i purchased an entry-level, cropped sensor nikon dslr a couple of years ago (the dx 3300) and have been enjoying playing with it. soon after purchasing it i also purchased a 35 mm 1.8 prime lens and that's really been my primary lens (the other that i owned was the 18-55 mm zoom that came with the camera). i'm never going to be good enough of a photographer to justify (the price of) a full-frame camera and so when i recently decided to add on to my lens collection i decided to get a 10-20 mm ultra-wide and a 55-200 mm zoom from nikon's dx/crop format series. i figured that this covered the entire focal length i'd ever have interest in (the 55-300 mm zoom costs too much more than the 55-200 mm to justify the extra reach for someone who is not going to do sports/wildlife photography).
i then decided to sell my 18-55 kit lens--this on the basis that i really don't use it very much/at all. right after i sold it i realized that nikon now makes a more advanced version of that lens (quieter auto-focus, maybe a bit sharper). i'm trying to decide whether it's worth using the money i got for the older kit lens to subsidize the price of the new version. i guess the answer to the question is in the fact that i didn't use the old one very much. but i don't know if there's value in having the 18-35 mm end of the focal length range covered as well that i'm not seeing now but might want later (actually 27-52 mm since this is a cropped sensor camera).
so what would you say:
1. kick myself for selling the old kit lens and bite the bullet and purchase the marginally better new version*?
2. save the money and just step back a few feet with the prime lens for anything that i might need the lower end of the 18-55's reach for?
*sigma makes a 17-50 mm 2.8 lens that i could see myself using a lot more than the kit lens 18-55 as it offers the 2.8 aperture across the entire zoom range. but it's both more expensive and apparently highly variable from lens to lens.