bogeyeliot Loc: Signal Hill, CA

I'm probably going to embark upon the slippery slope of N.A.S. (Nikon Acquisition Syndrome) with a macro lens for my D5100. Lots of good general info from fellow HedgeHoggers, but specific considerations:
1. Nikon 105 mm micro has a very high rating from one and all, are Sigma, Tamron, etc. versions at all comparable in quality, and are they much less expensive?
2. Should I consider a Nikon 85mm DX macro? Is it far off the standard of the 105?
Any feedback will be much appreciated....
3. Any other favorites out there?

Nikonian72 Loc: Chico CA

I have terminal NAS, so I personally cannot comment on other manufacturer's lenses. But I see good results from many lenses on this forum daily.

The biggest operational difference between the Nikkor 85-mm and the Nikkor 105-mm is Working Distance. To capture 1:1 (life-size): 85-mm WD = 5-inches; 105-mm WD = 6-inches. With extension tubes, each gets shorter.

Both enjoy excellent reputations for resolution.

Review each and every thread on this Macro Forum. You will see quite a diversity of lens lengths and manufacturers.

tinusbum Loc: east texas

i have a d5100 and have been using a sigma 50mm macro.check my posts to see what it will do.i prefer my sigma 150 macro but i have to get a good flash so i can use it at a high f stop.tom

Erv Loc: Medina Ohio

If you have the budget, go with the Nikon. And if you think you will stay interested in micro. Sigma and the others make great lenses too. But the Nikon is always a step above them as far as sharpness. But you have to real look close to see it on some shots. It also makes an awesome 105 prime lens too.
Erv