I need your help to decide what to do first. I know most people consider lenses more important than the body, but I'm just not sure anymore, at least for my case. Which would you upgrade first? I currently have a D70s. I shot mostly urban-life or street photography and portraits at events/parties or random scenes around campus or downtown areas. I was contemplating getting a 17-55mm f2.8 to augment my 35mm f2 on event/party/nightclub work. I rented this for an assignment once, and it was brilliant - Loved it. Or for a completely different line of work/fun, a Tokina/Sigma in the 50-150 range. Some people have recommended the old Nikkor 80-200 AF-D or the Sigma 70-200 HSM. I'd love to get the 70-200VR, but it quote outside my budget. On the other hand, my biggest gripe with my camera body is noise and AF speed. It just seems 'dumb'. Sometimes it would lock on very quickly, other times it would focus-hunt, swinging from short to infinity 4-5 times before locking on. Worse yet, this sometimes happen on objects that it has obviously successfully locked on before with no problems, or on things that have decent contrast for the AF computer. What I mean by that is, it would inconsistently confuse itself, while at other times it can focus on dark/difficult things fine. On top of that, the doubling of Megapixel and smarter metering and focusing system would be a very useful upgrade to me. My target is the D300 (or D400 if it comes out in the next 2-4 months). D700 would be lovely, but too $$$. So which would you upgrade first? The body or the lens? Should I stick with a slower body and just get the lenses first? At least I get to work more flexibly, albeit slow, if I have the lenses. Any advice is appreciated.