LoneRangeFinder Loc: Left field

From my experience, the 105 is the most versatile focal length. FWIW, many macro “targets”, such as dragonflies, damselflies, and butterflies are large enough that they do not require minimum working distance to fill the frame. I have many “fill the frame” shots of these three. It takes patience and observation to predict where they will land. I have a spot I return to every chance I get because I know which twigs they will light upon. In these instances, 60 too short and 200 not necessary.

I enjoy the experience over bagging a trophy....

martinfisherphoto Loc: Lake Placid Florida

True Macro Photography takes Skill, period. Buying the best lens would be the least of your worries. I could spend hrs explaining what it takes to capture quality macro photographs but unless your involved with macro photography little would make sense. We have an excellent Macro forum here on the hogg. I would suggest joining and letting them teach you the fundamentals.

Real Nikon Lover Loc: Simi Valley, CA

Thanks for posting this. I had forgotten I had a lens that looked like the photo. Sure enough, I looked in my old lens drawer and there it was wrapped. Pristine. I bought a used digital camera for my daughter and that came with it. Now you got me curious as to the M2 extension! I am going to see if I can locate one for purchase. I have a set of tubes but I would like to have the extension to make it whole. I wish all the new lenses made by Nikon were as well constructed as the 55mm, and as smooth to focus. It is a very nice lens build.

pesfls Loc: Oregon, USA

Out of curiosity I just looked on KEH. They have an M2 in "excellent" condition for $9. Jump on it.

Real Nikon Lover Loc: Simi Valley, CA

Thank you!!!!!

Real Nikon Lover Loc: Simi Valley, CA

Thank you very much. Ordered it. Funny that the shipping cost was the same as the cost of the extension! HA HA Love it when a plan comes together. Have a good weekend.

pesfls Loc: Oregon, USA

You too. Some guys have all the luck.

mas24 Loc: Southern CA

As mentioned in an earlier thread. It appears the Nikon 60mm is the one most popular today. The Ken Rockwell article, dates the 55mm lens back to the late 1950s. I would choose a Nikon 105mm micro. Or, to save money, as my friend did. Purchase a Tamron 90mm f2.8 macro. It's a very good third party lens. Tamron should have a Canon mount for it too.

GreenDruid Loc: Toronto, Canada

Try Sigma 180MM macro. It makes also FANTASTIC portrait lens.

Real Nikon Lover Loc: Simi Valley, CA

I did a little more searching on the Micro-Nikkor-P 55mm 1:3.5 and found this helpful link: http://www.destoutz.ch/lens_55mm_f3.5_600033.html

As mentioned previously, I own this lens and tonight ordered the M2 extension so I will have the complete setup as originally offered by Nikon. Here is a photo of the complete set. The link above gives some of the technical data about the lens. I am going to do some more shooting with my lens now that the extension is coming. It may not be the best micro/macro lens BUT there is no doubt it is one of the best constructed lenses ever. Cheap enough to purchase.

(Download)

alx Loc: NJ

I still have mine from the 70's. Among other more conventional shots, I used it then on a PB-4 bellows for shooting internegatives with an F2 body and a 6x finder. It was beautifully sharp, especially when focused on the film GRAIN rather than the "picture" with those internegs. Those were the days when I constantly experimented and I miss them.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Do you mean the best macro (Micro) lens made by Nikon, or the best macro lens for a Nikon? Here are some "professional" opinions on macro lenses.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/best-macro-lenses.htm
http://www.whatdigitalcamera.com/roundup/lens-roundup/best-macro-lenses-14638
http://www.techradar.com/news/photography-video-capture/cameras/best-macro-lens-1310544#article-body
https://loadedlandscapes.com/reviews-best-macro-lenses-nikon/

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Along with the question you posted, you need to provide the application - what you would want to shoot. There is no point in selecting a 60mm macro lens if you are trying to shoot active insects, or a 200mm macro if you are on a copy stand and shooting stamps or coins. Each lens has an applicationt that it excels at.

LWW Loc: Banana Republic of America

I use NIKKOR 28-105 D. Although not a true macro, it will get to 1:2 and even better with a NIKKOR close up attachment.

I also have a set of KENKO AF extension tubes, so unless you do a ton of macro ... which I don’t ... there are ways to get there without a non dedicated macro lens.

olsonsview

Completely correct Gene51 ! When a vague question is asked innocently, follow up questions should be fed back. Macro is such a broad subject. It needs to be narrowed down, though most beginners only want to shoot a flower bud now and then, or a quick insect shot I suppose? For that use any close focusing zoom or simple closeup add on lenses can be useful? Why invest in, and carry around, more equipment until one knows for sure that macro is their passion. I have a pretty complete stable of Nikon and other macro/micro equipment and would not recommend anything unless I knew what that macro beginner wanted to shoot. There were a lot of great suggestions above, but too subjective usually, and reflects the respondents personal choices, and subject preferences, rather than practical unbiased advice. And unless the shooter only stuck to larger flowers and critters, then an auto focus and VR lens really has no practical need. Macro shooters most often use manual focus, usually they preset the focus depth and move the rig fore and aft to find the perfect focus point. I have both types of lenses and often choose the manual focus lens version, way lighter, and still very sharp.