I agree completely the 35mm is equivalent to ~52mm on full frame, which would be very close to a "standard" lens. Plus, the 50mm you guys are talking about will not autofocus on low end dx bodies. Not that I mind MF sometimes, but not always.
Vocko, I love the convention shot. Did you take that with the d200 and 18-200?
I was looking for a shot of my fiance's dad's lab, but I guess I didn't upload it. So I'll play in the 50mm discussion. Heres a 50mm pano. One exposure is misfocused... my bad.
It's a book fair and yes it was shot with that equipment. One thing I must notice is that the lens misses focus more than I would like, but half of that I attribute to my getting used to the new "toys" and them not being used for more than a year.
Since you guys touched the topic of the 50mm lenses... I found a Nikon Nikkor AF 50mm f/1.8D for 100euro (few months old, new is ~120euro) and though about buying it, but then this discussion rocked my boat (head) and I'm not sure if I should wait and save for a Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 35mm f/1.8G which is twice the price (220e, new ) of the 50mm.
for the price, having a 50mm 1.8 is well worth it. The length isn't bad at all, and having something with that low of an Fstop for that price is golden. I picked up my Canon Mk I for like $120 (Mk I is a WAY better lens).. and it is easily my favorite lens (granted my other 2 are the kit and a crappy sigma tele). I doubt the Nikon market is any different than Canon, so you should easily be able to sell it for what you bought it for if you'd prefer the 35mm, but I say get both.
Naa, I can't remember for the life of me what led to that. I think he was kinda wrestlin' with the dog and it just kind of set up the shot. Just happened to turn out that way. lol Can't really knock it, though... I mean, composition is sound. lol It's just odd subject matter.