DaveyDitzer Loc: Western PA

I have only a Nikon D5300. I cannot say I will never go FF, but I doubt it, especially with the advent of the D500. I just ordered, received am about to return to Adorama, a Nikon 40mm f2.8 macro lens. Lens seems OK, but the supplied lens hood and another I ordered both fit so loosely that they fall off when just brushed against my shirt. The lens inserted into the body with a slightly "rough" feel to it. I currently have Nikons: 16-80 f2.8/4 and a 55-300 f3.5/5.6 Before stepping back into this venture, I would like advice from experienced hoggers. I am considering either the 60mm f2.8 or the AF-S VR Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED. Both are costly so I don't want to mess up again. Both offer a serious weight penalty. I expect both offer much better glass. Since I have either focal length covered already, the choice comes down to image quality and future utility. I searched UHH and found some hoggers who liked the 90 mm Tamron and some who liked the Sigma. I usually stick with Nikon so as not to run into any issues with compatibility with the electronics in the camera. But after this experience with the 40mm, I am not so strongly "married" to Nikkor lenses. In my film days I had a Nikkor 105 f2.5 which was a stellar lens. Thanks in advance for your help and advice.

BrettProbert Loc: Clinton, PA

I owned the 40mm and liked it but sold it and bought the 105 f/2.8 and I LOVE it. I've had it for over a year and it has never disappointed me. It never leaves my D5500. It's very sharp, has a decent working distance, is cheaper than the venerated 200mm micro and has been very durable. I'm not easy on my equipment and this lens is very well built. It has a deep, sturdy lens hood too. I can't sing it's praises enough. If I could only own one lens (and I own/have owned quite a few), this might be the one I choose. All of the recent closeups on my flickr page were taken w/ this combo. (https://www.flickr.com/photos/8309900@N02/)

rwilson1942 Loc: Houston, TX

As BrettProbert said, macros in the 90mm to 105mm range seem to be the most popular.
They give you reasonable working distance and are very sharp.
As far as I know all of the major manufacturers make one as well as third party lens makers.

Jim Bob

Sigma 105 macro.

rwilson1942 Loc: Houston, TX

That would be my choice as well.

Jim Bob

Exceptional lens by any standard.

Spider223

That would be about a 150mm lens equivalent for the cropped sensor. Looks like a really nice lens.

olsonsview

If you already own the 40mm macro lens and like the optical quality, then possibly try an inexpensive screw on lens hood? Why lose money on that lens? That said:the 60mm, and 105mm are both excellent lenses, made to higher standards than the 40mm. A longer lens will give you added working room and some safety when shooting aggressive critters. I believe the 40mm is OK for stationary subjects, or copy work with your C format camera. I like room to make an insect feel more comfy, so I most often use my 105 or 200 lens on either format body.

old johnnie

Nikon 105mm macro goes everywhere with me. For sharp flower or bug closeups definitely use a tripod.

DaveC Loc: Illinois

I understand that the Sigma 105 is excellent, but I have the Nikon 105 and you can't go wrong with it.

Jim Bob

Extremely sharp, excellent color and contrast.

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

I've got 9 different AF & MF macro lenses (including the Sigma 105) and my go to lens is an older MF 105 macro. Brand plays less of a factor in macro than technique. You can get great images with most any of the macro lenses on the market as long as you have the proper technique. You can even use the older manual focus lenses with your camera but there are certain limitations. As you are starting to see, everyone is touting whichever macro lens it is that they own, that simply illustrates my point that gear doesn't matter as much as technique. I started off with a Nikon D70s which is another Nikon DSLR that would not meter with my older MF lenses, but that did not stop me from getting good macro images. I suggest you visit the "True Macro" forum here on UHH for answers to your macro questions.

ELNikkor

Stick with Nikon, and 105

cthahn

Macro normally means close up, be able to get a 1/1 ratio in the camera and focusing up to 12" or less. You wont do this with a zoom lens. Macro lenses are not inexpensive.

RSQRD Loc: SW Florida

Look at the older Sigma 150mm Macro very sharp, stand off distance much better than 105mm etc & can be found used for less than $ 500