Valsmere Loc: New Jersey

The 200 mm f4 has been on my list to buy eventually

Leitz Loc: Solms

As some have said, the 200mm f/4D ED-IF AF Micro Nikkor is probably the sharpest Micro-Nikkor of all - compares favourably with the Leica APO-Macro-Elmar-R 100 f/2.8.

Jerry Green Loc: Huntsville, AL

I have the 105mm VR and the 200mm. I am not steady enough now to use the 200mm hand held so I use the 105mm VR with the Nikon TC-20E III 2x AF-S Teleconverter. The teleconverter also acts as an extension tube so you get slightly greater than 1:1.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Actually the 55mm Micro is a superb and sharp lens and only goes to 1:2. How do you explain that?
Here is a bit of information on it for those who think I am wrong or that I know nothing about this subject.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/55f35ai.htm

CatMarley Loc: North Carolina

For me, the oldie but goodie, the 105 micro. Handier than the 200 because of size and weight.

pesfls Loc: Oregon, USA

That observation is correct but there is another version not mentioned. That is the 55mm Micro-Nikkor-P, 1:3.5. I still own this lens & it works perfectly today. Focus remains smooth as glass. I purchased it new at the same time as my first F Photomic body. It focuses to 1:1 on its own and was supplied with the M2 extension for work between 1:1 and 1:2. Guess I am dating myself. Just some forgotten history.

(Download)

YelveMaster Loc: southwestern New Hampshire

You're asking about Nikon lenses, I know, but maybe you should explore some possible alternatives before buying a new one. There's a British site, Extreme Macro at http://extreme-macro.co.uk/, that can introduce you to cheaper ways to approach macro photography. Scroll down the home page to "Extreme Macro: First Steps." It suggests that beginners first try Raynox adapters ($50-$60 at b and h/adorama) and extension tubes (prices vary, but the advice is to not go cheap).

jpgto Loc: North East Tennessee

I use the Nikkor/Nikon 85mm

Real Nikon Lover Loc: Simi Valley, CA

I have the coveted Nikon 200mm, 105mm and 85mm. Surprisingly a couple of my best macro shots have come from zooms. All bugs and insect shots. For laughs I tried using my Nikon 200-500mm VR to see if it was stable enough hand held to capture bees. Digital cameras have allowed us to do amazing things. Photo stacking and HDR just adds to the capability. Here is a sample from my 200-500.

(Download)

JD750 Loc: SoCal

The one on your camera.

Signal Corps Jerry Loc: Northern, Il 0-75 Mi east of Mississippi Riv.

To All - Good morning from Signal Corps Jerry - Just a bit of Micro/Macro fuel for thought. First of all if you are a Nikon user check out a book by B. Moose Peterson "Nikon System Handbook" 6th edition copyrighted in the year 2000. This book is a true Nikon bible that catalogs all Nikon photog 35mm equipment since the introduction of the Nikon F (1959) through the F100 and F6 and the publish date. This is as complete single-source you can find. I use it all the time, having purchased two Nikon F's, a half dozen bodies concluding with two F100's and many lenses Today I am using a D600 and love it but miss the film aspect. The book is useful, especially if you have or want to buy any older film bodies, but especially lenses. There is more info in this book than you can imagine and can resolve most all questions involving the history, features, production, lens quality and also provides professional assessments about the good and bad of these products.

Now - comment regarding the Micro Nikkors, etc. I have the 55mm Micro Nikkor P just as Architect1776 mentions. Bought it new and still have it. This lens is great. I also have a later model 60mm 2.8 Micro. Technically the 55mm should be Macro but Nikon chose not to name it that. Micro apparently should be placed only on lenses that focus to 1:1 repro ratio without the use of extension tubes. This 55mm P goes only to 1:2 ratio by itself but, with the M2 extension tube provided with the lens purchase goes to 1:1 repro. This of course is non-auto but metering with auto metering bodies will work. This extension tube is not marked as to mm's but seems to be about 27mm. The Peterson book gives high accolades to the quality of this lens - best in its field when produced beginning in 1964. I think I bought mine later in production when it received added lens coating. Architect1776 may have been confused on this. I found the 60mm 1:1 2.8 to be easier to use as I had a in-home photo business for years and did a mountain of old photo copying and making BW prints (I spent three years in the army here and in Germany photographing and lab tech work). I used the 60 mm on a copy stand and it worked out great with the 1:1 focus ant copy lights.

Recently when I read George Lepps column in Outdoor Photography re: copying color slides optically for making a digital file (as opposed to scanning) I got to thinking about slide copying that I had done way back, on occasion. Now I could create, as Lepp wrote about, a large digital file (larger than on my Epson scanner) and do it much faster by setting up to copy. To make a long story short I bought a Nikon ES-1 and found a way to use it along with a PK13 extension tube (that has a tripod socket), and a LCD light box, to do the job. The ES-l when used with the PK13 provides l1:1 (and a range thereof) repro on a cardboard mounted color slide. I am still "perfecting" this process but I think I have it working well now. This is a new second life for this lens which, as Architect1776 mentioned still focuses as smooth as when I bought it. It is rather compact and 3.5 aperture. I have, much like Lepp, found that I can use it a F8 with my light box situation and do it rather fast. Immediately I can download to my Windows 10 Pictures, use the editing software that is part of Windows 10 and come up with a wonderfully simple, inexpensive, fast, and high quality file of any slide, actually improving on those that are off-exposure within reason.

So don't toss that old Micro or Macro and find uses for it. The PK13 is in place of the M2 tube that the 55mm requires to go to 1:1 repro because having the tripod socket on its bottom allows better balance of the camera body (D600) and extended lens group when on the Manfrotto clamp (with pod bolt) that I created to mount on a table edge facing the light box. Hope this helps anybody out there to double think their macro work. Have a good day - Signal Corps Jerry

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

200mm would create a VERY intimate, foreshortened portrait, even on full frame bodies. I wouldn't rule it out, but it's not the most common focal length (which is always around 2x the normal lens focal length, or 85 to 105mm on full frame/FX, or 55 to 85mm on APS-C/DX).

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

I have two 55mm Micro Nikkors. The f/3.5 is very old, from the late 1960s, I think. It is pre-AI. A friend found it on a beach in New Jersey, and gave it to me back in 1975. At that point, I sent it to EPOI (pre-Nikon USA) for a CLA. $55 and two weeks later, I had a working macro lens! It has a few fine scratches on the front element from the sand, but it stood me well for many years.

I also have a 55mm Micro Nikkor f/2.8 AI from the early 1980s. At the moment, the focusing helicoid is frozen. I don't have a use for it, or I'd get it fixed.

These days, I'm using a Lumix GH4 with a 30mm f/2.8 macro lens (60mm full frame equivalent). It does a great job copying slides and negatives. It does a fine job with close-up product photography, and even serves as a short portrait lens for couples and waist-up compositions. I don't photograph bugs or other small critters... If I did, I'd get a 60mm Olympus Macro.

gchapell

Unfortunately I also have a 55mm f2.8(bought new once upon a time) with a frozen helicoid. Purchased a used 55mmAI f3.5 in great shape for 1/3 of what Nikon wanted to service the 2.8. Go figure.

cjc2 Loc: Hellertown PA

I have an older 105/2.8D Micro, along with an even older 60/2.8 Micro. One day I might purchase a 180 or 200 version. Best of luck.