SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

The longer the better, especially with FF, so you don't have to be right on top of what you're shooting.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Sigma 150mm EX DG OS APO HSM - longer than the 100's - for the full frame. https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-150mm-f-2.8-EX-DG-HSM-Macro-Lens-Review.aspx

If you do not need/want AF or OS, the IRIX 150mm is also quite nice. https://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/irix/150mm.htm
.

Bazbo Loc: Lisboa, Portugal

Zeiss 100mm Makro

phlash46 Loc: Westchester County, New York

Depends on what you plan to photograph. The nastier the subject the more working distance and, therefore, the longer focal length you need. I know of no bad macros, so working distance is everything.

JohnBoy5562 Loc: Alabama

I agree, I have the Nikon AF 60 mm D 2.8 and I love the lens. Uses it on both the D7100 and D850. Plus it’s great for portraits.

Robert1 Loc: Davie, FL

This.
When I bought my first Macro lens I was not really knowledgeable. I found the hard way that 1:1 is only at a specified distance. So based on what is that you want to achieve, you need to take very much into consideration the working distance, so that you can get the correct focal length lens.

NatureRocks

I concur with various inputs for a general use macro lens. I have an older Olympus macro 90mm, f2.0, which is great, but requires an adaptor for Sony A7rii. Also, however, if you want to go into the minute world of extreme macro, Olympus has some great lenses from bygone days, when coupled with bellows or tubes, produce exceptional images. Just purchased a Laowa 25mm, f2.8, which shoots from 2.5-5.0 real size, again extreme macro. But, if you want a lens that not only works as a macro and as a good general medium tele, then any of the 90-105mm lenses mentioned are great. Moving to extreme macro incurs lots of extra effort, which might not be what you want to pursue, but if you do, you'll need a good tripod, a remote trigger, some form of increased lighting (flash, light-table, etc.) and a focussing rail in order to obtain sharp images. And, even then, it is often very difficult to capture images outside of a carefully set-up indoor shooting context. (Probably more info than you wanted, but I am so excited with what the Laowa does, I couldn't help myself...)

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

What do you want to shoot?

It is completely pointless to discuss macro lenses without knowing what your subject material might be, and whether or not you will be using a tripod. They are all pretty good, but as many have noted, working distances vary.

I use a Sigma 150mm F2.8 Macro (no stabilization) and a Tamron 180mm F3.5 Macro, also unstabilized. I compared them to the Nikon counterparts and decided that the extra cost of getting the Nikkors was not a good use of my money as they offered no recognizable advantage. I am not a completeist - I don't have to own all the gear that a manufacturer offers because there is some perceived value to doing that. Tamron, Tokina, Zeiss, Sigma and others all make some very good lenses, and in some cases actually surpass Nikkor lenses.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Image quality is very high with virtually all macro lenses. It's usually the least of your concerns.

Yes, "longer is better"... but only up to a point.

I'd recommend a 90, 100 or 105mm macro lens for general use (both on full frame and on crop cameras). These focal lengths give you a minimum focus distance (MFD) of approx. 12" at full 1:1 magnification. Any shorter lens can put you too close to a lot of subjects (and some shorter focal lengths are crop-sensor-only lenses). A 50 or 60mm macro lens typically has an MFD of around 8 or 9". In contrast, longer focal lengths can give greater MFD but are considerably more difficult to hold steady, more likely to need a tripod or at least a monopod. Longer focal lengths also render super shallow depth of field at high magnification, so may require smaller apertures that make for slower shutter speeds (or higher ISOs... or a bit of both). 150, 180 and 200mm lenses at full 1:1 typically have around 16 to 18" MFD. (Note: MFD is measured from the film/sensor plane of the camera... so approx. 1.5" of the MFD distance is occupied by part of the camera body and another portion of MFD is occupied by the lens itself, as well as any attachments to the front of it such as lens hoods, filters or macro flash. All these reduce "working distance" between the lens and the subject.)

Some options in the 90, 100, 105mm range:

Lowest cost: Tokina AT-X Pro 100mm. About $350. This is a non-IF lens, so it will grow a lot longer when focused closer, reducing MFD to some extent. The Nikon version also doesn't have an in-lens focusing motor... relies upon a focus motor in the camera body (which D850 has, so no problem there). It also uses a rather unusual "focus clutch" mechanism. To shift from AF to MF you slide the focus ring slightly forward or backward. When set to AF, the focus ring is disconnected from the mechanism and does nothing. This means you cannot use manual focus override while the camera is set to AF. You have to switch it to MF first. For some macro shooters, that might be an issue.... but a lot of macro shooters prefer using manual focus anyway, so might leave the lens set to MF. It's not image stabilized and has a simple two-stage focus limiter.

Highest cost: Nikkor AF-S 105mm VR... about $850. Internal focusing (IF), doesn't increase in length when focused closer. AF-S lenses have an internal ultrasonic focusing motor that makes them usable on all Nikon cameras and is a fast form of focus drive (however, macro lenses in general are slower focusing by design... due to extremely shallow depth of field at high magnification, they tend to use "long throw" focus to emphasize precision over speed). Manual focus override is possible at all times. It has VR image stabilization (marginally helpful at high magnfications) and provides a three-stage focus limiter.

Mid-range: Sigma 105mm OS HSM.... under $500 (on sale, steeply discounted). Virtually identical to the Nikkor AF-S 105mm VR in all respects.

Mid-range: Tamron SP 90mm VC USD.... about $650. The latest version of 90mm macro from Tamron (there have been around 8 or 9 versions since the mid-1980s) is an IF lens, uses a higher performance ultrasonic focus drive, has VC image stabilization and provides a three-stage focus limiter.

Mid-range: Tamron SP 90mm.... about $500. A slightly older and less expensive version of their 90mm is not an IF lens, uses a slower micro motor focus drive, doesn't have image stabilization and has a two-stage focus limiter.

There are some others around these focal lengths, but many are manual focus only and/or have other limitations or special features that make for higher prices (such as perspective control/tilt-shift).

Personally I shoot with Canon gear. My current macro and close-up lenses include:
- Canon 45mm tilt-shift (manual focus... I've used the 90mm TS-E in the past, too)
- Tamron SP 60mm f/2 (crop sensor only... compact, dual purpose lens).
- Canon 65mm MP-E (a specialized, ultra-high magnification, manual focus lens... min. 1:1, max 5:1)
- Tamron SP 90mm (vintage, manual focus/manual aperture version... got it dirt cheap)
- Canon 100mm f/2.8 USM (my most used macro lens both on crop & full frame, non-stabilized version)
- Canon 180mm f/3.5L USM

uhaas2009

Tokina on my 810 I love it. screw screw drive focus.

therwol Loc: USA

If you want to use a macro lens to copy slides and negatives as an alternative to a scanner, then the Nikon 60mm + ES-2 adapter is the way to go. For anything else, think longer for greater working distance. Any of the other options mentioned by others should be fine.

jdedmonds

The reason you buy a macro lens is that it can focus when the lens is very close to the subject. There is a school of thought that if the macro lens is very very close to the subject problems may arise. E.g., the central axis of the lens is too far away from the center of the subject to capture the entire subject. Also you may get so close that the lens's shadow falls on the subject. Those who subscribe to this school maintain that in order to avoid all these problems you should be using a macro lens of 200mm focal length or longer, which results in the lens being farther away from the subject when focus is achieved. I bought a 24mm Sigma f1.8 many years ago and frequently experience the problems described above. I haven't yet followed the wisdom and bought a 200mm or longer macro lens because I blew my hobby budget on the Nikon AF-S 80-400 VR, which cost me closer to 3K than to 2K. Once I build up enough money, my next lens is going to be a Nikon macro.

MG Audet

Agree 100%

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

Actually, the reason you buy a macro lens is so that you have a magnification of at least 1:1 at the minimum focusing distance AND if you decide to use extension tubes, the lens is already optimized for best quality at the minimum focus distance and closer.

The working distance on my Tamron 180mm is 18.5" and the Sigma is 15" - at their MFDs, the image magnification is 1:1.

There is no school of thought that if you use a lens at it's minimum focus distance AND your subject is fairly large, like a Hibiscus flower, there will be some cropping unless you move back. That's not an opinion.

At 1:1, it doesn't matter if you are at 6" from the subject with a 60mm lens or 18.5" from the subject with a 200mm lens - the amount of crop will be exactly the same because the magnification and the field of view will be exactly the same. But at 6" with a shorter lens you will encounter some challenges for lighting and lens /camera/human shadow.

The primary (but not the only) reason to get a longer macro lens is to have that 18" or more working distance and still have 1:1 magnification.

This is not a school of thought, it comes from applied practice.

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

I used to have a bellows and a 55mm Micro Nikkor F3.5 for my F mount film cameras and used that for slide duping, avoiding the ES-2 altogether. I could actually crop a little with it.