amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Since you mention FX and Nikon referring to their macro lenses as "Micro", I'm going to assume you want a lens to fit a full frame Nikon camera. Since you weren't specific, I'll also assume it's a DSLR and not a mirrorless (a lens for DSLR can be adapted for use on mirrorless, anyway).

My recommendation is the Sigma 105mm f/2.8 EX DG OS HSM.

Sigma essentially took the Micro-Nikkor 105mm design and improved upon it. The earlier Micro-Nikkor 105mm was considered by many to be the gold standard of macro lenses. But the latest VR version of it may fall a little short and the Sigma bis at least equal, maybe even better.... an is considerably less expensive. The Sigma sells for $569 vs $807 for the Nikon lens (or $699 refurbished). Before Nikon fanboyz flame me, please see: https://petapixel.com/2020/04/15/macro-lens-test-canon-nikon-sony-laowa-sigma-and-tamron-compared/ and the video it references. One thing I wondered about, was if the photographer doing that six lens comparison had the Nikon 105mm's VR turned on or off (I would have tested it both ways). In my experience, the Micro-Nikkor 105mm in the pre-VR version was better than what's shown in these examples. Comparing it to other macro lenses around the same focal length, I'd rank it "very, very good" to "excellent" and equal to or better than most other macro. I have not compared the VR version, though.

I do not agree with previous recommendations that "longer is better" with macro. Yes, for some things it can be handy to have a 180 or 200mm macro. But those lenses are also more difficult to hold steady, render shallower depth of field, and can simply be too long for some purposes. On the bright side, most 150mm, 180mm and 200mm macro come with a tripod mounting collar. Currently the Nikkor AF 200mm f/4 is the only autofocus lens in this range, and it is able to autofocus only on select Nikon cameras. It's also one of the more expensive macro lenses at almost $1800. Currently the only other long macro lens being made to fit Nikon F-mount is the IRIX 150mm f/2.8, which is affordable but also is manual focus only.

Much as longer lenses can be useful for some subjects... things that bite or sting or particularly shy critters.... They really don't give you all that much additional working distance compared to a lens in the 90/100/105mm range. With a 180/200 at full 1:1 magnification, you might have a minimum focus distance (MFD) of 18". In contrast, a 90/100/105 typically has an MFD of about 12".

But MFD is measured from the camera's film/sensor plane... so part of the distance in both cases is occupied by a portion of the camera body and the lens itself. What remains between the front of the lens and the subject is "working distance" at maximum magnification (without any hood, filter or flash mounted on the lens). In the case of the Sigma 105mm or Micro-Nikkor 105mm, it's almost exactly 6". The Micro-Nikkor 200mm's working distance at max magnification is right at 10.5".... Or only 4.5" farther from the subject than the Sigma 105mm and Micro-Nikkor 105mm.

If you shop used, you will find Tamron 180mm and Sigma 180mm macro lenses for Nikon F-mount. They've been discontinued in the last couple years and are no longer available new.

In addition to the two 105mm, there is the Laowa/Venus Optics 100mm 2X... which is manual focus only, but also gives 2:1 magnification... double that of most other macro lenses.

And there are two Tamron 90mm... a more expensive one (about $650) that's internal focusing, has faster ultrasonic focus drive and image stabilization... and a less expensive one (about $500) that doesn't have those features. These are also very good lenses, the latest in a long line of 90mm macro that Tamron has produced since the 1980s.

Which lens will serve you best really depends upon what you plan to do with it. As mentioned, a 180 or 200mm might be very nice with biting, stinging and especially shy subjects. But, good luck using it for "tabletop" macro shots in a studio! You'll need a large studio and a tall step ladder for shots from above. In those situations I often find shorter focal lengths are more useful.

I am currently shooting Canon and use their EF 100mm f/2.8 USM macro lens. To me one of the unique and important selling features was that it can optionally be fitted with a tripod mounting ring, which I use on it. Among all the 90/100/105mm lenses, the two Canon 100mm are the only ones I'm aware of that can be fitted with a tripod ring. If that weren't the case, I might have opted for the Sigma 105mm lens instead. But at the time the Sigma was considerably more expensive than the Canon lens, and the Sigma doesn't have option of fitting a tripod ring. (In fact, none of the macro 90/100/105mm in Nikon F-mount have that option, AFAIK).

That Canon 100mm is easily my most used macro lens on both full frame and APS-C cameras. I just find it the most versatile focal length.

I also have the Canon 180mm, but for me it's been a much more specialized lens. Without any image stabilization, I mostly use it on a tripod, on a monopod and/or with macro flash (which helps freeze both subject movement and camera shake).

I also have compact 60mm and 90mm Tamron macro lenses, which I tend to use on APS-C cameras. The 60mm is "crop only" and f/2, making it more useful for portraiture.... while my 90mm is a vintage, manual focus lens that's currently set up for use in my small APS-C mirrorless kit.

For tabletop close-ups in studio, I often use a Canon 45mm TS-E tilt/shift lens on either APS-C or full frame cameras. This puts me close enough to the small subjects that I can reach out to arrange them while keeping my eye to the viewfinder. That can be a real time saver when I've got 200 small products to shoot in an afternoon! I've also used the 90mm TS-E lens for this purpose, mostly on full frame, but don't currently have one in my kit. I know Nikon has similar 45mm and 85mm PC perspective control lenses. (Canon has recently revised many of their tilt shift lenses, replacing the 45mm with a similar 50mm and adding a 135mm to the line up. They also designed the 50mm, a new 90mm and the 135mm to be closer focusing, 1:2 macro lenses... I have to use an extension tube on my 45mm to get that level of magnification.)

But, in a nutshell, if I were shooting with a full frame (FX) Nikon and wanted a macro lens, the first one I'd consider is the Sigma 105mm. It's a very capable lens and a good value now (come way, way down in price in recent years), as well as a versatile focal length... long enough for many things, but not so long as to be more specialized, expensive and more difficult to use.

In fact, when I need to shoot especially shy or dangerous subjects I now often use a 300mm f/4 lens or 100-400mm zoom, both of which are not "macro", but reasonably close focusing and can easily be made even more-so by adding one or two macro extension rings.