For that price the best suggestion I can make is to look at the the 40mm Micro f/2.8 as a macro. That said, it's not an entirely practical lens. It takes very good quality photos, but the distance between the front of the lens and your subject is so ridiculous as to be impractical much of the time. I have it, but I use it as a normal prime most of the time with the added bonus that it can sometimes be used as a macro when I'm out and about without having to carry multiple lenses.
If you can save the money, I think you'd be much, much happier with the 105mm Micro. There's also nothing wrong with an older manual focus macro lens even if you can't autofocus. I find even with my 105 I usually manually focus for macro work, it's far easier to get the exact photo you want because the depth of field is so shallow in macro photos.
For a zoom lens, the cheap 55-200mm VR II takes great photos. The older versions of it are pretty good too if you can find one used for a good price, but I wouldn't spend much more than $150-200 for the older ones so unless you can find a good deal you might be better off buying the new lens.
For what it's worth, I just ended up writing a fairly long explanation of my personal opinions on DX lenses to answer somebody else's questions. You might find it of some use.