Assuming you want to have general purpose micro capability with some reach. You are a DX shooter with no plans of ever going FX. What would you pick and why?

How much reach are we talking here? Basically, what's your secondary purpose?

Since you're probably going to be manually focusing it anyhow, one of the older MF or AF lenses, like the 105 AF-D, will be an economically good choice for you. I still see the 200 MF micros at KEH for under $500, depending on how far away from the subject you want to be

If price is no object the ZF 100 f/2 is the way I'd go. You get 1:1 with a small tube and f/2 for ease of focusing and portrait DOF. I love love love the way that lens paints.

Edit: FYI, my current solution is a 55mm f/3.5, the rarer compensating one with the fugly OOF highlights

Pick up a Micro-Nikkor 55mm f/2.8 or 3.5 and some tubes for just over a 100 total. There ya go. Done.

OR! You could get a AFS 300 f/4 and stick your 1.7 on it AND a diopter (Canon 500D) and get some nice macro that way.

OR! That new 85mm f/3.5 VR looks pretty darn good. Although it shows you apparent aperture at close distance as being f/5 and not f/3.5 (so nice and accurate innit?). Email me and I will email you back some JPEGs I took at the Henry's photoshow. I didnt take along my TC so I don't know if it will work on that.

I dunno, lots of choice...

well the 85mm DX of course. Provided it's cheaper than the 105 VR.

Jammy Straub wrote:
If price is no object the ZF 100 f/2 is the way I'd go. You get 1:1 with a small tube and f/2 for ease of focusing and portrait DOF. I love love love the way that lens paints.

Edit: FYI, my current solution is a 55mm f/3.5, the rarer compensating one with the fugly OOF highlights


Hi Jammy,

Is this the 55mm f/3.5 you are talking about?

http://cgi.ebay.com/Nikon-Micro-Nikkor-55mm-3-5-AI-Micro-Lens-Mint_W0QQitemZ260491464275QQcmdZViewItemQQptZCamera_Lenses?hash=item3ca6804e53

Also, can AI lenses be used on a D300 without issue? What about metering?

Avi B wrote:
Pick up a Micro-Nikkor 55mm f/2.8 or 3.5 and some tubes for just over a 100 total. There ya go. Done.

OR! You could get a AFS 300 f/4 and stick your 1.7 on it AND a diopter (Canon 500D) and get some nice macro that way.

OR! That new 85mm f/3.5 VR looks pretty darn good. Although it shows you apparent aperture at close distance as being f/5 and not f/3.5 (so nice and accurate innit?). Email me and I will email you back some JPEGs I took at the Henry's photoshow. I didnt take along my TC so I don't know if it will work on that.

I dunno, lots of choice...


I'm liking a combo idea of 2 & 3 .... not that I can think at 3:45 AM .... darn kids! waiking their dad up at this time.

I'm a fan of the Sigma 150 f2.8 for close up fun and general tele use.

another vote for the Sigma 150. Amazing lens. Love it

You cannot compare a 200 to a 60 or 85. Different lenses for different uses, even if they all are macros. I don't need 1:1, more like 1:4-1:2 and I don't want to be too far away.

For silly money I'd take the 85PCE.

For medium money I'd look at the 85VR or the Tamron 60/2.

For little money I'd go for a used Tamron 90/2.8.

Gaylon Holmes wrote:
I'm a fan of the Sigma 150 f2.8 for close up fun and general tele use.


Another one for the Sigma 150 here

Andre Labonte wrote:


Also, can AI lenses be used on a D300 without issue? What about metering?

Just about all lenses built from 1959 until present can mount without problem on a D40-D5000. They won't meter nor autofocus unless AFS or AFI.

The D80 and D90 will mount AI, AIS and AI converted lenses. without issue but will need the lens to be adapted (around $35) to AI converted if pre-AI which is before 1977. AI, AIS and AI converted will not meter. Pretty much all AF will autofocus.

The D200 or better will mount all AI, AIS or AI converted without issue but pre-ai need the lens to be adapted ($25) to AI converted but the 7 Oclock position doesn't have to be gound so it's slightly cheaper. They will meter because you can input the data. Pretty much all AF will autofocus, of course.

F3AF lenses are extremely rare and will not mount on modern cameras. It was Nikon's attempt at AF early on with the F3-AF camera.

So, in answer to your question, yes, AI and AIS lenses will mount and meter on your D300. I have several pre-AI lenses converted to mount on both my D300 and D700. On is the mentioned 55 f/3.5 Micro with the tube it came with for 1:1. It's a great lens.

The one on the right

I personally LOVE the 200mm macro. I even had one of those cool 70-180 zooms for awhile, but kept reaching for that 200. I really like the working distance it provides - esp for little bugs. Just can't get close enough to them with a shorter lens (OK, sometimes can't get close enough with the 200 either, lol).

Not enough info, Andre. It really depends on what you want to use the lens for when not taking macro shots. Then, you have to consider what you want to do for macro. The different lenses can help or hinder depending on the macro subject that you primarily shoot.

For example, for shooting flowers in the field, the 70-180 micro is the best lens to get, period. You simply can't beat that zoom for ease of use when shooting flowers. OTOH, if you're wanting a long portrait lens, the 150 sigma would be a good lens. Shooting primarily bugs, you'll probably want the longest reach, which would be the 200 like Steve said.

If you're wanting a macro just to fool around with, I'd suggest looking at KEH. They've got a ton of good, cheap macro lenses, like the tamron 90. The tamron 90 and sigma 150 are both f/2.8 lenses and are probably the most popular 3rd party lenses. Of course, you already know about the older, cheap lenses that are a great alternative as well.

Gaylon Holmes wrote:
I'm a fan of the Sigma 150 f2.8 for close up fun and general tele use.



The sigma 150mm is incredibly impressive. Ridiculously sharp ooc, smooth manual focus. It's the real deal.

The only question is if you want 150mm working distance.

Of the options you listed, I voted for the new 85 macro - provided you honestly never intend on going FX. However if you wanted to put a little more money into it, the 105VR is sweet.

Having said that, I'll cast YET another vote for the Siggy 150 f2.8 EX Macro if you want more working distance and a really, REALLY versatile lens. It's sharp as a tack, produces punchy colors, has nice bokkeh, and heck, the AF performance is very good, macro or not! It really is one of few lenses I own that I would never dream of parting with... right there with the 24-70 and 300/f2.8VR.

Andre Labonte wrote:
Jammy Straub wrote:
If price is no object the ZF 100 f/2 is the way I'd go. You get 1:1 with a small tube and f/2 for ease of focusing and portrait DOF. I love love love the way that lens paints.

Edit: FYI, my current solution is a 55mm f/3.5, the rarer compensating one with the fugly OOF highlights


Hi Jammy,

Is this the 55mm f/3.5 you are talking about?

http://cgi.ebay.com/Nikon-Micro-Nikkor-55mm-3-5-AI-Micro-Lens-Mint_W0QQitemZ260491464275QQcmdZViewItemQQptZCamera_Lenses?hash=item3ca6804e53

Also, can AI lenses be used on a D300 without issue? What about metering?

Yes, that's very similar to mine. Mine is just slightly earlier with the older build style. The f/2.8 55mm's have a much smoother OOF rendering than the 3.5's. The 3.5 has 6 aperture blades while the 2.8 have 7. There is talk that the 3.5's are sharper than the 2.8's, but I don't know about that.

Wow, lots of good info here and lots of options I did not think of.

Thank you EVERYONE for your feedback, and please keep the idea coming.

Thank you Guidenet for the rundown on the AI and AIS lenses. That may be an option for a quick an dirty macro lens.

Thank you Jammy for the followup. The Zeiss is nice, but OUCH on the price.

Thank you Avi for the offer of samples from the 85VR... I will be in touch.

Kerry is right, I have not provided enough information. Two reasons for that. One, I wanted to see what other people would do in that situation and second, I did not want to bias the opinions. My macro needs are two fold.

1-- General indoor/outdoor of non-living creatures. Some table top, so not too long of a working distance, but I don't care of the 60 micro because it's too short of a working distance. I was thinking the 105VR would be perfect for this, and with the ability to use TCs, offers some working distance flexability @ 1:1. But I was shying away from this lens due to both cost and size/weight ... more for size & weight as it will likely be the least used of my lenses. The new 85VR is right up my ally for cost, weight and bulk, and would be perfect if it took TCs, but I'm thinking it does not. Right now I use my 70-200 with tubes or a Canon 500D and find it too large for general macro work. The 17-55 with tubes has too short of a working distance. So I'm totally open minded to other options.

2 -- Outdoor bugs and insects. My brother has the 200mm micro and as Steve said, it's the best dang micro out there. Big and heavy though, and expensive! I put the Sigma 150 up there too ... but again, size and weight added to the bag. On the other hand, I have seen a lot of impressive work done with the 300 f/4 AF-S and tubes and was thinking of going that route as I plan to get the 300 f/4 in the future anyway for the "long" tele needs. I figure this would be the best bang for the buck and keep the size/weight of the bag down. Right now I use my 70-200 with tubes and find I need just a little more reach, so the 300 + tubes should do just right.

Part of it is keeping my over-all bag in ballance from a weight point of view while maximizing my capability options. Here is what I am shooting for:

D300 + Grip (have)
10-24 for WA
17-55 bread & butter (have)
50 f/1.8 for DX portrait (have) -- my copy is tack sharp even wide open
70-200 general use tele (have)
300 + TCs for long tele (I have the 1.7 TC)

That a pretty good bag for an ameture who plans on staying an ameture and with DX. The one thing I am missing is micro capability. I have it with a set of Kenko tubes, Canon 250D (for the 50mm) and a Canon 500D (for the 70-200). But, I find that at the short end I need the reach of something in the 85-125mm range without the bulk of the 70-200 or even the 105VR. At the long end, who cares about bulk, I want REACH!

Given your second post, I'd say the 85 DX for the tabletop stuff, and for bugs go to the 300 f/4 with TC and/or closeup filters. The Sigma 150 is a lovely lens, but it's not particularly small or light. I don't think you'll find a single lens solution for the two situations, especially if the 105 VR is already too large for your taste. As for TCs on the 85, why not? I expect it wouldn't autofocus, but this is macro.

Anyways, we need to have someone on the forum get the 85 so we can see if that ridiculous MTF chart is for real.

Andre I've always said that as far as teles go, the 300/f4 AF-S is one of the better bargains available in Nikon mount. It's sharp wide open, which means that even though it isn't the fastest around at f4, it is USABLE at f4 unlike some other long lenses that need stopped down a little. IN fact it's very sharp wide open, and you'll find a million uses for it.

The Siggy 150 is also extremely versatile in many of the same ways, but adds crazy close focus macro abilities. For bugs and the sort, I doubt you'll find a more perfect companion since it has a little reach and gives you more working distance.

I'm with Doug though, if you really want light, grab that new 85 and tell us if the MTF results are the real deal.

105mm micro works great on my d300

One of my favorite lenses is my Nikkor 85 PC-micro, which can be had for about $1000.

I bought a Tokina 90/2.5 a few years ago for abut $100 (it's a rare lens too), and I consider that the best bargain ever. To this day that Tokina blows away everything except my very best lenses -- I was only able to replace it as my go-to choice after acquiring the PC-micro.

dougjk wrote:
As for TCs on the 85, why not? I expect it wouldn't autofocus, but this is macro.

Using a TC doesn't increase magnification, only working distance; and it degrades image quality.

dougjk wrote:
Given your second post, I'd say the 85 DX for the tabletop stuff, and for bugs go to the 300 f/4 with TC and/or closeup filters. The Sigma 150 is a lovely lens, but it's not particularly small or light. I don't think you'll find a single lens solution for the two situations, especially if the 105 VR is already too large for your taste. As for TCs on the 85, why not? I expect it wouldn't autofocus, but this is macro.

Anyways, we need to have someone on the forum get the 85 so we can see if that ridiculous MTF chart is for real.


That's what I'm thinking (85VR and 300 f/4 with Tubes) will work best for me.

The 105VR was my choice before the 85VR and that it uses tubes is a plus. As a lens by intself, it is not too large for me at all. I actually like the lens quite a bit. It's just hard to justify adding that much bulk & weight to the bag given the other five lenses I plan to have over time. Ultimately, if I don't go with the 85VR it will be the 105VR unless someone points out some good reasoning to go with a 3rd party option. The Tamron 90 is on that short list. The Sig 150 would be on the short list too if I was not planning to go with the 300 f/4 and tubes. In fact, either the 105VR or the Sig 150 is what I would go with if I could only have one lens for all micro use.

As for the MTF of the 85 and the 105, they are not as different at they seem. The chart for the 85VR is truncated sooner than the 105VR since the 85VR is a DX lens. On DX, the 105VR is just as good over the same range as the 85VR. It's only on FX that the 105VR MTF chart falls off.

Choices choices. I just hope the 85 allows the TC to mount ... that would be the "why not?".