I need a macro!

[bob_himmelright]

<p>sigma 70mm?</p>

[darin_schaffer]

<p>joanne, <br>

Hear is a idea, trade/sell the D80 and get a D200, you still should have enough to get a 105mm ai. With the D200 you now have a camera that will meter with all the ai/s lenses and the next time you want to buy a lens you should have more and cheaper options. My micro 105 with a PN-11 tube cost a little over $200 and is razor sharp. You can get a slightly upgraded body, a nice macro lens, and future ability to buy great but very reasonable ai/s lenses and you still haven't spent anything over your budget.</p>

[wolf_rainer_schmalfuss]

<p>Since you have to stop down a macro lens for M 1:2 - 1:1 close-ups anyway, it does'nt matter so much, which maco lens you choose for your camera!</p>

<p>Cheers</p>

[oskar_ojala]

<p>Why do you think that the 60/2.8 micro-Nikkor would not be suitable? It's a very good lens, some say it has superior image quality to the 105 and use my old 55 macro a lot more often than my 105.</p>

[joannersr]

<p>Wow! I never expected so many responses. I have an awful lot to mull over. <br>

<strong>I just wanted to make sure I thank everyone. Do you all know how great you are? Not one of you know me but you all took time to help me. </strong><br>

My very best regards,<br>

Joanne</p>

[steven_p]

<p>A budget-minded gem at $129. or less: Item # 190369380990</p>

<p>(Can you guess where?)</p>

[sebastianmoran]

<p>I'll second Steven's suggestion. The same Phoenix 100mm f/3.5 AF macro lens was sold under Vivitar, Tokina, and other names, it's made by Cosina. I have one. It's excellent for image quality, light, plastic, and a bargain. (Includes the matched supplemental lens to get to 1:1; it's 1:2 without the supplemental.)</p><div></div>

[nick_baker]

<p>I have the 105VR and have used it with D300 and D700. While this is a good lens, it might not be worth the money if you did not make use of the VR. VR is useful for chasing butterflies in the wilderness but less so if you will be using a tripod and/or flash in more controlled conditions. Many other, non-VR lenses would be cheaper.<br>

Why you compare the 105VR with the micronikkor 60 is unclear. They are different focal lengths, so if you need 105, the 60 will not suffice, and vice versa. If you are able to get close to your subject, the new 60 is said to be very nice indeed.<br>

As has been mentioned, if you really do want the 105VR but cannot go much above $500, the new 85VR seems like the next best thing. You are probably the ideal customer for this new lens.<br>

Finally, I also own the 70-300VR. It does focus quite close at 300, but is not at its sharpest under these circumstances and nowhere near the image quality of the 105VR, or (probably) any of the other macro lenses being discussed.</p>