jabe750

I'm looking for a good quality macro lens for my Nikon D 7100.

Thomas902 Loc: Washington DC

Nikon AF-S DX Micro NIKKOR 85mm f/3.5G ED VR Lens is very popular for DX users...
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/656971-USA/Nikon_2190_AF_S_DX_Micro_NIKKOR.html

Obviously since their is a waiting list... lol
Since I primarly shoot FX I'm not able to give you a first hand eval on this optic but many cherish it's VR.
That said, for serious micro you'll likely want to consider third party offerings...

My choice? Have and love, cherish and shoot the following on my FX bodies.
AF 200mm f/4 ED IF micro Nikkor
AF 105mm f/2.8D micro Nikkor
Tokina 100mm f/2.8 micro

Hope this helps jabe750

jabe750

What are the non-Nikon choices without paying the Nikon prices?

Just Shoot Me Loc: Ithaca, NY

The AF-S MICRO NIKKOR 105 mm 1:2.8 G ED is tack sharp and is a great portrait lens too.

Thomas902 Loc: Washington DC

"What are the non-Nikon choices without paying the Nikon prices?"

The Tokina 100mm f/2.8 micro offers the best worth/value...
Hands down... albeit it doesn't have VR and thus requires a bit of finesse and savvy to produce stellar imagery.

Since it is not a DX optic you'll also pay a weight penalty...
Although its effective angle of view is 150mm on your D7100...
Which is too long for effective hand holding lower than 1/250... 1/1000 is a better choice for SS here.
We are talking tripod jabe750...

pay for VR... unless you are into hardcore micro with a tripod...

jabe750

Are there any choices that are VR compatible"

wjones8637 Loc: Burleson, TX

I have the Sigma 105mm F2.8 EX DG Macro OS that I use on my D7100 and am pleased with it. It still places me a bit close for some critters and my next round of GA S will likely bring something in the 150 to200 mm range.

Strodav Loc: Houston, Tx

After a lot of research, I went with the Sigma 105mm f/2.8 as well and it is performing very well for me.

rgrenaderphoto Loc: Hollywood, CA

Mostly Macro is done on a tripod, so VR isn't necessary.

martinfisherphoto Loc: Lake Placid Florida

The Tokina 100mm macro lens, around $400 and about half that used. Just so you know most all macro is done Hand Held and with a flash. For this reason no tripod needed and or VR. If you really want to learn macro visit the Macro Page here on the Hogg. There you will get the best advice from True Macro Photographers......
https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-348008-1.html A collection of Macro shots taken with the Tokina 100mm, handheld with flash

Thomas902 Loc: Washington DC

Thanks for sharing your link Martin... You are truly a master of your craft...
Totally agree that flash is an integral component of "True Macro"
Although many UHH "enthusiast" may be somewhat unlikely to embrace the complexities of same.

Moving forward I'll just refer queries on micro optics to UHH's True Macro Forum
https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/s-102-1.html
You guys can sort out the most likely potential candidates...

Thanks again Martin... All the best on your journey...
And please stay safe!

SX2002 Loc: Adelaide, South Australia

I have a Sigma 150mm macro lens...it has everything you need., All my macros are shot hand held, a tripod is way too slow for living insects.
If you are going to shoot insects, the longer the better if you don't want to scare them away...
I used it on my D7100 (which I sold) and now my D7200 & D500..

(Download)


(Download)


(Download)

keywest305 Loc: Baltimore Md.

Without a doubt get the Tokina 100 2.8 lens. It is phenomenal and a true macro. Great price new. Look at reviews on this lens. A must have even great fir portraits. You will be very happy

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

I have used the Nikon 60mm 2.8 D for years, I have also owned the 105 and 200 Nikon macro's. But I kept going back to my 60mm. You can still get MINT off ebay for a very reasonable price. You will not be disappointed. Trust me.
https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=p2380057.m570.l2632&_nkw=nikon+60mm+2.8d&_sacat=78997

However, if you must have the 105, the D version of this lens is outstanding.
https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=p2334524.m570.l1311&_nkw=nikon+105mm+2.8d&_sacat=78997&LH_TitleDesc=0&_osacat=78997&_odkw=nikon+60mm+2.8d

f8lee Loc: New Mexico

Nobody has mentioned the main difference between macro lens focal lengths, and this may impact your decision.

Longer focal length affords you a longer "working distance" - that is, to achieve the same level of magnification with a 200MM lens you can be further from the subject than with a 100 or 60MM macro lens. All three are designed for close focus and tack sharpness, but using the 100MM lens you might have to be 5" from the subject while a 200MM lens can take the same shot from almost twice as far away.

For still life images (coins or stamps, etc.) this may not make a difference. For other subject (icky insects, etc) it might. In addition, a longer working distance allows for more options when it comes to lighting - if you need to use a ring flash or whatever.

FWIW, most of the flower photos in my website (URL in my signature) were taken with the Micro-Nikkor 200MM (that Nikon refers to their macro lenses with the word "Micro" is just dumb marketing) except for a couple taken with the Fuji 80MM macro lens on a Fuji X-T3. As others have stated, that is a great lens, but before that I had a Sigma 180MM macro lens that was also excellent and allowed for that longer working distance.

Hope that helps