Zoom lens to compliment 18-55mm for d3200?

Hi, I've recently purchased a Nikon D3200 with the kit 18-55 lens and I'm looking for a zoom lens on a bit of a budget (since I'm only 16). I've found a couple of 70-300 lenses by Tamron and Sigma:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/...000HDZAUA/
http://www.amazon.co.uk/...0012X61U2/
I've been doing some research and the lens apparently needs a built in motor, as the d3200 doesn't have one on board. Also it would be preferred if the lens had stabilisation as I don't often use a tripod.
Any suggestions are appreciated however I'm on a budget of about £150.

Just an opinion but I think a valid one. Don't complement, replace.

It's very common for folks to add a 55-200 to your set up and that's a fine combination. But then when they go to change lenses on a shoot, they open up the camera to sensor dust. Then they're complaining because they have to pay for a cleaning when they could have prevented it by buying
an 18-200.

I change lenses all of the time and I don't ever see sensor dust. Makes you wonder how we ever survived in the film days where you had to open the camera up ever 24 or 36 shots!

You don't have a lot of money for another lens, but the cheapest and best one is the 55-200mm from Nikon since it has image stabilization and it is much better built than that discount glass. You can pay for a lot of cleanings between buying that and an 18-200mm… At which time it would probably be time to replace the camera anyways.

I'm with "lowlevel" contributor. I too think a 50-200mm lens is ideal. That's the set up I have. The 18-55mm that came with the camera and a 50-200mm. I have changed lenses many times. But I point the camera lens toward the ground to remove and replace the lens. Whether this helps or not I don't know, but it seems logical and I have had my camera going on two years and other than the mirror shaking option I have had no problems with sensor dust. CARE is the watch word with cameras, especially digital.

Getting the cheapo version of 70-300mm is that much money wasted instead of being saved for a good lens. The 24 glorious megapixels of the D3200 will nicely magnify every deficiency. The least expensive adequate telephoto to add would be the Nikon 55-200mm AF-S VR. The Nikon 55-300mm AF-S VR is more expensive and not bad. The even more expensive GOOD Nikon 70-300mm AF-S VR is even better. With a limited money supply, the 55-200mm seems like a best choice. Especially since to really get good results at 24 MP you need a decent tripod. Probably the least expensive tripod that is adequate is this one
http://www.amazon.co.uk/...000Y070GS/
That assumes very little wind and using the 55-200mm. For more front heavy lenses (like the 55-300mm or the even heavier 70-300mm) you want a heftier tripod with a better head. It could be more cost effective to invest in that to begin with, which means you want a tripod budget of at least £100.

I have a Nikon 18-200m AF-S VR, and it's not bad with my 12 MP D90. 24 MP would probably magnify its limitations. The non-Nikon 18-200mm's are reputed to be not as good. A 16-85mm AF-S VR and 55-300mm AF-S VR can give me more range and a little better sharpness. Sometimes lens changes are more cumbersome than others. For my recent Canada trip I brought the 18-200mm, which made this 200mm shot a lot easier when the temperature was about minus 30 degrees Celsius.