using the Nikon D700, and thinking to move to Nikon (keeping the old) D71OO ... (instead od D800 as I fear it will oblige me to change my computer).

Any experience with macro lens you have? I'm rather thinking about 100 mm or higher to keep more distance from the subject.

thanks for all feedback

Hi Piet,

The Sigma 150 2.8 is superb. Beautiful bokeh, a joy to use, and a great lens whether you're using it as a macro or as a medium tele. Highly recommended.

I am using the Nikon 105 f2,8 VR. As i took it from the shop there was a focus problem but Nikon did fix it for free. A good lens with a superb bokeh, light weight and fast.

I recommend the Zeiss ZF.2 100/2, absolutely perfect optics. But manual, heavy and rather expensive but I got mine second hand. As I tend to use manual often with macro it is a pleasure to have this with a perfect focus action. I use it on a D800E and this means that I can crop rather heavy if I do insects and don't get close enough. Here are two examples: http://stickan1.1x.com/photo/71385/21456 and http://stickan1.1x.com/photo/71384/21456

I am using the Micro Nikkor VR 105mm f/2.8 on a D700 and occasionally a D90. Overall it is a very nice lens with focus hunting when used handheld and the need for a considerable AF fine tuning on the D700 (the D90 does not have such feature). It is also a very good and sharp short tele lens.

 

For macro on FX, I would also consider 150mm (Sigma as recommded by Tim) or even the 180mm f/4 which has an excellent reputation.

 

I agree Tim, it is indeed a very nice lens and the price is right.

Alternative the Tamron 90 mm f2,8 is as excellent as any other too.

On the D7100, the Nikon 60mm Micro is a very nice option. It gives you 90mm effective focal length and you can get really close to things. I also have the Nikon 105 Micro f2.8 AiS. This is one of the finest macro lenses every made. On DX it gives you 150mm effective focal length. It has superb optics, a wonderful bokeh and a silky smooth focus ring. This lens can easily rival the Zeiss that Stig talks about but at probably a third the cost. I highly recommend it. And who needs autofocus for macro anyway. I never use it even with the 60 AF-D.

 

I second the Tamron 90mm f2.8 SP macro, a superb lens with razor sharp optics and easily on a par with any of the OE lenses and at a fraction of the cost. A true bargain of a lens IMO!!

Very interesting discussion as I have in mind to go for a good macro as well (not just yet but in the near future I hope) I looked at Photozone and here are the tests for the Sigma, Nikkor and Tamron respectively:

1. http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/304-sigma-af-150mm-f28-apo-ex-hsm-macro-dg-d-review--test-report?start=1

2. http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/224-micro-nikkor-af-s-105mm-f28g-if-ed-vr-review--test-report?start=1

3. http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/282-tamron-af-90mm-f28-di-sp-macro-test-report--review?start=1

There are also sample images and verdict for each lens.

thanks a lot guy for your experience and links. It's a joy to get such good feedback, and I 'll read to discover pro and cons for all options

It depends on the type of macro work you're aiming at. I sometimes use a lens baby with either extension tubes or macro filters. Works well for more impressionistic approaches, not so much for high definition stuff.

 

This grain of rice was done with a combination of extension tubes and macro filters (no cropping of the image)

 

http://wdv-photography.weebly.com/1/post/2013/03/feed-the-world-photopoem.html