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

One thing you will notice is that most everyone responding will promote whichever macro lens it is that they have. That is a testament to the fact that there is really no truly substandard macro lens (optically that is).

DavidPine Loc: Fredericksburg, TX

The nikon 105G f/2.8 is one of my favorite lenses. Great for macro and portrait work.

raferrelljr Loc: CHARLOTTE, NC

Tamron 180mm f2.8 , nice working distance good lens.

Mark7829 Loc: Calfornia

That is true. Macros by their very nature are sharp instruments. Most lenses max out f/22 or 32. My Nikon 105 maxes out at f/59.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Having shot 90/100mm on crop frame, On full frame, I would definitely be looking at 150/180/200mm versions.

willie_gunn Loc: Oxfordshire, UK

Not sure the converse - of people promoting macro lenses they don't have - would add a lot of value though


There are also plenty of sub-standard macro lenses around! I have some, including old MF Nikons, but I wouldn't recommend them. If the OP has a D750 then he might as well match it to a good 'un as a bad 'un.

I've used the 105mm, the 200mm, extension tubes and telephotos for macro work. All will do the job, depending on the circumstances, the subject matter and the required outcome. I wouldn't want anything less than 105mm, but then most of my macro work is flora and fauna using available light. The 200mm is great (mine is manual focus) but as I don't have to worry about animals that can kill me I'm not so worried about getting a little closer!

mikeysaling Loc: essex uk

sigma 150 macro worth a look

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

I see people recommending lenses they don't own a lot here on the forums. Many are simply repeating what they have read on reviews. As for IQ of macro lenses. Yes, in bench testing, there are differences. Can that be translated to real world shooting ? Likely not as the differences are not likely to be noticed in real world shooting. That's why I said technique trumps gear. There are more differences in build quality that differentiate various models though. I have some older MF micro Nikkors & they were "Pro" quality lenses when they were made. The newer lenses may have some improvements, but many of those improvements can be compensated for in post with the older lenses. Most of my macro involves insects (many being less than 10cm) & while they can't "kill" me, I do get my share of stings & bites. Much of my shooting is in the "documentary" style. I do shoot some "artistic" images, but that isn't the focus of my shooting (pun intended) .

jimoth001 Loc: Illinois

I second the Tokina.

wj cody Loc: springfield illinois

i would recommend you try, before purchasing, the nikkor 105 and 200mm macro lenses. both are exceptional and one of them might fit your requirements.
good luck!

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Lots of good advice. I like the 105mm range but longer ones allow more space for lighting and not disturbing small subjects as much. I would get a lens with vr for sure. Why? Because you can use it for more than macro and it really comes in handy. Also for close hand held work it works well. So don't sell yourself short and regret it later.

cjc2 Loc: Hellertown PA

Long ago, I purchased a Nikon 105/2.8 AF-D Micro and I still use it today for flowers. Just used it yesterday, in fact! I have always liked this lens. I might like the newer version or the Sigma, as noted above, but I don't do any paid work with this, just shots I do for myself and to feed my "artsy" side (which, admittedly, is rather small!).

Jackdoor Loc: Huddersfield, Yorkshire.

I have the Sigma 105mm, and like it. I gather some UK independent testers think they're good enough to use them to compare different manufacturer's bodies.

orvisk

nikon af 105 f 2.8 (the one before the currrent vr version) is the best.

cbtsam Loc: Monkton, MD

I've been using the AF Micro Nikkor 105mm 2.8 D lens since long before I dreamed of digital; it continues to impress with my D810. Its just AF, not AF-S, but it rarely matters, as AF is rarely my choice for macro, except occasionally when I'm using Live View. As others have noted, macro is generally done on a tripod, so you want to turn VR off, so why bother?

But, again as others have noted, you don't really need a macro lens. For many years, I used an 85mm Nikkor 1.8 "blow-up" lens - it was all I could afford! I attached a set of K tubes and got as close as I needed to.

A problem with the longer lenses is that depth of field, already tiny at 105mm, just gets tinier and tinier, until you start using an aperture that's to tiny it begins to undermine the sharpness you paid all that money for!

Advice: if you've got the bucks, and don't intend to photography dangerous critters, go for the latest 105mm Nikkor. If you're worried about weight, try one of the older non-VR 105's. Interested in them dangerous critters? go for something like the 200mm Nikkor. Or, if you don't have all those dollars to drop, as others have noted, go for a 3rd party lens.

Whatever you choose, you're going to have a lot of fun!