which faster lens for a D200

I would get the 50 1.8, it's only $100 or so. But I don't know how useful 50mm is for you. The slow zooms aren't so useful in low light. Tamron also makes a 18-50 2.8 zoom. I think it's better to have 18mm on the wide end than 75 on the long end.

For real low light work like that, I'd actually put my money on a prime.... 50 1.4 or something similar. If you are looking to use natural light (no flash) in that kind of an environment, i'd almost say f2.8 isn't going to be a wide enough aperture for you.

Besides, a cheap prime is exactly that... cheap (ie good for the budget).

The 18-200 (which I have, and use) is not going to help you in that situation (much). Yes, the VR will help with the low light, but it won't help with moving subjects.

If I were you? The Nikon 50/1.8, at just over $100, is the absolute no-brainer. The fact that its field of view is that of a short tele on your D200 makes it a pretty good fit for stage work. It's sharp, it will autofocus on your camera, and can also be used in a close-to-macro role that you'll really enjoy. Don't get a nother cheap, slow zoom, whatever you do. Tamron makes a 17-50/2.8 you might want to consider... but the 50/1.8 should be in every bag, and I think you'll be surprised. Try using your current 18-70 at 50mm, and imagine it being way, way faster. That wide-open aperture will also do something else important: it drags more light into the view finder, which will make the D200's AF more workable in poort light.

Gee, the same answer from three people in the same sixty or so seconds. I think that means something!

you know- when i shot with my dad's old film SLR, the lens i had on it 90% of the time was the 50mm 1.8, and i completely forgot that that was an option. duh. i think i might go for that. i work in a camera store and we have both the 50mm 1.8 and the 50mm 1.4 on hand, is the 1.4 worth the extra $170 or so dollars?

I bought an older AIS 50mm f1.4 for $115 for my D200. Its manual focus but fast and cheap. If conditions are bad then the bit of extra f-stop could make a difference.

35mm/f2.0D-AF Nikkor. Perfect standard lens for the D200.

Just remember... that extra bit of speed (going from f/1.8, a hair wider to f/1.4) also means an even shallower depth of field. If you go with a manual focus lens, that can be kinda tricky.

The real issue here is focal length. Your shooting style is going to dictate things, here. Two other serious contenders: the Nikon 85/1.8 (more reach, and an excellent portrait lens), or - if you need wider take on things - the Sigma 30/1.4 HSM (which I really like).

Laura... As Matt said, the depth of field gets mighty shallow at f/1.4. I would imagine you'll find yourself at f/2 most of the time for depth of field purposes. Besides, the 1.8 lens is arguably sharper than the 1.4 when you use it for "regular" f/8-ish shooting. Save the money and get the f/1.8 version.

Regarding shooting wth your Dad's SLR with a 50mm: The 50mm on the D200 will be like a 75mm would have been on your Dad's camera. The 35mm f/2D that Dan mentioned will frame on your D200 the way the 50mm framed on your Dad's SLR. Great lens, by the way.