My fifth child was born last Friday, my oldest is 10, and I've got the itch. I've taken a lot of keepers with the AF 50mm f/1.8D and am getting better at focusing it. Unsurprisingly, it's just not wide enough for good composition on many indoor pictures (especially with only 3 AF zones for a reliable green dot) and really difficult to focus on any type of rapidly moving subject (of which I have four, soon to be five). So I don't think an AF-S 50mm f/1.x would be terribly useful right now, even if it became a reality. I was thinking of investing in an AF-S 35mm f/1.x if Nikon released one (vaporware now), but I am now thinking that it is likely to be $500+ if it became real. My next body will likely be a D90 - I won't have the cash to go FF for several years at least. When that time comes I will keep the D40 body for wife and kids (all of whom are coming along nicely in their willingness to try). This morning it occurred to me that putting the $500 toward a 17-55 and scratching together some birthday money to take up the rest of the cost might (1) be the best use of resources, and (2) be a giant step forward. I guess I could wait for Photokina to see if a 35 is released (1.x is attractive, indeed), and then decide. The main 17-55 drawback seems to be size and weight. Am I thinking right? Thanks!