Input on Nikon16-85mm vr and NIkon 18-105mm vr?

I currently own Nikon 18-55mm and 55-200mm vr lenses. I rented a few lenses to try out this week, the Nikon 16-85mm vr, Nikon 70-300mm, and Tamron 90mm. I haven't received the tamron, but tested out the 16-85mm against the lenses I already own. Is it me, but I don't see a huge difference between the quality of photos from my lenses and the 16-85mm which is a lot more expensive? I also can't justify the price when it's only goes down to f/3.5 apt. They should have at least made it a f/2.8! I also noticed that it takes the 70-300 a bit to focus at the long end (300).Is this normal for telephoto? I'm really looking for the best travel lens, along with a macro. I was also looking at the 18-105 vr, since it's a big longer, lighter, and less expensive. Weight, quality of photos, and price (in that order) are my priorities. Any input would help. Thanks!

Added (1). Btw, I have a Nikon D90 camera in case you were wondering.

The 16-85 is really quite a capable lens but you need significant skills to make it shine. Additionally, the nikon 18-55 VR is not at all a bad lens. In fact, if you get a good copy it will come quite close to the 16-85.
Nikon's 18-105 is about on par with the 18-55 quality wise but you gain a lot more zoom obviously. I like it and it would be my choice for a travel lens.

The 70-300 VR should only be a bit slower to focus after 250mm in very lousy light situations. IF it does it in bright light you're either using the wrong settings or you have a bad copy. If you don't do wildlife or anything else where every mm counts then the 55-200 or the new 55-300 may be better for you since they are smaller and lighter.

Tamron's 90mm… Optically sound, I prefer the 100mm tokina because it's build better but it's also heavier.