35 or 50 mm :wink: i am not an expert but pictures looks nice and sharp :wink:

35mm f1.8G as mentioned by others is a great lens for 'regular' photography and will work well with your D3200. I have one and it's super. If you're looking for a narrower field of view the 50mm as mentioned is also great, but it's a bit restrictive for all round use. People tend to dismiss them, but the 18-55mm kit lenses are pretty good too, although not quite as sharp and you'll not get that heavy background blur you can with the other two. You needn't spend more than £150 on either of those prime lens.

To add to previous poster who gave excellent description.

I had both 35mm and 50mm from Nikon and now Sony (a6000).
I've always found the 35mm to be more versatile as it can be easily used in indoor photography, but- the 'magic' you get from a 50mm is imo much better.

As a preference, I will always stick on my 50mm first, if I really can't work with the 50mm as I'm hanging off a ledge or walking out the door to take simple shots I will switch to 35mm.

I'm only an enthusiast but have been doing it for nearly 10 years.

I would suggest to get both, but it was only after a long time till I took the jump to get both.

Or, you won't go far wrong to get either :laughing:

For a first lens I'd agree with the 35mm F1.8. This has the same effect as a 50mm on a DX camera like yours. Best price for a Nikon UK copy is about £150 delivered.

http://www.camerapricebuster.co.uk/Nikon/Nikon-DX-Lenses/Nikon-AF-S-35mm-f1.8-G-DX-Lens

It would be cheaper through grey market suppliers, or ebay, but you won't get the Nikon UK guarantee.

I use a Nikon D5500, a similar weight camera. I also have the Nikon 50mm 1.4G (£350), a better portrait lens but you need more space to use it indoors (need to stand further from subject ) and it's longer and heavier to carry about.

ive got the 50 mm and its great for close up shots took some great pics with it of my child ...

I voted for 35mm for indoor photography.

You need 50mm f1.8. Loads of cheap ones either new or secondhand.
Perfect for baby/toddler portraits.
Ignore f1.4: way over the top for your needs, and shallow DOF when wide open can cause problems for the inexperienced.
35mm even with crop factor won't give as good portraits as 50mm IMHO.

I've had a lot of success with a 24-35mm f/2 on a full frame body. Allows you to get very close but still get an idea of scale.

You're on an DX body which limits your choice. Nikon do a 35mm f/1.8 DX for around £130. You'll struggle going back to cheap tele-lenses after spending time on a fast prime though.

I've got the 35mm Nikkor AF-S 1.8G, the 50mm Nikkor AF 1.8D and the 50mm Nikkor AF-S 1.8G. I go to the 50mm 1.8D first as my body will autofocus with that lens (it won't on your camera) and it gives much sharper images up-front and a nice bokeh (blurry-background effect) usually.

The 50mm 1.8G gives slightly better images than the 35mm 1.8G but the 35 is what I use indoors where space is an issue.

My order of preference is:

50mm 1.8D if you can live with manual focus and space isn't an issue
50mm 1.8G if you need autofocus and you can move further away from the subject
35mm if you need to physically be closer to your subject to get the shot

They're all cheap-ish lenses so choose whichever works for you and I'm sure you'll be happy with it.

I have a d500 and I have the 85mm 1.8g which I use to take pictures of my 8 month daughter with, it is an amazing lens. the 50mm 1.8g is also a very good lens so id recommend either of those depends what focal length you prefer.

Get 40mm f2.8 micro for closer prime shots. This is also macro lens so you can get really clos3 to insects too

'decent' ...cool
how are they for taking a picture of that bird in the tree over there? or in the darkened room?
how many shots per second can they take? etc etc
phone cameras are not really relevant as completely different

Phone cameras are indeed 'decent', but they are so limited! You need the latest iPhone Plus to even get 'simulated' control of aperture. I shoot on aperture priority most the time on my DSLR! Zoom is non-existent. I am definitely no professional, I currently have a Canon EOS 750D with (18-135mm) kit lens, and awaiting delivery of a wide angle 10-18mm lens.

Why even bother with that? Save even more money buy just carrying a pencil and drawing what you see.

Your question is sort of like asking "Why do people buy a gaming PC when you can play decent games on a tablet", or perhaps "Why do people buy BMW and Mercedes cars when you can get from A to B decently with a Skoda or Dacia". It's all relative in terms of what you define as "decent", and how much enjoyment you get from your hobby and feel is worth investing in it.

For you, as I'm guessing is someone who has never used a DSLR, a mobile phone camera might well be decent enough for your needs, and that's fine. But good luck taking a clear picture of fast moving children or sports, or a portrait indoors in low light, or capturing a beach scene without blowing out the highlights. DSLR cameras excel at being very fast to take pictures, are speedy to focus, and handle well, with external controls to adjust your exposure compensation, shooting and focus modes. And if that means nothing to you? Again that's fine, they aren't for everyone. But for those of us that enjoy the hobby of photography, rather than just wanting to take a snapshot that may or may not be in focus, mobile phone cameras can offer a very unsatisfying experience.

simple way to decide, set your kit lens to 35mm and see if you are happy with that depth, then same again at 50mm. You will soon know which you prefer! I found 50mm was a bit too tight for general portraits...