Virtually all modern (and most old) Nikkor lenses are of a higher quality than you are going to need.
In my experience, 99.9% of poor image quality comes not from defects in the camera or lenses but from poor technique.
Fair comment. My technique certainly leaves room for improvement
Ignore rubbish like that spouted by DXO and other "testers". No matter how much "scientific rigour" they claim to employ, their results are almost totally irrelevant to the practical task of producing a high quality photographic print.
But I think this is slightly overdone. If I'm thinking of buying a fast lens, I'd like to know that it's sharp at least in the centre, and that the resolution doesn't fall off a cliff at the edges. Folk like Photozone.de and DxO can say something
Though with DxO it takes a little poking around to see graphs, and not just funny coloured pictures.
Nikon offers the quite respectable 18-105 for ~$US 200 with the camera. At that price it would almost be rude to say no.
A good walkabout lens, which makes me
question what the 16-85 is for. If the 16-85 was f/2.8-f/4, and sharp with it, that would be different.
f/5.6 seems a little dozy on an APS camera. Though for landscape stuff it may not be a problem, and 105mm f/5.6 can blur backgrounds.
As for faster zooms, Sigma might be better than Nikon, with the 17-50 and the 50-150 f/2.8s.
Then a lot of folk reckon the 50-150 is a bit pointless, when you could use a - possibly slightly technically inferior on APS - full-frame 70-200 f/2.8 that's no bigger. Particularly bearing in mind PhotoEcosse's comments.
For the same lens & number of pixels, a full-frame camera will score better, at least in the centre, because the pixels are further apart. Then you might want to stop down a full-frame camera by a stop+ for the same depth of field.