[SgtDisturbed]

What's your budget? If you're on a $400-500 budget, I would go for a Nikon 18-70mm (which is an excellent lens, by FAR better than any "kit" lens. I used it on my D50 and it performed fabulously) for $200-250, and if you need some zoom, grab a 55-200mm VR. You can score one for $200-$250.

Remember that since you are using a Nikon DSLR, there is a 1.5x crop factor, so 28-200mm will show up as 42-300. This would be a great lens for a FILM camera, but on a Nikon DSLR (or any DSLR for that matter) you should get a lens that starts at 18mm, which shows up as 27mm. Remember this when looking for the lens.

Another thing I would suggest is straight-up avoiding third-party lenses. Third party lenses give you third-party quality, and the money you save in going with a Sigma vs a Nikon lens will show up in your pics as either a lack of sharpness, contrast, saturation, build quality, and durability, or even all of the above. Sure there are a select FEW third-party lenses that are worth the money, like the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 XR Di II, which is $300-$400, but when compared to the Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8 which sells for $1200 bucks, there is no comparison. You get what you pay for.

I don't know if you know the difference between a "slow" and a "fast" lens. A slow lens, like the Sigma 28-200 f3.5-5.6, doesn't let in enough light to take action shots or to reduce blurring. You will notice that on the D50 (or any other DSLR), when you increase the f stops, less light is brought in. Less light means you can't increase the shutter speed to stop action, in which case you will get some blurring and shots that aren't very crisp. You could increase the ISO to 400 or 800 so the sensor is more sensitive to light in order to increase the shutter speed to stop action when using a slow lens, but you end up with grainy pictures and a yellowed look (keep in mind I used the D50 for a year).

Having a lens that is "fast" means it lets in more light, so you can safely increase the shutter speed. A lens that starts out (or is a constant) f/2.8 lets in more light than one that starts with 3.5 or 4.5. That extra stop can mean the difference between a clean shot and a blurred shot, and you are less likely to need to increase the camera's ISO to compensate.

For indoor family shots, you pretty much require a Nikon 50mm f/1.8, which is a fantastic gem for as little as $100 bucks new.

For action shots or any zoomed shot, the Nikon 55-200mm VR is great and very inexpensive at $200-$250, depending on where you look.

For wide-angle to mid range, for a general outdoor walkaround lens (nice landscapes and a decent mid-range zoom) go for the Nikon 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5. Notice that it's not a 3.5-5.6 like the Nikon 18-55mm? That's because the 18-55mm is a kit lens and is cheap and is also a fake AF-S lens, as in you can't manually override the autofocus and the front element twists, making a polarizer filter useless. The 18-70mm is TRUE AF-S, as in the front element does not move when focusing, it has a focus distance scale, and you can manually override the autofocus by simply twisting the autofocus dial. Halfway depress the shutter release and it autofocuses again, if need be. A great lens, well worth the $200. You can find them used, but that runs the risk of getting a defective, scratched, dusty (dust inside the lens itself) or loose lens, so it is better to just buy one new.

I loved the D50 and had a lot of fun with it. I couldn't have had NEARLY as much fin with it as I did if I had stuck with the Sigma 18-55 and 55-200mm lens kit I bought with it (which was pure junk with severe lack of clarity, heavy purple fringing, and massive distortion), so buying the 18-70mm really brought out the camera's capabilities. It's a solid, great-performing lens. You won't be disappointed. Give that D50 a good "eye" and you'll have just as much fun!