Is the TAMRON AF 18-200mm XR Di II LENS f/ NIKON DSLR A good lens for the nikon d3200?

Or should I get the nikon 18-200mm itself?

I own this lens. Mine has aberration and focus issues so I don't recommend it.

It could be just the lens I own or it could be this lens in general, I have no way of knowing.

How long do you plan on owning and using it?

I have had the Nikkor AF-S 18-200 mm VR lens for over 7 years and it still performs as it did when new.

I have Nikkor lenses that were new in 1972 and they still work flawlessly. Sure they are manual focus, but much of the time when shooting in a studio, auto-focus is not really necessary.

There's a reason why third party lenses cost a lot less than those made by the maker of the camera you use

The versatility of an 18-200mm lens can be nice. Nikon's 18-200mm is reputed to be the best, which is to say that the other brands are reputed to be not as good. Even the Nikon 18-200mm has some compromises in image quality to have that range, although on a 12 MP camera like the D90 or D5000 the deficiencies seem slight. I would expect an 18-200mm, especially a non-Nikon one, would look disappointing magnified to 24 MP.

The new Nikon 18-140mm looks like an interesting possibility. So far I have not seen an actual hands-on review.

All superzoom lenses are a compromise in optical quality. The Nikon 18-200 is less of a compromise than other brands. I have found on my Nikon 18-200 that if you use it at f/8~f/11, then it is pretty good. But when used wide open, it is not so good.

The Tamron (like the sigma) unfortunately has a maximum aperture of f/6.3 vs the Nikon's f/5.6, which means the lens may not be quite as useable at f/8 as the Nikon is.

The biggest advantage to the Tamron is it's small size, and price.

And you can find the Nikon 18-200s refurbished, which can save a few dollars:

http://robertscamera.com/refurbished/lenses/af-s-dx-nikkor-18-200mm-f-3-5-5-6g-ed-vr-ii-refurbished.html

With zoom lenses, the more you gain in versatility the more you lose on optical quality. If you can afford the Nikon version, good. If not, the Tamron should do. Good will depend on how well you know the capabilities and shortcomings of the lens and how you go about to using it.

The Tamron 18-250 and the most recent 18-270 have received better reviews than the original 18-200.
See the ratings (more than 4.5 is good, 3.7 or less is underwhelming) on the Dyxum site (Sony related but you'd buy in Nikon mount anyway)
http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/results.asp?IDLensType=3&offset=40