"Best" is of course a massively loaded word, so I'll try to explain what I am after before I am done, but first a bit of motivation.
I find myself shooting a lot of flowers. They are easy to find at almost any time in California, at least, they are pretty, and I don't have to go far to shoot them, as opposed to say landscapes. So, I have the Nikon 105mm f/2.8 VR, which I like a lot (except for some funny teal coloring right at sharp dark/light edges). I have a 21mm lens with a really short MFD (minimum focal distance) which is also good for some flower settings. However, I have been finding a number of times when both of those are too extreme. I have the 50mm f/1.8D, but it's MFD is just too long for what I want.
So, I was thinking about a macro lens in the 35-60mm range to split the 21 to 105mm jump. I am open to suggestions as to the exact focal length, but ~50mm seems good.
I would be perfectly happy with a manual focusing lens. It doesn't have to be fast, though I wouldn't mind if it was. And I would like it to be as far under $500 as I can get it. If I had the money, I would just buy the Zeiss 50MP (50mm f/2), but I don't. If it was light, that would be good, as this could be a good walking around lens.
I remember a similar question coming up once, long ago--probably on a different forum--and a Nikon lens that was 50mm or 55mm and f/3.5. Apparently manual focus, but also light. I think it had a "P" in the model number, but ... that's all very fuzzy at the moment.
And I want really good image quality.
So, to summarize, "best" means Nikon mount, cheap, light, macro lens with good image quality. Manual focus is fine. Old is fine. "Alt" would be fine too.
Another vote for the AI-S 55mm 2.8. Can't be beat in bang for the buck. Just watch out for 1) oily aperture blades; and 2) excessively stiff focussing action.
I just now checked the website referenced, but I am sorry to say that the examples posted there are just meh! There are some good pointers on technique, but I was not impressed. The two books that I liked on flower photography are by Tony Sweet and one by Sue Bishop. They really provide inspirational images and also pointers on how to improve technique.
I have never owned a full-frame camera, but I keep hoping... Maybe with the D800, prices on the D700 will drop... So, I tend toward FX lenses when I can afford them, so that makes me lean away from the 40mm. And the 60mm is on the upper edge of my price range... Maybe used?
That said the AI-S 55mm is intriguing. And under $100 sounds good.
If you don't mind manual focus, the Tamron SP 90mm f/2.5 is very, very sharp. You can get a Nikon adapter and be good to go for around $150.
Tokina also made a 90mm macro about 20 years ago that was supposed to be very good.
And I'm sure you can't go wrong with any of the Nikon manual focus macro lenses. I think macro lenses are pretty easy to make "good", as most manufacturers make macros that people swear by.
I've got the 55mm f/3.5 AI Nikkor P....it doesn't SAY AI-S, but the little metal tab on the aperture ring is the same as an AI-S, not the reg AI....but the two lenses work exactly the same...
here's a couple shots from this lens...i think it's amazing...i picked up a pk-13 extension tube for it, to get 1:1, but i rarely use it, b/c 1:1 is pretty big....i'm pretty impressed with the lens overall...
oh yeah, and i think i paid like $60 for mine from KEH...wicked deal...
Are there any particular opinions about the f/3.5 vs f/2.8? The f/2.8 seems to be quite a bit more expensive and a hair heavier.
Does the f/3.5 go to infinity? It seems it was optimized for much closer.
Also, the f/2.8 seems to be a 1:2 macro. f/3.5 seems to be either 1:1 or 1:2 depending on which variant you get?
I am leaning toward the f/3.5, but it would be nice to have a good infinity focus so that I can take shots of the environment (landscape) as well as the macro ability. For this application though I would give up infinity. Reluctantly.
I have a 55mm f3.5; it does focus to infinity. It a 37-year-old lens with a factory AI conversion, and still delivers great images from near-macro to landscapes.
Are there any particular opinions about the f/3.5 vs f/2.8? The f/2.8 seems to be quite a bit more expensive and a hair heavier.
Does the f/3.5 go to infinity? It seems it was optimized for much closer.
Also, the f/2.8 seems to be a 1:2 macro. f/3.5 seems to be either 1:1 or 1:2 depending on which variant you get?
I am leaning toward the f/3.5, but it would be nice to have a good infinity focus so that I can take shots of the environment (landscape) as well as the macro ability. For this application though I would give up infinity. Reluctantly.
No they are both 1:2 max reproduction ratio. You need PK13 to get to 1:1. The 2.8 has oil-on-aperture blades problem, so watch out for that (though mine is good so far - touch wood).
I also have the 60mm 2.8G and love it. Out of my lenses that also include a 70-200mm VR and 24-120mm f4 VR II it's the sharpest of them all bar none. I love the ergonomics on it too with that humongous focus ring. My only complaint is the 62mm filter size but who cares about that really.
So, I have the Nikon 105mm f/2.8 VR, which I like a lot (except for some funny teal coloring right at sharp dark/light edges). I have a 21mm lens with a really short MFD (minimum focal distance) which is also good for some flower settings. However, I have been finding a number of times when both of those are too extreme. I have the 50mm f/1.8D, but it's MFD is just too long for what I want.