What 16-35?

It seems doubtful that the 17-55 will go FX, if it gets replaced any time soon at all. (The 16-35 is already FX although didn't I read a rumor they're updating THAT one? ) It's a great lens as it stands. The only thing it lacks at this point is VR, which would be a welcome addition, but it seems like Nikon has other lenses it should work on updating first.

I'm fairly sure that a replacement will be FX, if one comes. The last fully pro camera was the D2Hs, (if i'm not mistaken.) That was almost a year and a half ago that it was discontinued. But remember, Nikon is a company. They would much rather someone invest in the 14-24+24-70 combo, than the much cheaper 17-55.

Whoops, sorry. Yeah, it is a DX lens.

Uhhhh, the 17-55 is a DX lens. It works on FX camera's.....in DX mode or with severe vignetting if you force the camera to shoot with it in FX mode.

I don't think the 17-55 is a DX lens. It is AF-S, but it works on FX too. It's a bit expensive and heavy for a D40, no? Sure you get the 2.8 aperture, but it's way beyond the budget for me.

I surely hope they don't. while the 17-55 could use a refresh, it is not as badly needed as a modern AFS prime lineup and an f/4 line, plus you have the the insanely good 24-70 already covering a big part of that range. Nikon's R&D should be looking into updating lenses that are nearly 10 years old (primes!). Not stuff that's still has the new car smell after 5 years.

Don’t get me wrong. Nikon 17-55 is probably the best DX lens ever built, and will probably stay the best because DX market has gone amateur. It is way better then 18-105, and anything else for that matter. It was designed for D2H and it is perfect match for it. It sits great on D300 too. If you can afford it you will get the most out of your D40 with it for sure!
On the other hand to put 5 times more expensive and heavier glass on D40 body would be a little strange, not to mention uncomfortable.
My point was that D90 is way better camera then D40, and you could get D90 and 18-105 and 70-300 aside for the price of this glass alone, and get better usability and results overall. 17-55 is currently also very hard to sell second hand, so I am really not sure it is a good buy, especially for D40.

The 17-55 lens is heavy and expensive but if you intend to stay with Nikon long term then it is the lens to get, both from the optical performance and the construction of the lens that will stand up to years of heavy use.

i dont know why is it strange. i dont think its strange at all.

and 17-55 is 2.8 lens (constant aperture). i am so sick with changing aperture lens.

i dont think 18-105 will be better than 17-55 esp in low light.

Market for this lens has gone to FX format.
I believe Nikon has stopped making them unordered.
Buying one of these for D40 would be really strange; you could buy D90 and 18-105 kit for less then this lens alone and get much better result.

I have the current version and am very pleased with it, the first one had a focus issue but was changed without any problems.
Have you tried one on your camera ? it is quite heavy, it is more or less permanently mounted on my D200 and with the grip fitted becomes a very well balanced unit, I just feel it will need very careful handling when fitted to a lighter body, a heavy lens can put a lot of strain on the body lens mount if it is only supported by the camera neck strap but I am sure you will be very pleased with the optical performance if you purchase one.

Do you think nikon will produce the new one? remembering that this glass is 5 years old now. and no nano coating, big sample variance. hell, i love the range of this lens for my d40 , but these factors bugging me and keep me away from this lens.

would you buy it at this point?