35mm or 55-200mm for a D5000???

[Almond.Butterscotch]

I have a *not* VR 55-200 that I next to never use and the 35 f/1.8.

I got the 55-200 as a gift when I got my camera, and it sits there for the longest of times. However, since getting the 35, I've changed my setup and now while the 55-200 still gets next-to-no action, I have started it carrying with me and use it occasionally. (The 35 replaced the 18-55 and the 55-200 is for when I can't move in any closer).

I say go for the 35. Best decision I've made in recent memory.

[kirbinster]

It all depends on what you shoot. I bought a 50mm when I first started as everyone said how great it was. I've used it three times ever. I use mostly long or very wide lenses and never use mid-range. A 35mm would be just as much of a waste.

[pmarkstone]

For what my opinions worth...I would get the 55-200. Coupled with your 18-55, this gives you a great range to work with. Are these the best lenses? Hardly. Are primes better? Usually (but not always). But it all depends on your level of skill and enthusiasm. My opinion is you should get the 55-200 and spend some time learning and honing your skills. Start saving for those primes and the eventual camera upgrade you're going to want (oh, and you will want!). Plus all the other accessories that go with it (strobes, etc).

[Rolling Stone]

I'd say the 35mm. But you said the 50mm was out of your budget? How about the 50mm 1.8. One of the cheapest lens with great sharpness. Doesn't AF, but it's just a little turn on the ring and with the money left over, you are well on your way to saving up for another lens.
Just a thought.

[LENAAPPLE1974]

I just went through this two months ago. I am also bound by the AF-S models, so there were little options out there. I use auto alot with the little ones, so I really wanted the AF-S model. I really wanted the nifty fifty, as I hear nothing but raves about it. But then someone mentioned the 35mm, and I started to look into that. Like you said, it's half the price. The things I love about the 35mm as opposed to my zoom lens (18-135), is like someone said earlier. The low light situations, and oh the aperture! And yes, that is the main reason I did go for the 35mm over a bigger zoom. (besides the price factor). I have however found that overall I keep running back to my 18-135 b/c of space restraints, but maybe because I am just used to using it for two years before deciding to get another lens. I think to sum it up, it will depend on the type of photography you do.

Portraits and landscapes, and kids? Zoom.
Portraits, candles (i.e. birthdays) other low light situations - 35mm.

I actually may end up getting the AF 50mm though. It is only about $135, and I can learn to hone in on my manual focusing skills and see if I like that lens, instead of shelling out almost $500.