Time to step a little closer to FX, suggestions on lenses?

Skip the Tam 17-50 it's DX and take a 28-75 2.8 instead, it's a good lens I used a long time on my D700.

I disagree. If you don't really know when you're going to upgrade to FX, then you are well-served by getting DX lenses and keeping on going with your D90 till you KNOW why you need FX enough to buy it. I'd buy used to mitigate the potential loss as you re-sell glass. The only exception is that if I KNEW I was going to FX, I'd definitely get the 35mm f2 instead of the otherwise excellent 35mm f1.8.

btw, the Tokina 11-16 is awesome, but one I very rarely use. I'd only buy it after other lengths are well covered. My favorite lens, and paradoxically, the one I use the least perhaps.

@Hans Janssen: Good point for sure, thanks for spotting that (musta brain-farted during my research, I thought the more-appealing-in-my-case 28-70mm 2.8 was the DX fit...duh to me).
It sounds like you like it, is it still in good shape after living on your D700? I'm very weary with Tamron lenses for build quality, but to be fair it's been from having the more consumer level stuff.
Thanks for the thoughts. :)

@Peter Hamm: Re-reading my post I guess I didn't really make it clear, but I do KNOW when I'll be upgrading to FX, which would be after the currently-owned D90 or the D95 (if specs are truly worth it). The only reason I don't upgrade now is for lack of regular need (a well-done DX-sized RAW can still look pretty damn acceptable when exposed/processed properly), and that I'll wait for the D700 replacement next year to get either better sensor/features, or at least a better used price on the load of D700's that will be sold towards respective replacement.
As far as "keeping on going with your D90 till you KNOW *why* you need FX enough to buy it" (*emphasis* mine)... The "why" is pretty obvious and not the topic I raise (nor see why it would be in question), but no worries for mentioning it. To sum up why it appeals to me: a larger sensor and all the extra detail that comes with it, cleaner high ISOs, as well as lens numbers (and distortion) returning to thier true values, etc etc. If I didn't know *why*, I wouldn't look at 2000€ plus in lens replacement, but I suppose there's the people with more dollars than sense.
I appreciate your point, I just don't see where it comes from, especially since I'm not asking "oh and does anyone thing FX is really worth it?".
And as just explained I do "KNOW" I'll be going to FX, which is why I listed the Nikon 35mm f2.0, not the f1.8DX. Also, used shopping is certainly a nice way to go on budget (like I mention towards the Nikon 70-200), but some of these lenses (especially the Tokina 11-16) can be seriously tricky to find 2nd hand.
Lastly, regarding the Tokina 11-16: I'll probably have to bite the bullet and buy that new, for my needs I use wide quite often so certainly not towards the end of my 'buy' list. Also worth a mention is that the older Nikon 35mm f2 had some serious blade problems, and also worth a new purchase.
If I may ask, do you shoot wide often, and another lens trumps your Tokina? Or do you just not need wide often, and that's why you say it gets little use? Please do tell?
Trusting my words don't sound troll-y for length or tone (your thoughts are surely appreciated, if a tad confusing), if so I firmly accuse this day for being a Monday!!! :p

Jeez, my reply to Peter had its' formatting just molested!!! Not intentional dude. :)

The recently announced 24-120 f/4 might be an excellent first FX lens for you if you can wait for it. The 16-35 f/4 will be okay if your software can correct its considerable distortion.

@ Dan South: The 24-120 f/4 looks very appealing (even enough to consider the price), but I left it out of the list simply as it's not on the market yet, so feedback hard to solicit. I also want to see real-world image samples, I just don't trust any company's (usually best case scenario) promo images over user feedback, much like the honest goodness served on photo.net!

The 16-35 definitely looks like a worthy wide, but I was more thinking of an old Nikon 20-35mm f2.8 to replace the coming Tokina 11-16 when I leap into FX.

you might be surprised to find out that the nikon 35mm 1.8 dx works on full frame quite well, it has some vignetting, but the image circle is a lot bigger than the crop size for dx, try it on FX and i think you'll be pleasantly surprised.
also the same goes for the tokina 11-16 which is for crop sensors, but at 16mm, it works with on FX without any vignetting! i have both of these lenses and when i moved to a d700 they worked flawlessly on FX. (i am not talking about the crop-mode on FX either, i mean full on FX mode that you can set manually so it doesn't auto set to cropped lenses when it senses DX lenses.)
the nikon 55-200mm also works on FX with some vignetting, if u dont want any vignetting, it will be a problem, but i actually like some vignetting depending on what type of shot i am taking, as it can help concentrate the viewer's attention subtly towards the subject of the image.

Andy, Peter's point has more virtue than it may have seemed. This apart from the many people that seem to go for FX "in some months or years" because they heard it is some holy grail (while DX has some advantages of its own too - it's not a clear cut situation in all cases). I didn't see it as arguiing your choice for FX in the future, but rather arguing the two-tracked mind now. At the wider end, you will compromise a lot if you want something to work on FX and DX. Look at the serious options: a 24-70 on DX is a unfortunate compromise at the wide end, a 16-35 at the long end. A 28-75 misses a lot of wide angle coverage on a DX camera - you'd be switching lenses nearly all the time with event shooting. The "end points" of the zoom range are just in unfortunate lengths which do not work with DX.
I would really consider getting a tamron 17-50 or similar for the DX camera; use that lens later on to make selling off the DX camera easier.
So, in that sense, think DX as long as you shoot DX, and get the right gear to work with that. Consider the resale value a bit more than you normally might do.
That's at least my €0,02 worth.

On the lenses mentioned that I actually have experience with (on DX):
The 35 f/2 is a nice lens, but in my view not top-notch. If this focal length is very important to you, then I would seriously consider the f/1.8DX for the time being, and re-evaluate once you go to FX.
The Tokina macro, in my view a too often forgotten or too little mentioned gem. I like mine quite a lot, solid lens with solid performance. Won't go wrong there.