Assumption (to make answering my question easier): Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8 DX and Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8 non-DX lenses are exactly the same in quality, optics, etc. - disregard the loss of 20mm of zoom, as I only care about shooting at the wider end of the zoom. Are there any huge advantages to using the DX lens instead of the non-DX lens, described above, on my D2X? I read something about the image hitting the sensor more perpendicularly if a DX lens was used on a cropped body? I'm thinking ahead, into the future, about 900 years for when I might become a full-time FX shooter. If so, then the 17-55mm f/2.8 will be wasted. So, if the 17-35mm f/2.8 will do just as well on my D2X (keeping in mind I only care about the wider end of the zoom (they'll both be 17mm x 1.5 = 25.5mm on my D2X)), and that there aren't great advantages to using DX lenses, it might be safer for me to get that just in case I do convert to FX completely.