Picture Taker Loc: Michigan Thumb

The longer lens will let you keep back and lass apt to disturb the creature. A 180mm might even be better. I have a 100mm and wish I had the 180mm

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Because higher magnification is often needed, 40mm will be nearly impossible to use with insects. You'll be too close, scaring them away or casting a shadow. 50mm and 60mm macro lenses also are usually too short focal length for live insects.

The Micro Nikkor AF-S 85mm f/3.5 VR ($557) is a much better choice for insects. It also will be fine for flower photography, as long as you have sufficient room to step back when not using particularly high magnifications. That's rarely a problem. One drawback is that this lens is not internal focusing. It increases in length when focused to the higher magnifications, which to some extent reduces working distance between the front of the lens and the subject. And, yes, this is a DX lens. While it would be usable on one, if/when you get an FX Nikon camera, this lens would be a bit limiting. (Though it would likely be easy to upgrade to a different lens at that time.)

There are other options (all full frame/FX)...

- Tokina 100mm is NOT one of them. In the Nikon F-mount version, it doesn't have a built-in focus motor. It relies upon a focus motor in the camera body, which Nikon D3000-series and D5000-series cameras DO NOT have. Unless you had a D7000-series or higher camera or can live without autofocus (which may be fine for macro, but may make the lens less dual purpose for other uses), I'd pass on this lens.

- Micro-Nikkor AF-S 105mm f/2.8 VR is the most expensive option at $696, even when it's on sale for $200 off right now. It's also one of the oldest designs and, while there are a lot of fans. It's an update from the vintage, manual focus Nikkor 105mm that was one of the best in its day. I've used that older lens, but not this newer one, so I can't compare them personally. This article and video left me a bit concerned: https://petapixel.com/2020/04/15/macro-lens-test-canon-nikon-sony-laowa-sigma-and-tamron-compared/

- Sigma 105mm f/2.8 OS HSM at $569 is $125 less than the Nikkor 105mm, newer, has all the same features and is every bit as good as the Micro Nikkor 105mm... Maybe even better (if you believe the above article).

- Tamron SP 90mm f/2.8 VC USD is another good contender, but at $649 is only a few dollars less expensive than the Micro-Nikkor and a lot more than the Sigma. It's a good lens (though I've only used several of the earlier versions, it dates back to the 1980s). There's a less expensive version ($499) of this lens that doesn't have image stabilization (VC), uses slower micro motor to focus motor and isn't internal focusing (grows longer when zoomed closer, reducing working distance).

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/products/SLR-Camera-Lenses/ci/274/N/4288584247?sort=PRICE_HIGH_TO_LOW&filters=fct_a_focus-type_5738%3Aautofocus%2Cfct_fixed-focal-lengths_2207%3A100mm%7C105mm%7C85mm%7C90mm%2Cfct_lens-mount_3316%3Anikon%2Cfct_special-designs_3320%3Amacro

There are even longer focal length macro lenses: 150, 180, 200mm. However they are harder to hand hold steady and more likely to require a tripod. They also render shallower depth of field and need to be stopped down more, which can mean slower shutter speeds and doesn't help steadying shots. Too small apertures also can lead to diffraction effecting images. The Nikkor 200mm also is quite expensive ($1400), and doesn't have a built-in focusing motor (like the Tokina 100mm above). That leaves Tamron and Sigma options, currently only 180mm, which are relatively large and not inexpensive.

While these longer macro lenses can be useful for very shy or dangerous subjects, they also are quite a bit more expensive and difficult to work with. Macro lenses in the 85mm to 105mm range are a better compromise for most people... At least for their first and/or only macro lens. If they find the need later, they might add shorter or longer focal lengths.

srt101fan

The Tokina 100mm will not autofocus on the Nikon D5600. Not necessarily an issue in macro photography, but a drawback if you want to use the lens for other kinds of shooting.

Picture Taker Loc: Michigan Thumb

I find autofocusing in macro not the best. I use manual focusing and final adjusting with my camera on a track.

DWU2 Loc: Phoenix Arizona area

Check this one - $298 - no VC, but I'm not sure you need it - I have the Canon equivalent, and have had excellent results. https://www.amazon.com/Tamron-AF-90mm-2-8-SP/dp/B00021EE4U/ref=sr_1_5?dchild=1&keywords=tamron+90mm+f2.8+macro&qid=1606758724&sr=8-5

fetzler Loc: North West PA

The choice of focal length determines your working distance at a given magnification. Longer focal length means longer working distance.

A general rule of thumb on the choice of focal length to be used as a start is 2x the focal length of a normal lens. For an APS-C camera this would be 70mm. The Nikon 60mm and 85mm lenses would be a good choice. The working distance of the 40mm is likely to be too short for insects. This would be an excellent lens for larger flowers and copying artwork (no barrel or pincushion distortion).

I think you would find the 85mm lens to be an excellent place to start. I have this lens. Other manufactures have lenses of similar focal length as well.

Longer focal length ( > 85mm) are more difficult to use but are good for subjects that may be disturbed by the cameras presence - some insects and other small wildlife.
.
Lenses of many focal lengths can be used for macro work. There is a 15mm macro lens available for Nikon. Various wide angle lenses can be pressed into service for macro work using extension tubes. These can produce interesting results for flowers and other objects that are not too small.

You could rent a few lenses and try them out before committing to purchase.

augieg27 Loc: Central California

I have had the Nikon 105mm and the Sigma 105mm.
The Sigma is as good as the Nikon for about half the price.

MrBob Loc: lookout Mtn. NE Alabama

On my Canon the 100 2.8 Macro works well on a crop body. 100 becomes 160 as far as we are concerned with the 1.6 multiplier. Lots of working room.... Would not the Nikon 105 do just as well at 157 give or take on its crop body...?

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

A 105mm macro lens works great on a Nikon crop body. I used mine for years on a D200 and later a D300 before getting a full frame camera.

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

What was the working distance at the closest focus? I have a Nikon 60mm macro on a DX camera, and I have to take the lens hood off to focus as close as it will go.

agillot

85 would be it .

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

It was probably about three or four inches or so beyond the front element...a pretty convenient distance. That distance is dependent on the optics and does not change when moving between APS-C and full frame cameras.

I also have the 60mm micro, but use it just as a copy lens (for the flat field) or sometimes as a "normal" lens. I've been thinking about trying it as a portrait lens on my D500. It is a great lens, I just prefer a little more working distance when doing macro things, which for me usually involves inanimate objects.

SX2002 Loc: Adelaide, South Australia

I've been using my Sigma 150mm macro for several years now and it's brilliant. I had a Nikon 40mm macro but it was really a bit of a waste of time trying to get shots of living insects, I had to get too close.
Even with the 150 I have to sneak up slowly so flying insects aren't spooked but I do have a lot of success with it...

drizztguen77 Loc: Tualatin, OR

I would consider either the Nikkor 105 Micro or the Tamron 90mm Macro lens. Both are excellent lenses and give you enough distance that you don't scare away the insects.

granger

I second the Tokina. There are other 90 and 100 mm macros of high quality too. Nikon also had a great AI lens that's 105mm. I had a Nikon 60 and I sold it. It just doesn't give enough working distance for just about anything. Its hard not to block your light in some way. Autofocus is nearly useless on a macro lens in my opinion