Advise on camera lenses for Nikon DX?

I'm just getting into photography. I plan on getting a Nikon D5500 (body only). I have £400 to spend on lenses.

I want to shoot street photography, mostly in lowlight conditions. Because of that I've decided that I'm going for the Nikkor 35mm f/1.8 no mater what. They cost around £150, leaving me with £250 for another lens. I want to go for a telephoto/zoom lens for travelling or just daily usage. I'm siding towards the Nikkor 55-200mm lens or the 55-300mm. Is a 35mm and a 55-200mm a good range?

I also want to get into landscape and cityscape photography. I want to get a super wide angle lens for that but that will have to wait because of the price. Is the 35mm on a crop sensor wide enough or would something like an 18mm be better? If it isn't wide enough then should I go for an "all in one" zoom lens instead of the 55-200?

How do these lenses compare with each other in terms of image quality, chromatic aberration, etc…

Nikon 18-140 f/3.5-5.6 ED VR
Sigma 18-200 f/3.5-6.3 DC
Sigma 18-250 f/3.5-6.3 DC
Tamron 18-200 Di ii VC
Tamron 18-270 f/3.5-6.3

Keep in mind I only have roughly £250 to spend on one!

All of those lenses will yield less-than-desirable results. If you have the 35mm prime, why not get a 50mm prime for $100 and call it good?

For street photography (aka a walk-around lens), I'd take a look at the Sigma Contemporary 17-70 f/2.8-4
It is as sharp or sharper than the Sigma/Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 lenses, has stabilization, and covers an impressive zoom range.

If you need extreme telephoto, consider a dedicated zoom lens like the 70-300 (Nikon or Tamron).

Is a 35mm and a 55-200mm a good range? Depending upon what you're shooting, it could be. I personally would find it a bad lens combo. I agree with the 35mm for street work. However, for your general photos, photos at social events like parties and such, your 35mm and 55-200 kit is going to be very frustrating. You should consider the 35mm, and a standard zoom instead of the 55-200 as your first two lenses. Then once your budget recovers, get the 55-200.

Is the 35mm on a crop sensor wide enough… No. The 35mm on a Nikon DX body has the same angle of view as a 52mm lens on an FX body. This is why it's such a good street lens. Lenses at or below 18mm are wide angle on DX bodies. 18mm is the equivalent to 28mm on an FX body. My widest lens is currently the equivalent to a 28mm and I do a fair amount of landscapes. Is it wide enough? No, a 24mm would be much better, and ultra wide even more so. However, there's just not a lot of options for my camera, so I've resorted to taking multiple shots with my widest lens and then stitching them together in Photoshop. This way I can get as wide as I need while not spending thousands on a wider lens. The down side is that this method can be problematic with scene that contain moving objects. But for the most part, landscapes haven't been a problem.

How do these lenses compare with each other… To see exactly how much sharper one lens is over another, along with CA, and other attributes, go to http://photozone.de/...tozone.de/

You sound like you know exactly what you're doing. Go for it!

35mm is normal/standard for APS-C. It's a great choice as your first lens. Wide angle starts at 24mm going down.

I strongly advise you get the 18-55mm kit lens. It's almost a give-away when bought with the camera and it can save you a lot of times with the most simple shooting scenarios.

You might be able to walk the difference between 35mm and 55mm at times so consider the 70-300mm instead.