Within a month or two I was planning on dropping $450 or so on the new AF-S 50mm or Sigma HSM equivalent. However, I've been thinking (which my wife has learned to fear); the 50mm 1.4 AF-D is a great lens at just a little over half the cost of the AF-S one, and this is not a trend I want to continue...being forced into buying pricier lenses because of the lack of in-body focus on the D40. I just need to talk this out... And it's not just the lack of focus motor. I've had my D40 for a year, and while I love it for what it's taught me about photography, I've learned some of the limitations really annoy me. Only 3 autofocus points; no exposure bracketing; no top LCD, which I've never had but I find myself wishing I did; too much button pushing because there's only one control dial. The D90 addresses all of those points, along with the focus motor, plus it's even better in low light (right?) than the D40. Plus the better LCD, dust removal, better viewfinder, etc. I've done the math, and I could keep my existing lenses (the cheap but decent 18-55mm and 55-200mm VR), sell the D40, get a D90 and a 50mm 1.4 AF-D for about $790 or so (although I might drop that 50mm down to the f/1.8 in the short term to save a couple hundred bucks). Or, I could sell the D40 with both my existing lenses, get the D90 18-105mm kit plus the 1.8 50mm also for a little under $800. I do sometimes use that 200mm so I'm leaning toward scenario A unless someone has something awesome to say about the D90's kit lens. Main question: Let's say I sell my D40 body and get the D90 with the 50mm 1.8. Does this $590 expense sound like a worthwhile alternative to spending $450 on a 1.4 AF-S lens and keeping my D40?