one of the Nikkor 85mm lenses. Budget will help you decide.

The 16-85mm seems like a good choice.

Are you settled on the D6o? I know 2 people that just bought the D8o new for less money than the D60, and it will work with less expensive prime lenses, like the 50mm, when you get to that. Sure the D80 is discontinued, but it is certainly worth considering.

is your other digital system nikon? why duplicate the 17-70 range? isn't that hsm? if you want both systems to have a walk-around lens, i'd get the 18-70mm. it's shorter, affordable and a little bit faster than the 105mm. i think that still defeats the latter's vr. but why not just bring the 17-70mm and complement that with an affordable longer zoom. sometimes vacation snapshots call for a longer zoom.............but one camera, one lens among your short list? i'd get the 105mm. it's sad the d60 limits your lens options.

I shoot gallery work and just got a 16-85 to compliment my my 17-55 2.8 and I love it. You can't go wrong with this glass. It is a bit heavy but the VR works very well And it is so sharp you can shave with it.

-Owen

The 16-85 VR is really good for what it is. It essentially has the best built quality of any non f/2.8 nikkor zooms: it has no zoom creep, it features a metal mount, and AF-S with full time MF with a distance scale. The VR works very well (I can get usable shots at 1/2s and 16mm). If you enjoy shooting landscape, the 16mm wide coverage (2mm wider than the other lenses) would be very useful. It also has relatively moderate distortion patterns.

The 18-70 is not bad overall. Its biggest problem is its severe vignetting and unnatural distortion pattern at 18mm.

The 18-105 VR is probably the best value of the three. Aside from the extra reach it provides, it can almost do everything the 16-85 can do. By going with it, you can save almost $300: that can be spent on other useful lenses, perhaps a 50 f/1.8 and a 55-200 VR.

"I know I should go for the best lens I could afford (and I can afford $550 for the 16-85mm lens)"
i think you answered your own question. i would also consider a d80 so you can add the 50/1.8 for $120. d60 doesn't really give you anything the d80 doesnt have, but d80 gives you some things d60 doesnt have (2 control wheels, more AF pts, internal motor).

16-85 - though Nikon goofed badly on that f/5.6 at the longer end.