photofreak8573 Loc: surprise, arizona (when not in motor home)

i never had a macro before and am ready!
can you tell me the best and why?
thanks....

willie_gunn Loc: Oxfordshire, UK

These were shot with my D750 and the old (AF but non-VR) Nikon 105mm micro: http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-390501-1.html

I have used the lens extensively and find it ideal - not too heavy, tack sharp, long enough focal distance to mean you don't crowd the subject matter. Anything less than 100mm and you end up with a very short (read often impractical) working distance from the subject.

I also have the Nikon 200mm micro which allows you to take similar images but from a greater distance, so causing less disturbance to the subject (important if it's living and you don't want to spook it).

Given that a lot of macro work tends to be done from a tripod or other support, VR is not so crucial. The toad photos were hand-held, but from a very steady position.

JD750 Loc: SoCal

Nope. I cannot. Because I have no idea of what subjects you want to photograph or your style and preferences.

I can tell you that in my search, I rented Macro lenses, of different Focal Lengths and types, and tried them out on weekends
for many weeks.

In the 105mm focal length range, the Nikor f2.8 Micro Lens was exceptional, it had the best optical qualities, it weighed the most
and it cost the most. LOL.

What is best for you all depends on your budget and what you want to shoot. I suggest you visit the Macro section of this forum
and look around there. View some of their pics. See what you like. Talk to those people who exhibit what you like. Don't rush into
this. Take your time.

Nikonian72 Loc: Chico CA

Several UHH photographers have asked similar on the True Macro-Photography Forum at http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/s-102-1.html
I have owned or used several different macro lenses, and can say that most macro-photographers prefer a macro lens in the 90-mm to 105-mm range. I currently own a Nikkor 105G, but if I had to replace it, I would seriously consider a Sigma 105.
Read more here:
Third-Party Macro Lenses Compared
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-213504-1.html

OnDSnap Loc: NE New Jersey

What Nikonian72 says...I use the Nikon 105G, f/2.8

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

I got a used 100mm Nikon Micro. There are several versions of that lens, so make sure you get the one you want. Excellent lens.

http://www.dpreview.com/products/compare/lenses
http://lenshero.com/lens-comparison
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx
http://www.lenstip.com/lenses.html
http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare
http://www.lenscore.org/

jdm Loc: Cape Cod

I shoot the 105 2.8 on my 750 and it is one of my favorite lenses. Tack sharp.

Bob Boner

I recommend a longer macro if you plan to photograph insects. It gives you more working room for lighting and so you don't spook them from being too close. The Nikkor 200mm is one of the best I have used. The Sigma 150mm also has an excellent reputation, but I have not used it.

f8lee Loc: New Mexico

Actually, @photofreak, there are a few things to consider, and while the kudos for the 105MM focal length are well deserved (in many of its forms) you should understand some things:

1) focal length - the longer the focal length of the macro lens, the more "working distance" 9as it's called) you will have. This means that to get a 1:1 representation on the imaging chip you might need to be 5-6" away from the subject with a 105MM, and 13-14" away using a 200MM macro (and the Nikkor 200MM is arguably the best of them all optically). That few inches of difference can mean a lot if the subject is something you can't approach too closely (a skittish bug) and it enables you to be more flexible when it comes to illumination. Understand that DOF is very shallow when you work at macro distances, so small apertures are normally required, which in turn means more lighting, and if the lens throws a shadow on the subject that's not good. Most of the macro shots on my website were done using the 200.

2) alternatives - if you're ready to invest substantial moneys in a new lens (and who among us isn't?) then you can see the relative costs of various lenses. I have the Nikkor 105VR and 200 (and use the latter almost exclusively nowadays) but have had the Sigma 180MM and can tell you it was excellent (as I am certain their newer models are). But if you want to just "dip your toe" into the macro pool, you could try using what are called close-up lenses, which look like clear filters but have a curvature to them that allow you to come much closer to your subject without any loss of light (unlike extension tubes, which are another approach to using your current lenses for close up work).

But do go check out the macro section of UHH; many of the folks there have a lot of insights and knowledge.

ronichas Loc: Long Island

I have both the sigma 105 f2.8 macro and the lensbaby sweet 50 with macro adapters. Both with the nikon d750.
Love both. First image is with the 105, second with the lensbaby.

Al Beatty Loc: Boise, Idaho

Hi
I don't want to discount the Nikon 105mm macro but for the dollars involved the Tokina 100mm is very good. Take care & ...

phlash46 Loc: Westchester County, New York

Depends...what are you planning to shoot? Scary little creatures or just flowers, etc. The nastier the subject the longer the focal length you need because it increases the working distance. If non-nasties (not snakes, spiders, scorpions, wasps, etc.) then anything in the 90-105 range is fine and the Nikon 105 f/2.8 is an excellent lens; however, Sigma and Tamron also make excellent macro's in about that range. If you need much longer, the Sigma 150 and 180 are fabulous but quite heavy and not cheap.

rdgreenwood Loc: Kennett Square, Pennsylvania

Yep, if you read Ken Rickwell, that's what he says. In his review of the Nikon 105, Rockwell says you should save your money and buy the Tokina. I did that and am very happy with my Tokina.

Screamin Scott Loc: Marshfield Wi, Baltimore Md, now Dallas Ga

There really isn't a "true" macro lens out there that doesn't deliver.Technique tops gear brand. I shoot with a Nikon D300 & D7100. I own 9 true macro lenses from 55 to 180mm. Some are AF, most are MF. Some are Nikon, other Tamron, Sigma & other 3rd party. My "go to" is an older MF Lester Dine 105mm F2.8. It's considered a "Cult" lens & is very sharp.My cameras (as well as yours) will meter with older MF lenses in manual & aperture modes. I seldom use a tripod but do utilize additional lighting, which allows me to stop down the lens for more DOF (DOF is insanely shallow shooting macro as it is) and the short duration of the flash stops motion (be it yours or your subjects. The literature included with new macro lenses will state that the closer you get to life size images, the less effective both AF & VR become. So, unless you intend to shoot a lot of "less than macro " images with the lens, those features are not needed. I have many lenses & any "less than macro" images I take are done with other lenses, leaving my macro lenses for shooting macro images. I also shoot entirely in manual modes & use a ring light with variable power settings. I sometimes use a speed light equipped with a soft box when the subject is in a place where the soft box isn't going to startle the subject. My signature line will take you to my Flickr stream should you want to see examples. Buying used will save you money & , as others have said, 90-105mm lenses are the most practical. Longer lens will get you more working distance but the longer length means bigger, bulkier & more expensive.

Mark7829 Loc: Calfornia

One advantage with the Nikon 105G is that you can put a TC on it and you can use extension tubes with it. Extension tubes do not work with the Nikon 40 mm macro. You are already very close with the 40 mm. I am not sure about others. I love the macro. When it is cloudy and overcast. You can shoot macro or even in you own backyard like the attachment.