Best Macro lens for Nikon D90

[CTJohnny]

I'm looking at purchasing a macro lens for my D90. I currently have the 18-105 kit lens and a 50mm F/1.8 that will focus at 18". I want something that I can get closer with, mostly for garden and nature. Any advise on lens selection/length?

[Nicole]

It depends on your budget, really. You won't go wrong with most macro lenses. Nikon offers a 40mm ($280), 60mm ($600), 85mm ($530), and a 105mm ($985). That said, depending on your camera you might also be happy with a third party lens like a Sigma. I had a Sigma 105 for a while and was quite happy with it, but I've since replaced it with the Nikon 105.

Personally, I think that a slightly longer macro lens is more useful if you're going to try shooting things like bugs or that you can't always get super close to. So I'd say the 85 or 105mm would be good there. But again, it totally depends on your budget.

[RLucas]

From what I understand the best bang for the buck is the Tamron 90mm if you want go 3rd party. In the research I have done, this may be the one I end up going with. I like macro, but not enough to go full bore, but it will also make a decent portrait lens as well.
Tamron SP 272E Macro lens - 90 mm - F/2.8 - Nikon F

[kirbinster]

I would stick with Nikon, unless you can't come up with the bucks -- they are typically sharper. Also in this case bigger is better as it gives you a greater working distance allowing light to fall on your subject. When you use the shorter lenses you are so close that you and the camera block too much light.

[OsmosisStudios]

Originally Posted by kirbinster

I would stick with Nikon, unless you can't come up with the bucks -- they are typically sharper. Also in this case bigger is better as it gives you a greater working distance allowing light to fall on your subject. When you use the shorter lenses you are so close that you and the camera block too much light.

I have the 40mm: to get 1:1 you have to be basically on top of your subject, and youre either using flash with modifiers (and bounce cards of some kind) or youre using a long exposure time, and it's never a sure thing. That being said: I didnt get it to do 1:1. Thats too close for me, and too finicky. I got it as a normal lens (to support/supplant my 50/1.8) but also to get closer than the 50 does.

I've realized I can do about 90% of my photos with a 35-50mm, f/2.8 lens. I found 50 to be a touch too long, and got the 40 instead of the 35/1.8 because it gave me that bit more versatility. I also got it for less than the 35/1.8 cost.