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

Mint Nikon 60 mm 2.8 D micro from eBay is the best you can do.

orchid944

I own the Nikon 105 lens. It is the best macro lens I have ever used. I shoot professionally for an international magazine. The lens allows you to shoot great shots without having to get in too close.

Grandpa Pete Loc: Western Finger Lakes (NY)

I have been pleased with the Nikor 85 f3.5 for the occasional macro shot and it's not that expensive. I also echo your comments about the 105 f2.5. That lens had a soul.

Screamin Scott Loc: Marshfield Wi, Baltimore Md, now Dallas Ga

To the OP, take all suggestions with a grain of salt. Look for samples of the posters images. As I said, more depends on technique than gear. Longer focal lengths allow you to have more distance between your camera & subject (that can help with subject temperament & lighting). Longest focal lengths allow for more distance but at the expense of greater weight, cost, bulk & shallower DOF. Best to know what your intended subject matter will be & how it it will be displayed as well. Yes, MTF charts will show one lens to be better than another, but remember that these tests are taken on an optical bench under rigid conditions, not like field shooting at all. Many people look for a macro lens to take "close up" & not "true macro" shots at all. Those types of shooters really don't need a macro lens as most close focusing lenses will suffice. That's why I question what your subject matter will be.

Screamin Scott Loc: Marshfield Wi, Baltimore Md, now Dallas Ga

I still have my MF 105mm F2.5 Nikkor.

DaveyDitzer Loc: Western PA

Thank you one and all. I appreciate my fellow "hoggers".

DaveyDitzer Loc: Western PA

Thank you one and all. I appreciate my fellow "hoggers".

wanderingbear Loc: San Diego

First I have the 105 mm. 2nd bought it used. Really good price. and 3rd what do you want to use the lens for. As you will probably hear It depends on what you want to shoot. Bugs bees, etc.. you need to give them some space.

The Bear

SusanFromVermont Loc: Southwest corner of Vermont

Since your other Nikon lenses go on your camera without any problem, I suspect you may have gotten a defective [or damaged] lens. The Nikon 105mm macro is worth buying.

Just to be sure, check your contacts, wipe them down in case there are some particles of dirt on them.

therwol Loc: USA

No autofocus on his camera with this lens.

dennis2146 Loc: Eastern Idaho

I started with the Nikon 105mm f2.8 macro lens and still have it. It takes great photos. I also use it as a portrait lens from time to time and it does well in that use as well. From belonging to the macro section here on UHH I know others use other brands of macro lenses as well and they all seem to give great results. I recommend the 105 or higher for the working distance over the 60mm macro lens.

Dennis

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

For general purpose macro shooting, a 40mm lens is awfully short... puts you right on top of your subjects. Even 60mm is just marginal... but might be chosen for it's more compact size when used on a crop sensor/DX camera such as yours. The shorter macro focal lengths are usually used in-studio and with inanimate subjects.

I generally recommend 90mm to 105mm macro lenses, as a versatile focal length for most peoples' uses. That's a good compromise of adequate working distance versus difficulty using the lens. Nikon makes an 85mm DX macro too, I know, which is certainly "in the ballpark".

Short focal length (35mm to 50mm) typically give less than 6 inches or less when at full 1:1 magnification. 55 and 60mm are only a wee bit better. Keep in mind that this is measured from the film/sensor plane, so a lot of that distance is occupied by the camera body and lens itself... plus any accessory you might attach to the front of the lens such as a hood, flash, filters.

Lenses in the 90 to 105mm range give around 12" working distance (also from film/sensor plane) at full 1:1 magnification. The Nikkor 85mm is a wee bit less, about 10 or 11" minimum distance, at full magnification.

150mm, 180mm and 200mm macro lenses give around 18" working distance, but the longer focal length and smaller apertures required to get adequate depth of field make it more difficult to get a steady shot... so these lenses are more likely to call for a tripod, i.e. are lens "hand holdable".

Shopping around for them, there are quite a few 85mm to 105mm lenses to choose among. All of them actually have fine image quality. That's the least of your concerns.

Nikon themselves offer 85mm f/3.5 and 105mm f/2.8.
Sigma offers a 105mm f/2.8 OS HSM which is quite comparable to the Nikon.
Tamron offers two different 90mm f/2.8 macro. Both are excellent and able to do full 1:1. The more exensive one has faster USD autofocus,

If you want a more compact lens, Tamron makes a 60mm DX lens that's very nice and has an f/2.0 max aperture, a full stop faster than most macro.
Nikon makes two different 60mm themselves, both f/2.8. One is a D-type, so won't autofocus on your camera. The other is a G, which will AF on any current/recent Nikon camera, including yours. There's also a manual focus-only 55mm Nikkor, but it's a 1:2 lens, only reached half life size on it's own.

There's a Tokina 100mm f/2.8that's one of the least expensive... but in the Nikon version it's a "D" type lens, that won't be able to autofocus.

If you're only planning to use the lens for macro, manual focus might be fine. It's often easier than trying to autofocus macro shots. But if you want dual purpose, to also use the lens for non-macro purposes, AF might be more important to you. Just be aware that autofocus macro lenses tend to be slower than non-macro... even when fitted with higher performance types of focus drive (Nikon AF-S, Sigma HSM, Tamron USD). A macro lens needs to move it's focusing elements a long, long way to go all the way from infinity to 1:1. And, a macro lens' focusing is typically a "long throw" design that emphasizes precision over speed, because ultra shallow depth of field at high magnification isn't very forgiving of even minor focus errors.

If manual focus is acceptable for your purposes, there are literally millions of vintage macro lens in Nikon F-mount, a lot of which are excellent and might be worth consideration. A concern would be whether or not the vintage lens will be able to meter properly and make correct exposures on your camera. Do some research, if you consider a vintage lens.

Some macro lenses have image stabilization (Nikon VR, Sigma OS, Tamron VC)... This might be useful for non-macro purposes, but it actually can do little to help at the highest magnifications.

Some other features to look for on macro lenses include "IF" or "internal focusing".... this type lens doesn't change length when focused closer. Some macro lenses double in length by the time they reach their max magnification, and that reduces working distance. "IF" lenses may be a little less compact to start with than other types, but they don't grow any larger when focused closer.

Many autofocus macro lenses also have some sort of Focus Limiter. The user can set this to restrict the lens to only AF within a certain range, helping the lens focus faster.

None of the lenses I'm aware of for Nikon in the 60mm to 105mm range can be fitted with a tripod mounting ring. Some are small enough that one is pretty much unnecessary, but it can be a nice accessory for some of the larger ones, if possible. AFAIK, for Nikon only longer 150mm, 180mm and 200mm can be fitted with a tripod ring... and normally come with one. (Not relevant here, but Canon has two 100mm that can optionally be fitted with tripod rings, which is a handy accessory. The ultra high magnification MP-E 65mm also is fitted with a tripod ring.)

Screamin Scott Loc: Marshfield Wi, Baltimore Md, now Dallas Ga

The short lived 55 mm F2.8 AF Micro Nikkor did go to life size...The 60mm lens replaced it...

tkphelps

I have the Nikor 105mm f2.8. It focusses to about 1 foot by the focus scale, but that is really only about 8 inches from the front of the lens. On my D7200 the sensor covers 7/8 inch. For much less money you can get similar performance including greater depth of focus using extension tubes and your normal lens, but the working distance gets down to about 2 inches. I use Prost Macro Extension tubes which comes as a set of three, and it will let you work with what you have. They even work with the 105 macro to get about 1/2 inch on the sensor. If you are willing to give up auto functions, try a bellows, with or without a reversing ring.

fetzler Loc: North West PA

The answer to your question depends a bit on what you want to do. The 85mm or 105mm Nikkor's would be a good general choice. They will provide enough distance between lens and subject for many types subjects. The 40 and 60mm Nikkor are quite good for copy work and some subjects. At high mag you will be very close to the subject. The 200mm Nikkor and similar lenses provide greater lens to subject distances. This is good for insects that might be scared away. The 200mm lens is much harder to use the the shorter lenses. Interestingly, wide angle macro produces very interesting photos but your subjects are very close to the lens.