I am in a quandary via-a-vis upgrading to the 7100 from my excellent D90. Or go for a lens. Here is my thought process: 1. I am feeling that my D90 is dated. Video stinks. Missing AF more than I used to. However, it still takes fantastic shots. 2. Ah, but I other than occasional portrait sessions and and small events, I don't really make money. 3. So then I thought of the "other option" - "forget the camera and get a lens". So then I went crazy deciding between the 50 1.4's (Sigma vs. Nikon discussion etc etc). I discounted the (Sigma) 85mm, because on the DX, they are a bit long and I do have an 80-200 if I need that focal length. However, I DO have the good old 50mm 1.8D. As cheap as it is, works great on my camera. So then I decided: forget it, would love the 1.4 but the 1.8 really does give me great shots. And the AF seems to work well with it, so AFS might not improve anything. 4. OK so back to camera; read Shuns review, and it really would be an upgrade. However, no use getting the 7100, which Shun says, is highly demanding of lens's, if my lens's are not up to par. So: I need advice as to whether my lens's are good enough for this camera. If not, I might just forget about getting anything now. Any other ideas for lens are welcome. Maybe I did not think of it. The 30mm I am not interested in. My budget is max $1200. Nikkors unless stated otherwise: 1. 50mm 1.8D (use for portraits) 2. 17-55 (events) 3. 80-200 AF-D (2 ring version) 4. Tokina 12-24 5. 18-200 (first version to come out. My walkabout.) Thanks!