According to Totally Tubular  <notransistors@tubes.org>:

    How much extra cash?

    It sounds to me like a good substitute for a "normal" lens given
the 1.5 crop factor -- it is equivalent to 42mm, and a "50mm equivalent"
would be 33.33mm focal length.

    And it is nice and fast, which would make it a natural *if* you
need a lot of low-light shots with a near-normal focal length.

    I don't know what the image quality is, compared to a 50mm f1.4
on a film body.

    I tend to like longer lenses for most of my shooting.  The real
50mm f1.4 makes a nice lens for *my* point of view.  The 75mm effective
focal length works better for me than an effective 50mm focal length.

    I'm currently walking around with a somewhat heavier Nikkor
35-135mm zoom with macro built in, chosen over the lighter 28-105mm (a
*very* nice lens), and the "kit" 18-70mm.  And the 35-135 is an older
lens bought used -- but new enough to have the autofocus and chip, if
not the 'D' feature.  If I were to get the 18-200mm I would probably
love it for many things -- though I might prefer the 70-200 for quality.

BTW    If you live up to your username above "notransistors", how do
    you accept the solid-state electronics in a DSLR? :-)  (I'm
    guessing that you're talking about for audio purposes only.)

    Enjoy,
        DoN.

By definition a decent price would meant that it is worth it. :-)

This has to be one of the most over-priced lenses in Nikon's lineup.

It's supposed to be a really excellent lens.  I don't think it's worth what
you'd normally have to pay to get one, but if you can get a decent price,
go for it; you'll have a great lens, and if you don't think it's great, you
can make a substantial profit selling it on eBay.

As long as it is about $250 new...after all, it is essentially a 50mm f/1.4
equivalent on the Nikon DSLRs and remember Nikon said there was a cost
advantage to APS sensors AND the lenses for them.  (Yeah, I know this covers
24mm x 36mm, but Nikon hasn't bothered to come out with a DX version.)