IMHO There is no such a thing as good-all-round lens for UW.
What does it mean? Good for macro AND Wide Angle work? Forget about it.
Landside is another world, and maybe the 18-200 is a good all arounder.
In the macro world I have shot with both, and I will probably buy a 60mm in the near future.
But having owned more than 10 Nikkors, and used most of them UW, I have to recommend the 105 over it.
The majority of my work and the great pictures I see around are made by the fisheye/macro couple.
The best of both worlds IMHO would be something like 10,5mm, or 16mm if you are full frame (the DX one being better over the full-frame due to closer focus), AND 105mm (the 60 is a very acceptable substitute, specially for murky water, but not better) for UW photo.
Landside the 12-24mm is an G-R-E-A-T lens (just what the 10.5mm is UW), with a very good application UW for when the 10.5mm an too much of gun (when you get the hang of it, rarely), Sigma 10-20mm is a good option.
Mid-range the cheap Nikkor 50mm/1.8D (made a 75mm/1.8D) is a VERY NICE lens for under one-hundred, it is always on my body.
Tele-zoom, I would love the 70-200mm/2.8VR... the 70-300G is the cheap option, and the 80-200mm/2.8 NOT AF-S is an in between great lens.
Not mentioning the tele-zoom side.
My advice:
GO 10.5mm AND GET CLOSER!!!
GO 105mm AND DONT GET THAT CLOSE!!!