I wish to purchase a travel lens. By that I mean a wide angle, compact, late afternoon (low light) lens. I am torn between the Nikon 24mm f/2.8 and the 18-55 3.5-5.6 VR lense.

Both are similar in cost. I'm looking for an opinion: which will be better in low light without a tripod... I need to travel lite and will not have time to setup lengthly shots. I am thinking the VR makes up for the difference in apeture plus gives me some zoom....?

Mostly this will be a daylight lens but I would like to photograph at dusk as well... mostly landscapes and cityscapes...also tight quarters such as restaurants and auditoriums.

I also have a 28-105 3.5-5.6 (not good handheld in low light)
and a 70-200 f/2.8 VR which is wonderful in low light at a distance.

The camera is a Nikon D80.

help?

Since you already have the 28-105, I'd pick up the 18-55 VR. I just picked one up for my wife to use on her D70.

So far I've noticed its a pretty slow focusing lens, but for landscape/cityscapes its not a problem. In the next day or so I'll download the photos off of her card and post a couple so you can see some image samples with that lens.

I would also take a look at the tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 that recently came out. It's supposed to have stellar reviews and it's faster than any lens nikon makes of that wide an angle. If not, go for the 24mm f/2.8, the issue is that with the D80 24mm=36mm (in 35mm equivelent) due to the crop factor. I'd recommend the tokina in that case, even above the nikkor 12-24mm. The Tokina is also pretty light while maintaining great build quality. I'd definitely go for that.

Since you have used the D80 you're familiar with the crop factor, and that 24mm isn't very wide. The 24 f2.8 is a great lens (all primes generally are) but not very versatile. Sometimes VR is more important than fast lens speed, although f2.8 isn't exactly fast either. Sigma has a 30 f1.4 (something along those lines) that you might want to check out too.

Landscapes and cityscapes really need a tripod for good results (or a luckily placed table or railing) but inside restaurants and auditoriums you'll probably be handheld. One or two stops of extra lens speed might not make enough of a difference seeing as you'll lose DOF. I'd pick VR for that but obviously it's a moot point with the camera on a tripod.

I'll put in a plug for Nikon's 18-200 VR. It's a really cool lens although not cheap. Sometimes you'd like to have a long (200mm) lens but wouldn't drag the 80-200 f2.8 along - with this you're all set. I have a road trip coming up and might bring just this lens and my Sigma 10-20. Keep it simple...

I would say, get the Nikon 17-70 F2.8 lens. It's the same focal length as the original D70 kit lens but much faster. The focal length equivalent is 25mm to 105mm a graet range, an its F2.8 is what I consider a minimum for low light photography. The only problem is fast lenses are heavier than over lenses and larger in diameter, example at 105mm an F 3.5 lens is 30mm entry lens but a F2.8 is 37.5 mm entry lens, and a 1.8 is 58 mm entry lens.

get the Nikon 17-70 F2.8 lens

They have a 17-55 f2.8, is this what you're thinking? Great lens, but basically it's an upgrade of the lens the OP already has without the VR. A friend has it and I've heard a lot of good things about this lens, and I'm sure it's much better wide open than something like my 18-200 VR, the 18-55 VR or the 18-70. So, the advantage may actually be more like two stops (gain sharpness in the other lenses by closing down one stop), so to speak. If it were me, I really think I'd want the VR - now that I've had a chance to really use it and see what it does. VR isn't a magic bullet, but I do think it's very nice to have for a travel lens when you might not have your tripod with you at every moment (as is the case with most of my travels).

If Nikon had VR in the 17-55 it'd be a great choice. However, I think it comes down to personal preference - and budget of course.