I suffer from Lens Lust - it is an expensive disorder.
It means I keep searching for the perfect lens.
It does not exist.
Here are some random thoughts about getting lenses for your camera.
FIRST - When I began buying lenses I started looking primarily at the "mm" focal length and range of the lens and then learned about the value of minimal focus distance and started factoring that into my choices. Now I realize that good glass is fast too. I'll probably not buy a lens that is slower than say an F4 (and it would have to be a great "art" lens to get my to go to an F4). I look for F2.8 or faster now. Exception might be a super long zoom to 600 which tend to be slower.
V.C. / V.R. or whatever else that anti-shaking tech is called is nice, good, but gravy. In comparing lenses one with is better than one without but should not be a deal breaker.
PRIMES: There are those who are "prime purists" who in the pursuit of perfection only shoot with primes. A big camera bag is needed if you go this route.
ALL IN ONE: There are those who love their all-in-one super-zoom the wider the range the better. Goodness there is a 50-500mm lens out there (and my lens lust is thirsting for one right now).
There are a few lemon's of lenses out there and if in reading reviews 9 out of 10 reviewers say it sucks - it probably sucks. But seldom is there such a consensus of opinion.
It all depends on what matters to you and how you shoot.
If you are a "Sir Cropalot" and use a small corner of your total image, then you are going to need a great lens - camera combo as this will press the capacity of both. That's where the "pixel peepers" skills matter when you zoom in very tight on a small section of the image. If that's not you. Then you can save a bundle an pass on the $2,000 lenses.
I'm a 'frugal photographer' and have picked up several bits of vintage glass - they are a great way to get an affordable grip on what's up with lenses. But the image quality of some of these old bit of glass are not as good as my most expensive bits of glass (good thing too - I'd be some ticked if my $1400 lens only produced the same quality as my $140 lens). Having said that, my $150 105mm Nikkor Micro images are every bit as sharp as my new $500 60mm Nikkor Micro. But my new 70-300 Tamron blows the socks off of my old 100-300 Sigma.
BTW - the absolute sharpest lens I have is one of the cheapest I bought new ($100), my 50mm. Sadly it will not AF on your 3200 or my D5100. My 35mm DX prime is pretty close in terms of super IQ, it did cost a little more ($250) but it is a super lens on my D5100. I'd suggest you get at least one prime to see if you like that.
And if you are thinking of macro - almost all my macro photography is manual focus so you do not need to worry if it won'd AF on you D3200 - you really don't need AF for macro work. Get a nice bit of old vintage micro glass and have fun on the cheap with that bit of MF glass.
I did pick up an old 200-400mm zoom to try my hand at bird hunting (I cannot recommend that lens). It was only $140 so not hurting too much. I am lusting for a bigger zoom though, something to 600mm, next time I have a grand or so burning a hole in my pocket I might get one. And yes size does matter. (It also means spending another $100-200 for a good mono-pod if you want to walk around with it).
And some lenses are just for fun - see the likes of "lens baby" for that. I have their fish-eye and it is fun. And cheap. And seldom used.
So just try out a few different lenses and types of lenses and if you get the chance - beg, borrow or buy a used one to get the hang of it.
