Be sure to get one with a 1:1 magnification ratio because some manufacturers claim to have macro lenses but they are not full life size reproduction ratios. Look at Sigma or Nikkor. Great lenses both I'm sure.

Do manufacturers typically specify on their product pages/specs if the lens has 1:1 magnification? For example, I just looked on the Nikon website and its 85mm micro lens doesn't say anything about magnification. All it says is minimum focus distance.

So how does a person tell what the macro/micro capabilities of a lens are? The 85mm micro focuses down to 8.75", my zoom is 11" and a Canon SD850 point and shoot is 0.79".

Don't go with the 85mm lens unless you have a lot of money. It's also a tilt/shift lens. Very expensive. Instead, if you want macro on the cheap, you have a few options:

1. Manual focus macro lens. If you're willing to give up metering you can get an AI or AI-S manual focus lens for much less than a new macro lens. You don't need autofocus for macro anyway, and the manual focus lenses are very, very smooth. I have the 105mm AI-S f/2.8. The 55mm is cheaper but its working distance is smaller.

2. Autofocus macro lens. A new macro lens is quite expensive. I wouldn't recommend it, because there are less expensive ways. Nikon has the 200mm, 105mm and the 60mm. Again, the 60 is the cheapest.

3. Extension tubes. They turn a regular lens into a macro lens. They can also be used with macro lenses to get REAL close. They work great with prime lenses.

4. Close up filters. Very cheap, but affects image quality a little bit. I'd rather go with something else.

5. Lens coupler ring. Reverse mounts one lens to the filter threads of another lens. Extremely cheap (think $10) but you can get vignetting and a very dark viewfinder if you're not careful.

6. Lens reversing ring. Reverses a lens on the camera body. Another very very cheap option, and doesn't have any vignetting, but you'll have a very dark viewfinder if you stop down.

Yes don't get the 85mm Nikkor. It doesn't have full 1:1 magnification. Are you looking on nikonusa.com ? That website lists under the specifications tab I think if it is full 1:1.

No worries, I wasn't going to get the 85mm. I definitely don't have a lot of money!

Just to make sure, are all 105mm f/2.8 AI-S lenses a micro lens? Are there any other 105mm lens Nikon lens that are not micro that I'd better be careful not to get confused with?

All of Nikkor's other "micro" lenses are full 1:1 magnification. That means every one except the 85mm will be true macro lenses. The 60mm is a great lens I hear. I looked at it for a while, and I've seen some great pictures come from it. Just check out Persnicketydame's stream.

www.zooomr.com/photos/persnicketydame/

I'm a bit surprised about two things.

1. that I started a similar thread about 2 months ago and completely forgot about it!

2. how expensive most of these lenses are, although it's all relative.

The Tamron AF90mm macro looks like a good deal out of the bunch, the Nikon and Sigma look to sell almost $400 used.

Go to adorama.com There are brand new Sigma 105's with good warranty's for 400 bucks

I bought my Nikkor 105mm f/2.8 AI-S from craigslist for $275.

I'd also recommend a look at Adorama's used page.

Any thoughts on this Tamron? http://tinyurl.com/2hkre5

I'm keeping my eyes open for the Nikon and Sigma, but would like to keep costs below $300.

In my opinion, it's best to stay with Nikon lenses. Usually their build quality and image quality are superior, and while they are more expensive their value doesn't depreciate much. That means you can buy an expensive Nikkor knowing that you can sell it again several years down the road at the same price, or maybe even at a higher price! Think of it as an investment. 20 year old Nikkors sell for the same price they did when they were new. You can't say the same thing about third party lenses.

I don't know about that Tamron, I played with the new 90mm and was pretty cool, the design is a lot better than that lens, but I never got to try it in a practical situation. I only shot the icons on tripods and the stickers in the store, so I didn't really get the feel or sense of anything the lens is capable of. You'd be hard pressed to find a good quality macro lens under $300. I would take the advice from Incoherent Fool, make an investment in a nicer lens and then sell it down the line if you ever need to!

I have a D50 with the Tamron 90 Macro. It is a 1:1 ratio. I purchased this lens after doing a lot of research as it is said to be the same IQ as the Nikon for for half the price (because it has no VR).

While the image quality and clarity from this lens is excellent, I find it difficult to hand hold it for macros where the depth of field is often very shallow.

However, my disappointment in my ability to control this lens for macros has been lessened by the fact that it doubles as a great low light lens with long reach (perfect for the kids indoor swimming photos) as well as a great portrait lens.

If you think you might have trouble holding still then I'd probably recommend the Nikon albeit at 2x the price. Alternatively if you want more reach on a macro lens, then I hear the Sigma 150mm is pretty good too.

My macro set is here http://www.zooomr.com/photos/marinagarrison/sets/20433/

and you can also search on the tag "tamron90" to see some of my other shots including portraits.

Macro is really fun. So I suggest getting quality lenses.

So have you decided?

I'm leaning towards a Tamron, I've read several positive reviews and Marina's experience seems okay. This week I'll try to hit a few shops and see if I can check some lenses (Sigma, Tarmon, Nikon) out and see how they feel. I'm 99% sure I'll be buying used.

I fully agree with buying better equipment especially when it retains value. Over the years I've bought and sold quite a bit of gear so I see the positivies in that. Unfortunately I just can't justify spending much money right now. I could set up a budget for the next several months to dig up the extra $$ for a Nikon, but then I'd have to wait 6 months or something.

FWIW, I had a Tamron several years ago. It was a 70-200mm small zoom and I used it on a Nikon N2020 (first or one of the first AF cameras). I bought it in 1991 just before leaving for a trip to Asia and Africa. My other lens was a 24-50mm. The Tamron was great in that it was inexpensive (21 year olds leaving on big trips don't have much $$ to spend!) and very small. The downside is that it wasn't the greatest lens optically. The build quality was okay. I'm sort of 50/50 on the 3rd party lenses but that's my only experience I've had. btw, I loved the format of the Nikon 24-50mm (remember I'm talking film SLR). I wonder if it was just me or perhaps it isn't the sharpest lens out there?

Okay, some new ideas.

First, I almost bought a Nikon 60mm micro on ebay for $240. This lens is supposed to be ueber sharp and it's a good length to use with the 1.5 crop. Maybe requires close focusing but that shouldn't be an issue for me. But then I forgot to update my bid.

An even better idea has struck me. I happen to have a Nikkor 50mm prime. It's old but the design of this lens is unchanged and it is known for excellent sharpness. Mine isn't multicoated but I wouldn't think that matters much for macro. So now I think I'll try the extension tube that Incoherent fool suggested. I think I can get tubes for $100 on ebay. Should be a good way to try macro out!

A question for everyone: how difficult is it to manually focus with a digital slr? There aren't any aids (like the split view in an FM2) to help. Come to think of it, I'm not sure I ever relied on split view anyways.

cheers