Macro Lens for D5200

I am looking to buy a macro lens for my D5200. The difficult things I want to photograph are insects, flowers and aquarium fish. I'll photograph plenty of other closeups but most will be non-moving so shouldn't require any special lense requirements. I've read reviews and have come down to three possible choices. I'm open to other suggestions as well and any links to good reading on the subject. I have about $1000 budget but can be flexible. I'm not a professional photographer and don't plan to be but I enjoy photography as a hobby and it brings my sense to the environment when I hike.


Here's what I've found so far:

Sigma 105mm f/2.8 EX DG OS HSM Macro - The cheapest lense of the group and seems like it's better than the Nikon below according to a couple of articles I've read. However, the customer reviews are slightly below on Amazon and Adorama.


Nikon micro-Nikkor 105/2.8 VR - Very comparable in quality but quite a bit more money than the Sigma above.


Preface for the next one. I bought a cheaper telephoto lens ($300) and have not been very happy with it. It may be me since it has pretty good reviews. I only want to buy a lens once and I'll make the budget work on the next one if I am convinced it's worth it. I'll be waiting a lot longer on my next telephoto if I buy this one though.


Nikon 200mm f/4 AF-D - Crazy expensive but I want to buy a macro lens only once. I can make the budget on this but I'm concerned about a few things. First is the weight. I'll be hiking with this although it'll be in a backpack for the longer trips. Also is the f/4 instead of 2.8. I'm somewhat new so I may be missing something but I've always though that the lower the f-stop the better.


Also, my kit lens has done pretty good with macro photography. A 40-60mm is not likely to be enough of an improvement and also doesn't have a far enough working distance so I want to stick with the 100mm+ range for a lens.


Thanks for any help and suggestions you can give.

As you have a DX body I would suggest the AF-S DX Micro Nikkor 85mm f/3.5G ED VR for about $US500. I would dismiss the 200 f4 Micro for DX use. Macro lens generally do not have super wide maximum apertures as you the reduced depth of field at close distances you will be shooting most of your photos of at least f11. All the wide aperture does it make it brighter when focussing manually. Let's hear what others recommend...

I would give the Tamron 90mm f2.8 a serious look. I use it on the same body and find it most satisfactory, as have others here. Examples can be found on the Macro thread.

My vote is for the 105VR. It'll autofocus on your 5200 (not that you need that for macro) and it's much lighter than the 200 AND less expensive. I have a Tokina 100 that I use on DX and FX. If I had some extra cash, I get the Nikon 105, just for VR (I do some hand-held macro).

Thanks for the replies. On further research, I agree that the 200 is not the right lens for me. I need the AF due to my eyesight and I read that the Tamron isn't as good in that area so I'll probably stick with one of the others. What I read about the 85mm Nikon was that it was a great budget lens. I want a good lens and the price difference between that and the Sigma is only about $120. It is a bigger difference between the Sigma and the Nikon 105 @ $900 but I'm familiar with Nikon lenses so that adds some comfort. The weight is a factor too though. I'm leaning towards the Sigma 105 right now but the 85 Nikon is close...still considering the 105 Nikon as well. All are within my budget so I can buy something extra as well.

I wouldn't get the 85mm, though it's a good lens, the 105mm is better! I can't say about other brands, though I've seen some awesome shots from some of them. But I'm sure the Nikon af-s 105mm f/2.8 micro lens will do the trick for ya. I use a Nikon af 105mm micro D lens, but it won't AF on your camera model. But my point was it's very sharp, and the af-s version is suppose to be a touch sharper than the one I use.

There are some awesome macro shooters here, and you can learn a ton from them. Just look at the macro threads and you'll see what I mean!

Thanks for the advice everyone. I'm on my way out for a hike with my new Nikon 105mm f/2.8. I also bought a small tripod for hiking but need to get some macro lighting as well.

Congrats on the new macro lens! I think you'll love it!

Although the choice was already done, I also enjoy the Nikon 105VR. It's great for macro but also an excellent lens for portraits.

I like it so far. The only problem is that the auto-focus doesn't work up close. My eyes aren't so good so I'm winding up with a lot of out-of-focus shots. Here's one from this morning that I like though.

If you are very close to the subject, you must go for manual focus and increase the f to get a better DOF.

Even at 10 feet with high contrast I still need to focus manually. Is that normal? As a normal lens it focuses super fast though. 40 feet or more.

One of the reasons for getting the 60mm instead of 105 is the weight and minimum focusing distance. The 60mm has the least CA and the best linearity.

Another thing is that with the DOF so shallow with macro, you have to fine tune focusing manually every time.