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

I would strongly suggest the Nikon Nikkor 60 mm f 2.8 D AF lens, I just saw one on ebay near mint for around $250.00. I own this lens and it is older but sooooooooooooooo sharp, I would never consider selling it. In fact, it is regarded as one of the sharpest lenses out their.

Jackdoor Loc: Huddersfield, Yorkshire.

This side of the water it's half the price, 95% as good as Nikon's 105mm. A no-brainer.

FiddleMaker Loc: Merrimac, MA

touseefimam, I also have a D7000 and a Nikkor AF-S Micro 40mm prime (DX). Bought it new for $275 (I think) back in 2012. It does a real nice job for a lower-priced lens. Jerry41 has the 105mm which is a lot more $$. If you want, I can send you a couple of photos (close-ups of flowers) that I have taken with this lens. ~FiddleMaker

mas24 Loc: Southern CA

A less expensive option would be the Tamron 90mm 2.8 Macro. Sharp.

Brucej67 Loc: Cary, NC

I use the Sigma 180mm with a mono-pod and it works quite well. I use Nikon R1C1 with a step up ring for lighting and normally use f16 or higher to capture DOF and never shoot at a shutter speed below 1/200.

Nukepr Loc: Citrus County, FL

Along with others, I have and enjoy using the Nikon 105mm 2.8 macro. It is an excellent lens. However, I have a friend who uses a Tokina 100mm 2.8 lens and gets great results. I have and use three other Tokina lenses, and if I did not already own the Nikon I would probably buy the Tokina, since it is a well made lens with good optics and it sells for about half the price of the Nikon version (Tokina $389 after rebate and Nikon $799 at B&H). Read reviews on the lenses and make your judgment, but I can say from experience that Tokina makes very solid lenses with excellent optics. And yes, you absolutely need a sturdy tripod.

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

Macro is not the same as closeup. But are related. For macro photography the best lenses are those that are optimized for working at or near the minimum focusing distance, and have a long "ramp" (more than 360 degrees to turn the lens from infinity to minimum focus distance) on the focus ring for precise focusing. Most of the true macros have this, and luckily most of them also provide really good image quality. You can go with Nikon of course, but lenses from Sigma, Tamron and other mfgrs.

With a cropped sensor camera, you will have the benefit of greater working distances. So a 90mm lens will give you the same field of view as a 135mm lens on a full frame camera, but your minimum working distance won't be affected. This means for the same field of view, you can be further away than if you put the same lens on a full frame. Typical focal lengths for macro for field use (not in studio and copy work) are 90mm to 180mm. I use a 150mm and a 180mm with a full frame body. But I did use these with a D300S with great results, and they will work fine with your D7000.

There are all sorts of lighting solutions, tripods, Wimberley makes "Plamps" to gently hold plant stems to keep them steady in the wind, a tripod is a great idea if you are really close, and a decent (not the $40 cheap stuff coming from China that you can buy on eBay), set of macro focusing rails to precisely compose your images. They also help when you start doing focus stacking - a pretty standard technique for really close macros that require greater depth of field than a lens can typically provide.

I tend to like directional light on natural subjects, which makes ringlights out of the question. Directional light provides contrast and shadows, which help define texture and depth.

You "can" use extension tubes, but your results with a standard, non-macro-optimized lens using tubes may not be good enough. Extension tubes do work very well with true macro lenses, however. So if you buy them as an entry level to macro, your money won't be wasted.

gvarner Loc: Central Oregon Coast

I have a Tokina 100mm 2.8 Macro for my D7000, works great and relatively cheap. I do mostly handheld in available light. Biggest issues are narrow DoF and focusing when in real close. But then, I'm not real finicky.

RSQRD Loc: SW Florida

IF you can find it a older Sigma 150mm f-2.8 Macro w/o stabilization ~ $ 500 used is a very sharp lens & allows a greater stand off distance.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

I hope you will not get confused but for macro photography nothing excels a macro lens and Nikon has several of them. A classic one is the 105mm f2.8 Micro Nikkor. They manufacture one with VR which is expensive.
Yes, a good tripod is a must for macro photography. Your other lenses should do fine for landscape photography. Tamron has an excellent 90mm f2.8 that I would buy only if cheaper than the Nikon. Tokina also has a good macro lens, I believe the 100mm f2.8.
Any of those two other lenses you have can do a decent job at "macro" photography used at the tele end of their focal lengths.

Bob Boner

I have owned both the 105 and the 200 Nikon macros. I highly recommend the 200. It is the best macro lens I have ever used. The longer focal makes it much easier to photograph insects because you are not so close you scare them off.

FiddleMaker Loc: Merrimac, MA

I believe that the 200 is the one that Ken Rockwell uses for most of his product photos.

mcveed Loc: Kelowna, British Columbia (between trips)

You can talk to the experts here: http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/s-102-1.html

par4fore Loc: Bay Shore N.Y.

Buy the 85mm for DX.

Jim Bob

That's exactly why most posters will ignore it.