ABJanes Loc: Jersey Boy now Virginia

Sigma comes highly regarded

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

They are ALL good quality ! VR/OS may or may not be a big consideration depending on your subject matter (static/live) and technique. The current Canon/Nikon 105's and a few others are internal focus and so do not extend - which I really like. Some of the older macros only go to 1:2. The older Tokina 100 IF macro is one of these - still, a GREAT lens.
Some of the newer third party macros are wider angle ( mostly for "artistic" effects on static subjects) and may go to 2:1 natively.

There are LOTS of previous UHH posts on this question - check them out.
.

Warhorse Loc: SE Michigan

Just throwing in my $.02 worth, I have made the choice to stick with Nikon glass only for my D5600.

JRiepe Loc: Southern Illinois

I will use a tripod on stationary subjects but using one on live insects will result in more missed shots than captured shots. For these kind of shots a monopod works better. Also since I shoot with a small aperture opening for greater DOF I use a ring light mounted on the lens. Shooting at 1/200 sec. shutter speed will compensate for hand as well as subject movement. I used to use a macro flash bracket with two speedlights but that is heavy and less maneuverable in tight areas. The lenses suggested by other members are good ones to consider. I shoot with a 180mm Tamron lens but it has been discontinued.

photoman43

If you are willing to accept manual focus only, Check out the Irix 150mm f2.8 macro lens. It comes with a tripod collar mount, something I find very useful for my macro work. I do not own it as I use the more expensive 200mm f4 Nikon lens. If I were buying again, I would likely get the Irix.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1442869-REG/irix_150mm_f_2_8_macro_1_1.html/?ap=y&ap=y&smp=y&smp=y&lsft=BI%3A514&gclid=Cj0KCQiA962BBhCzARIsAIpWEL1ZZACEcr4LVxg7Ff3k2U713IwrsFbWYlIqYp2PzzseoRzzDpWnJC0aAu7eEALw_wcB

Mark Sturtevant Loc: Grand Blanc, MI

I have never heard of a "bad" or even "mediocre" macro/micro lens. There may be no such thing. What you are looking for is cost, working distance, # of aperture blades, and weight, and condition if it is used.

saxman71 Loc: Wenatchee

A quick review I posted about a year ago on the Sigma 105MM, f/2.8 DG OS macro lens. It's a lens worth your consideration and the price is very competitive.

https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-640268-3.html

Dossile

I have the D version of the 60 and the 105 2.8. I favor the 105. It is absolutely pristine in its sharpness and also makes a very nice portrait lens. I like having a little distance when photographing insects in the wild.

AGO

There have been many good suggestions here. Much depends on what you want to shoot and how close you can get to your subject. I do anything from flowers to insects and for that purpose have found the Sigma 18-250mm macro zoom to be quite versatile. I've gotten some nice close ups of bees from a distance, so I don't risk getting stung.

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

Those zooms that claim “macro” will get you fairly close but the they’re not true macro. It depends on your needs, but that lens will get you to about 1:2.9. A good dedicated macro lens will get. You to 1:1.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Probably the best general purpose macro lens for Nikon F-mount is the Sigma 105mm f.2.8 DG OS HSM. https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/806375-REG/Sigma_258306_105mm_f_2_8_EX_DG.html At $569 the Sigma 105mm isn't the cheapest, but it also isn't the most expensive.

Compare to the Nikkor AF-S 105mm f/2.8 VR, which is now a rather old design among the current crop of macro lenses. The Sigma is equal or better in all respects, yet it's several hundred dollars cheaper. https://petapixel.com/2020/04/15/macro-lens-test-canon-nikon-sony-laowa-sigma-and-tamron-compared/ The Nikkor 105mm has a cult-like reputation, but may be starting to show its age and is by far the most expensive on this list at $897.

The Nikkor AF-S 85mm f/3.5 DX VR at $557 is priced similar to the Sigma and for use on a D7100 it at first appears to be pretty much a toss up. However, the Nikkor 85mm is a DX "crop only" lens, while all the other lenses listed here are full frame (FX) capable. With a max aperture of f/2.8 Sigma is 2/3 stop faster and a bit longer focal length, but these things also make it a bit bigger and heavier. The Nikkor 85mm also lacks a Focus Limiter, while the other lenses here have that feature and the Sigma's is one of the more advanced.

The Tamron SP 90mm f/2.8 Di VC USD (latest model AFF017N) may be the sharpest lens in this group by a small margin, at $649 is more than two hundred dollars less expensive than the Nikkor 105mm, but more expensive than the Sigma 105mm or the Nikkor 85mm. (Note: If shopping used, there have been earlier, less capable models of this lens. In fact, this is the latest in a long line of versions starting approx. the early 1980s. Many older versions do not have as fast AF, don't have image stabilization and aren't internal focusing.)

The Tokina ATX-i 100mm f/2.8 is the newest model listed here. But appears to be just a cosmetic update to the AT-X version that preceded it by more than 15 years. All the optical specifications of the new and preceding versions are identical: number of elements and groups, close focusing distance, number of aperture blades, etc. Exactly the same. This isn't a bad thing though, because both these versions deliver quite nice images. At $449 this is the least expensive of the lenses listed here. However, it also is the only lens on this list that doesn't have image stabilization, isn't internal focusing (except for earlier versions of the Tamron mentioned above) and in the Nikon version does not have a built=in focus motor. The D7100 has a focus drive motor in the camera body itself, so the Tokina is able to autofocus fine on it. However, don't expect this to be as responsive as the above lenses with built-in ultrasonic (silent wave) auto focus motors. The fact that this lens lacks that built-in motor also might affect later resale value, since it will be a manual focus only lens on many Nikon cameras (all D3000 and D5000 series models, for example).

Speaking of auto focus, you should expect all macro lenses to be somewhat slower focusing than comparable non-macro lenses. This is by design. At macro magnifications, depth of field is extremely shallow and very precise focusing is required. As a result, macro lenses use a "long throw" focus mechanism that emphasizes precision over speed. Macro lenses are sometimes used dual purpose for portraiture without problems, but they typically don't acquire focus fast enough or track well enough to serve in fast action shooting such as sports.

To help a bit with focus speed, many macro lenses have a "Focus Limiter" that the user can set to restrict the lens' focus range. Of the lenses above, the Sigma and Tamron have the best Focus Limiters. They use a smart 3-range design: macro only, non-macro only or full range. The Tokina and Nikkor 105mm use simpler 2-range limiters: full range and non-macro. The Nikkor 85mm Micro lens doesn't have a Focus Limiter.

Now, many experienced macro shooters often prefer to use manual focus, anyway. As a result, considerations about auto focus-related features and AF performance in general may be more relevant if planning to use the lens for non-macro purposes. On the other hand, some macro techniques, such as in-camera controlled focus stacking, rely upon the auto focus mechanism. Those techniques are only done with stationary subjects though, so focus speed may not be critical (plus there are other focus stacking techniques that rely upon an external focusing rail rather than the camera's AF system).

As mentioned, all the lenses on this list except for the Tokina 100mm are "Internal Focusing". What this means is that they don't "grow longer" when focused closer. All focusing is done inside the lens and they remain the same size. The Tokina, on the other hand, grows quite a bit longer when focused closer. This reduces "working distance" between the front of the lens and the subject to some extent. At full 1:1 magnification, the front of the Tokina lens will be about 4" from the subject. The other lenses on the above list are internal focusing and will give about 5" to 5.5" working distance at their maximum 1:1 magnification. All these dimensions assume no lens hood, filter or other accessory is installed on the lens.

Typically internal focusing (IF) lenses tend to start out a little larger than non-IF lenses. Set to infinity (i.e., the opposite end of the focal length range from 1:1 magnification), the Tokina shortens to about 3.75". In comparison, the other lenses are about 1" longer, except for the 85mm which is the same size as the Tokina, even though it's IF (this is because DX lenses, lenses with shorter focal length and lenses with smaller max apertures can be smaller).

Also, all the above lenses except for the Tokina (and older versions of some of the other lenses) have in-lens, optical image stabilization. Nikon calls it "VR", while Sigma's is "OS" and Tamron's is "VC". Be aware that this is of limited help on any macro lens at high magnifications. Around 1:1 you shouldn't expect a great deal of assistance from it... Maybe a stop or less. In other words, if you needing to use 1/125 to get a sharp shot without stabilization, you might be able to get a sharp shot at 1/60 with it. As a result, whether or not a macro lens has image stabilization may be more of a consideration if planning to use it for non-macro purposes too, where the stabilization will be more effective... claims are 3 to 4 stops, which might mean that 1/15 is hand holdable (everyone differs in the shutter speeds they can hold steady with high success rate, so this can only be an estimate... i.e., "your mileage may vary").

All the above lenses... and macro lenses in general, for that matter... are quite capable of making very good images. Yes, I know I stated some differences in image quality above and you'll find the same in reviews online and tests such as DXO does. However, they really aren't all that far apart in terms of image quality. That's probably the last thing you need to worry about. The more significant differences between the lenses are their other features and price.

Finally, above I talked about "working distance" (mostly when comparing the Tokina non-IF lens with the others, which are IF). You won't find "working distance" listed in lens specifications. Instead you'll find "Minimum Focus Distance" or "MFD". This is measured from the focal plane of the camera (the sensor or film plane), so part of the distance is occupied by some of the camera body and the lens itself. To arrive at the working distances I mention above, I subtracted both those figures from the MFD. It's been traditional and makes some sense to measure MFD from focal plane of the camera and doesn't make much difference with non-macro lenses, but actual working distance can be a very important factor with macro close-ups. You'll find that shorter macro lenses (such as 35mm and 50mm) end up with very little working distance, even though the lenses themselves are more compact. And, conversely, longer macro lenses (150mm, 180mm, 200mm) give more working distance, despite the lenses themselves being considerably larger.

I recommend most people will find a macro lens in the middle range of focal lengths.... 85mm, 90mm, 100mm, 105mm... the best general purpose fit. Both on full frame and on APS-C cameras, I think for most folks this is a comfortable compromise of size, price, working distance and ease of use. For example, longer focal lengths often include a tripod mounting ring... because they need it! They're harder to hold steady due to the longer focal length. And, to compound the problem, they also render even shallower depth of field, so might need to be stopped down more and that in turn can mean slower shutter speeds, which makes getting a steady shot more difficult.

I hope this helps! Have fun shopping.

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

You really can’t go wrong with any of major 3rd party players, along with Nikon. They all make excellent macro lenses. I have a Tamron 90mm f/2.8 and it’s great. I’ve seen just as good results from Sigma, Tokina and of course Nikon. I personally like something at least 85mm to increase the working distance.

OlinBost Loc: Marietta, Ga.

I am a novice user but have had good success with just using extension tubes. Quicker focus especially in low light.

BobHartung Loc: Bettendorf, IA

The 200mm F/4 is a great lens. I have one and use it on my Z-7 with FTZ adapter.
Nice size and weight.

motorman Loc: greenville nc

Tamron sp90 g1 or g2 good lense and budget friendly