Thank you for all the answers everyone.
I think I will stick to Nikon, because I do not want to have to deal with the possible issues and because of the comments about the close ups not being as good as the Nikon. That is of course My facts are off.
The Internet tends to magnify some issues. The main question between the f/1.4 and the f/2 is do you need to shoot in half the light?
I guess that is the issue. Up to this point most of my shots have been talken a D40 and a much slower lens, the 18-200mm. In very low light I have been using the SB400 flash and bouncing it of the ceiling. I did not use the 50mm f/1.8 because I would have to manually focus. I can't take candid shots in low light when I am asking people not to move while I focus.
I assume you already own an 18-55 or something like it that came as the kit lens on the camera. Why not shot with that for a while then look at the images you like best and check what focal length you were using. If you find that all your best shots were done at 24mm and 20mm then you'd not want the 35mm lens everyone else likes so much.
An iPhoto or Aperture library can tell you a lot about which lens to buy. Pull up all your "4 star and better" images then browse to attached meta-data to see which focal lengths and what f-stops you seem to use
I got a D40 with the Kit lens, but once I got the 18-200mm VR, I really did not use it much. I have been using the 18-200mm with the D90 for the past month or so which technically covers the ranges we are talking about. But there is something about a fast prime that takes sharp images that is so enticing.
My indoor shots have ranged from 18mm-50mm, depending on the situation with most of them coming at or below 35mm. I have been using the 50mm f/1.8 on the D90 for the last week and on a recent trip. It takes great pictures but there are sometimes you cannot back away sufficiently to frame the picture just right.