Lexmarks are only worth the cost of ink. They produce about the worst quality and the ink fades faster than any other I know of.
HP's are great if you want to print on normal (not inkjet) paper. I went from HP to Epson and notice the difference with "normal" or cheap papers. HP's did shift to smaller cartridges (their cartidges didn't last til the ink was gone anyway) and they're about the slowest printers you can get. HP is a good choice for someone that wants to save on paper, doesn't mind the slow speed, and likes the idea of the inkjets being on the cartidge (safer to refill as contaminants will only dammage the cartridge and not the fixed heads in the Epson printers.
The printer I have now is the Epson Stylus 960. It's capable of printing on inkjet printable cd's, however the coating on these cd's/ dvd's almost looks like a paper label. There is also some setting up involved in printing on cd's. This printer cost $313 shipped as opposed to a normal 8x10 capable photo printer you should be able to get for around $100.
I wouldn't pay more for a lexmark than what the ink that comes with it is worth. With the high price of ink, you want the best quality printout and least fading you can get. It's rarely the printer you're paying for... it's the ink nowadays.
Lately you'll see the trend is toward Canon which unfortuneatly I have no experience with, but I've read in many places that they're currently the best bang for the buck. Would have gone canon myself, but wanted a printer that could print on cd/dvd.