Isn't that what you said about not getting the 24-70? And the the next day you ask about getting the 28-70 instead? lol.
The power of Nikon draws me insane. "Ohh mah precious, my precious"
It's ALWAYS smarter to get a lens first, like literally ALWAYS. They are usually in short supply (thanks Nikon Japan!) and invariably lose their value at about 3-5% a year versus 10-25% for bodies.
With that said, might be wiser to "wait for the replacement".
That's all that nikon owners seem to do, wait for the replacement. . .I bought the 24-70 and 70-200 assuming the D700 replacement would've been announced and fully baked by now. . .and I just stopped waiting, after realizing it'll be nearly $3199 MSRP, in high demand (and backordered like the D3s), and will essentially probably accomplish most of what I'm NOT achieving now if I had a D3 or D700. . .
So I got a used D3. . .with that said, I'm sure I'll be eating my own words when my used D3 craps out or the D700s gives hand jobs with its newly created macro-sensor shaker ma-jiggy. . .
Indeed. I always invest in lenses first. But my D200 is completely satisfying my needs. Surely ISO kind of sucks but I can live with it.
I started calculating yesterday and if I would sell all of my Nikon gear without flash units I would get something like $1800, and if I was going to buy that 24-70, I could instead pool the money from the lens purchase plus from what I sold and I would get $3800. Now I would be only short of $1200 from getting Canon 5dmk ii , 70-200 2.8 and 16-35mm 2.8mm. It's a tempting option to be honest. But just because I can buy it, doesn't mean it makes rational sense to do so. My priority now is to build up my portfolio and narrow down my specialization in photography. until I start getting paid gigs, there's no sense in dropping 5k on FX system from either Canon of Nikon.