mas24 Loc: Southern CA

Macro lenses are offered in most third party Brands, and of course the recognized Brands such as Sony, Nikon, and Canon. The recognized Brands will cost you more money, and are excellent macro lenses. What you want is a true macro lens with a magnification of 1:1. You can get those magnifications in third party lenses such as Tamron, Sigma, and Tokina. A friend owns a Tamron 90mm f2.8 macro lens, and it is a quality lens. The Tokina 100mm f2.8 has previously been mentioned on this forum, as a very good affordable macro lens. Good luck.

Bob Boner

The Nikon 200mm macro is one of the best I have ever used.

Ricker Loc: Salt Lake City, Utah

Zeiss's macro lens is number 1.
Nikon's macro lens is number 2.
Other non-OEM macro lenses are in lower quality category.
Best regards, Ricker

SusanFromVermont Loc: Southwest corner of Vermont

mas24 and Ricker gave you some good information. I will add some generalized comments that may help you to decide which way to go.

First, a true macro lens is never a zoom, it will be a prime lens. These lenses are manufactured specifically for taking macro images with decreased possibility of distortion.

Second, the focal length you use should be based on the type of macro photography you prefer to do. Shorter focal lengths are good for inanimate objects. For subjects that move, you need a longer focal length [in general, over 100mm] that allows you to focus on them without being so close as to spook them. Butterflies and bees fly away! I have used my macro lens for multiple types of subjects, including hummingbirds and lizards, as well as flowers and bugs!

Third, while third-party manufacturers make fine lenses, a Nikon lens is the ideal partner for your Nikon camera. More pricey, but excellent quality.

MilanA

Ditto on the extension tubes... they are a nice addition to the camera bag and allow you to play around with a lot of different set ups for not a lot of $$$ and then if you find you need or want more step into macro lenses.

I picked up a set of Vello extension tubes for Nikon (12mm, 20mm & 36mm) on Amazon a few months ago for $79. And they are decent and work as advertised, but If i had to do it over I would have spent the extra $50 and purchased the Kenko set instead. The reason for this is because the inside of the Kenko Tubes are lined with Camera Black or at least a black anti-reflective coating where the Vello tubes use a very fine adhesive backed velour fabric to line the barrels which with age etc. could be a issue if it starts to deteriorate.

chasgroh Loc: Buena Park, CA

...yes. I own the Nikon 105 and it's stellar, and also a fine portrait lens!

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

On an APS-C/DX camera such as yours, I recommend a macro lens in the 60mm to 105mm range. This is long enough to give you plenty of working distance from a lot of subjects, without being so long that it's difficult to get a steady shot.

There are lots to choose among, all of which can make excellent images... The differences between them are more down to other features, IQ isn't' much of a concern.

Tamron SP 60mm f/2... $524... 1:1 capable and quite compact with a stop or more larger max aperture than most, plus is an internal focusing lens (IF). This means it serves dual purpose as a macro and portrait lens better than most and that it doesn't grow longer when focused closer, which some macro lenses do, reducing working distance with really close subjects. It has rather slow micro motor focus that makes it poor for any sort of action shooting, but just fine for macro and portrait work. It's a crop only (DX) design, which is fine on your DX camera. It also is able to autofocus on your D5300.

Micro Nikkor AF 60mm f/2.8D... $517... A compact, larger aperture FX lens (fine on a DX cameras), but an AF "D" lens such as this will not autofocus on a D5300. 1:1 capable, but not IF.

Venus Laowa 60mm f/2.8 2X... $399... a relatively new lens that's manual focus, manual aperture only... able to do 2:1 or twice life-size, or double the magnification of most macro lenses.

Micro Nikkor AF-S 85mm f/3.5G VR DX... $527... don't know a lot about it, but note the slower f/3.5 aperture. It is compact, IF and 1:1 capable... It has image stabilization and will autofocus on D5300.

Tamron SP 90mm f/2.8... $489... is an older FX design that's still great, but not IF and uses a slower micro motor focus drive, though it will focus on D5300 and offers full 1:1 magnification.

Tamron SP 90mm f/2.8 VC USD... $649... a relatively new FX model that improves on the previous with image stabilization added and faster ultrasonic focus drive, as well as a 3-range focus limiter that can be used to improve focus performance. It's also an IF design, 1:1 capable and will focus fine on D5300.

Tokina AT-X 100mm f/2.8 D FX... $369 (after current $30 rebate)... One of the most affordable, 1:1 capable. But it's a D-type lens that won't autofocus on a D5300. It also is not IF.

Zeiss Milvus 100mm f/2 ZF... $1843. The only other f/2 macro lens (besides the Tamron 60mm above). Manual focus only. Extremely high quality, weather sealed design.

Rokinon/Samyang 100mm f/2.8... $549... another manual focus only, manual aperture only design. IF and full 1:1 capable. Has a focus confirmation./AE chip. This helps with manual focus and allows use of aperture priority auto exposure (but not shutter priority or program AE).

Micro Nikkor 105mm f/2.8... $799... old style manual focus, manual aperture lens, but can be used on D5300.

Micro Nikkor AF-S 105mm f/2.8G VR IF-ED... $897... A much updated version of the above with autofocus and image stabilization. IF and 1:1 capable, it has a 2-stage focus limiter.

Sigma 105mm f/2.8 DG OS HSM... $569 (after $400 discount)... A fairly close copy of the above Nikkor with stabilization and high performance auto focus. IF, 1:1 capable, 3-stage focus limiter.

Notice that a lot of the above are manual focus, or are not able to autofocus on your camera. That might be okay. Often macro shooting is more easily done with manual focus, anyway. However, for other, non-macro purposes you may prefer a lens with autofocus. All macro lenses tend to be a bit slower auto focusing, simply because they need to move their focusing elements a long, long way to go al the way from infinity to full 1:1 magnification. Also, many of them use a "long throw" focus design which emphasizes accuracy over speed, because at higher magnifications depth of field becomes very shallow and focus precision can be important. This can be partially off set with focus limiters and higher performance focus drive motors (such as Nikon Silent Wave, Tamron USD or Sigma HSM). But, even with those, don't expect to use a macro lens for fast action shooting.

The 60mm lenses are compact, but will put you relatively close to subjects. That can be a problem with camera shy critters or shadows cast over any subject. The 85mm to 105mm lenses give you a bit more working distance and may be more "general purpose". But you'll have to decide for yourself.

There are also other, lower cost ways to "do macro"... or at least close-up photography. You might be able to use a lens you already have, by putting "macro extension rings" between it and the camera or by fitting a "close-up diopter" to the front of the lens. In general these aren't as convenient and don't give as good image quality as the true, macro lenses mentioned above.

Have fun shopping!

rattlesnakeron

I am a macro photographer and I use three. 50mm, 900 and a 135mm. The 90mm is the most used of the three.

rattlesnakeron

I am a macro photographer and I use three. 50mm, 900 and a 135mm. The 90mm is the most used of the three.

BHC Loc: Strawberry Valley, JF, USA

Worth at least ten "our Father's" and twenty "hail Mary's".

HarryBinNC Loc: Blue Ridge Mtns, No.Carolina, USA

For real world clarity's sake, putting a 1:1 macro on a crop sensor will produce a magnification factor equal to the crop ratio, just like any other lens. For a couple of examples, I have attached images from my FF Nikon and my 2x "crop" Lumix GX7 - the 2 images were taken one right after the other with the Lens focus ring at the closest stop (about 3" from the ruler. As y'all can plainly see, the 2x crop GX7 results in 2x as large an image when compared to the FF. So, yes, the 60mm is a 2:1 macro lens when used on a 2x crop camera. If I was into shooting bugs and butterflys, I would be using a 200mm macro on a Micro Four Thirds camera. Of course, the OP has a 1.5 crop APS Nikon, so it is in between the two cameras as for the macro factor - it will be 1.5:1 with any FF macro lens. No extension tubes required either way.

BTW, Wikipedia has an excellent article on Macro/micro photography. I strongly recommend it for anyone who is interested in learning all the ins and outs of the subject, particularly regarding the hardware involved and how it all goes together.

HarryB

PAR4DCR Loc: A Sunny Place

Don't do a lot of macro but when I do I shoot with the Nikkor Macro 105mm.

Don

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

You are getting some erroneous info here. Most any true macro will give you good results as long as you use proper techniques. I own 9 macro lenses from 55 to 180mm. Some are AF, many are manual focus. Bear in mind that while sites like DxO Mark give different ratings to different brands, they are all bench tests and that is nothing like real world shooting. You have one of Nikons basic models & as such you need lenses with a built in focus motor in order to obtain auto focus with the camera. That said, true macro shooting is normally done with manual focus. If you read the literature that comes with macro lenses, they say that the closer you get to life size, the less effective AF & VR become. My shooting is entirely in manual even though all of my cameras will meter with even MF lenses. There are other ways to shoot macro & whether or not they are right for you depends on how involved you become with macro. The advice to stick with 90-105mm focal lengths is the best compromise. Yes, most zooms that claim to be "macro" are not. There are only a few true macro zooms ever made and they are all discontinued & even if found on the used market, are still extremely expensive. I suggest you look to the "True Macro" section for macro advice. Many different lenses & setups are used & all give great results. I could go on, but it could take up several pages. I'd suggest getting a copy of an older book John Sahaw's "Closeups in Nature". It was put out in the film era, but the basic principles never change.

The rees

Try the Tokina 100mm 2.8 Reviews say as good as the canon 100mm some say better than the Nikon 105. Much less expensive than both

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

To the OP. As you can see, the recommendations are across the board. Everyone is recommending whichever macro lens it is they have. That attests to the claim I made about any of them delivering. Best to look at focal length and your budget as being the main determining factors.