I have used second shooters any number of times, have worked as a 2nd for other photographers at times myself, and I have to say.... It really depends.

What's paid varies widely depending upon the type of shoot, the 2nd shooter's experience and skill, and very possibly a lot of other factors.

If I'm shooting an event "on spec", I don't pay any flat fee or hourly wage. I do pass along profits, less a small, per sale "hosting" fee. It works out to about 25% to me, 75% of profits to them.

If it were a wedding instead, for example, I'd pay either a flat amount or an hourly wage. That really depends upon what I'm getting paid for the job and the 2nd shooter's responsibilities and level of experience. It might work out to $10 an hour at least, and might go as high as $20 an hour and possibly more. I would not put it in hourly terms, though... Instead we'd arrive at a set total based upon those so I can treat them as sub-contractors and not have to get into withholding and other complexities that are necessary if I were to hire them as an employee. If the total amount is enough, I still may have to file some tax forms.

I don't ask 2nd shooters to surrender their copyright. I don't want or need it. But I do ask them to license their images to me for resale purposes and with some other limitations... usually for 3 to 5 years with a job shot on spec, or on a more perpetual basis for a shoot like a wedding. This gives me all the usage I need, but still allows them relatively free use the images for other purposes... including portfolio, but also stock sales or other commercial usage if they wish. I always have a model/property release signed by the subjects, which is worded so as to extend to my 2nd shooters as well. My liability insurances also are geared to cover anyone working on my behalf, too.

I always sign an agreement in advance with 2nd shooters, spelling out the license they're giving me, with details of what's expected, how they'll be compensated and with a non-compete clause that essentially says they can't back-door me by selling to the clients directly.

EDIT: Someone else made the point, and I agree, that depending upon the job I might look for more or less experience and skill in a 2nd shooter. A wedding job, for example, is pretty demanding and unforgiving, so I'd want someone who I can trust to do the work, who has some experience and adequate gear. For an event being shot on spec I am more open to working with less experienced people who are "learning on the job". And, for that matter, there might be some work at wedding that can be entrusted to an assistant... not necessarily shooting anything... or maybe only shooting less critical stuff such as candids at a reception.

I have a d3200 also, you just need to stay with the newer lenses. There is no focus motor in your camera body. I use some of my older lenses on this body but you have to manually focus(horrors). You can find a 35mm 1.8 DX lens for about $100.00 or less. The 85mm and 100mm will set up back a little. You probably have a 18-55 or 55-200 kit lens which are good lenses. The 35mm or the 50mm lenses will blow you away. There are reasons the primes are used for portraits.
Good luck, I actually use my D3200 more than my D300 because of the weight difference.

Hi Just Dawn, to summarize from the discussion above; you have two issues to deal with. 1- Room size, in an average 10x12 room it's hard to get more than their heads with anything longer than a 55mm. unless you don't mind images showing only eyes, nose and some teeth. 2- Compression, pros like longer lenses because they compress facial features which makes faces look more attractive. This effect is usually more important with adult faces than with kids. But you need at least 20+ feet to work with an 85mm.

My advice is to start with the 55-200 and see if that gives you the composition you want and if it's too tight then go with the 18-55. I suspect that in the given space you'll end up favoring the shorter one.