So I'm currently looking at two options for the FX/DX kit. I'm keeping both until a 24mp sensor is under 2k, but for now I need to keep both options! Here's what I'm looking at: Option 1: 17-35 AFS (don't own) and 24-120 VR (own) Pros: 17-35 gives me a 2.8 wide angle zoom on FX and a wide to standard on DX. 17-35 will see more use on DX due to work needs. Cons: No 2.8 coverage from 35 to 70 (not my most used focal lengths either and have a 70-200 VR) Option 2: Tamron 17-35 (don't own) and 28-70 (don't own) Pros: Tamron is cheap and sharp for price, will not break bank on the wide end. Will have 2.8 coverage from 28 to 70. Cons: Tamron is a non AFS lens that will potentially have more use in DX. 28-70 will see less work due to crop factor, but will allow me to have standard 2.8 up to 70. Tamron is not constant 2.8 on wide end. Option 3: Just get a Tamron 17-35 2.8-4 or Nikon 18-35 3.5-4.5 Pros: Covers my wide end needs, won't break the bank. Will have an ultra wide zoom on FX, standard zoom on DX. Save a boat load of money. Cons: Won't have constant 2.8 from 17mm to 70mm. Can compensate with picking up a 50mm 1.4 and have a low light lens. Different opinions welcome. Leaning towards option 1 due to practical needs, but the chance to own the 28-70 is tempting since I've never owned that fine lens! And I was never a 17-35 fan. Both options will cover my needs, but leave a weakness of sort. Ideally if Nikon released a 17-40 f/4 FX I"d be satisfied. Also can't afford the 14-24/24-70 (though I'd opt for this and dump my fisheye) so don't mention it!