I've been a D80, then D200, now D300 owner and really want to make the switch to the D3S (the low light ability really plays into what I find myself shooting more often than not). However, I am so frustrated with the choices of non-dx lenses! The 24-70 2.8 is nice, but come on. How about some more variety? Clearly I'll be getting rid of my very versatile 18-200, which is okay. I have the 70-200 2.8 and love it. However, I'd like a 24-120 - something a little more of an all purpose lens. Is there any reason why Nikon does this? Do you think now that FX is becoming more recognized for its enhanced capabilities that Nikon will begin to release some additional lenses? I'm troubled to spend $5k on a new body, plus the $600 in the lost 18-200 and the added cost of 1k+ for a 24-70 (or something like it). Ugh. Anyone has some opinions that may help me make this frustrating decision? I shoot a great deal of landscape, portraits and candids of people and am always finding myself shooting in low light where I can't use a flash or tripod. Truthfully, the D300 sucks in low light - no way around it. Even when I shoot with my 50mm 1.8, I'm hard pressed to get a great candid inside shot with ambient lighting above 250. When you're shooting candid shots, you absolutely need the versatility of a zoom in the 24-200 range, but where do you go with FX? Carry around two lenses - a 24-70 and a 70-200 and swap them quickly? Hard to do without missing shots. Thanks!