Whenever there's a "should I go DX or FX" question, a common response is that DX lenses are cheaper. But for someone interested in constant 2.8 aperture lenses, there;s only the 17-55 2.8 from Nikon (or similar versions from Tamron, Tokina, and Sigma). Compare this to FX which has the 14-24/24-70/70-200 from Nikon and the 50-150 from Sigma. So even if you go DX, if you want pro zooms, you have to get FX lenses anyway. So effectively your only saving would be the 800 bucks you save (cost difference between the 17-55 DX vs the FX equivalent 24-70). Of course there are DX primes that are 1/3 to 1/4 the cost of equivalent FX lenses. So perhaps if you are the sort of photographer who can work with just primes, you may be okay. I still do feel Nikon should bring out a 55-200 constant 2.8 DX lens (priced around 800 bucks). Thoughts?