Background I am about to buy my first dSLR. I decided after doing a lot of research, thinking, and feeling; to go with a Nikon entry level. D60 seemed to be the one, until I kept reading more and more than the price difference between that and the D40 isn't really worth it. So I decided to get the D40, and spend the $$ difference on getting a 70-300 lens to compliment the stock 18-55 and to use in my next Safari trip. I went to Wolf camera and spent quite some time there with a knowledgable sales lady who explained things, helped me try the different cameras, the lenses, etc. I plan to get the body and the stock lens from the store, price is maybe $30 more than the cheapest I have seen on the net, but with the time they spent with me and the classes they offer, I feel that they more than earned it. The dilemma The lady explained to me the extended warranty they offer, and I am trying to decide whether to get it or not. The cost for a two year coverage depends on the value of the equipment purchased. So I can get a 2 year warranty for the camera for $180 $153.39, and the same for the lens for $220 $180.39 for two year as well. That is $400 $333.78 for a full, accident, drop, damage, drown, etc coverage and free annual cleanings for two full years for equipment costing over $1000. They charge $65 to clean the camera, and $35 for cleaning the lens. So assuming I do take the camera for an annual service that costs $100, I am paying maybe $15 more per year for the rest of the coverage. Considering that I have at least one Safari trip where I will be in a dusty environment, and considering that I am shelling $600 for the lens. Should I at least get coverage for the lens? should I get it for both? thoughts?