nikon calls there macro lenses micro, from what ive heard/read this is an amazing macro lens for dx and fx, if u have the dough go for it! since ur using it to take pics of babies u may want to consider the 40 mm f/2.8G AF-S DX Micro-Nikkor Lens as a much cheaper alternative ( about 1/4 the price) and u can just move the camera closer to the baby

Well, money shouldn't be problem. It isn't THAT expensive. I just want best for my money. Any alternative, that can be better in term of quality?

40mm is DX lens?

Thanks for explanations too, Naft. Now everything is clear.

glad i can help, my bad the 40mm is a dx lens, in terms of quality the Nikon AF-S 105mm f/2.8G ED-IF VR Micro is arguably the best highest quality macro lens on the market

Hi Sasko1:

In a earlier post I wrote this comment. I think it can be usefull information for you as well:

It is very difficult to define 'the best' macro lens. In general these kind of lenses perform on a very high level so that won't make much of a difference.

When you narrow down your list take this into account:

Do you work hand-held or do you use a tripod? If you use a tripod than is a tripod collar a great advantage. When working with close working distances from a tripod a minor rotation can make a big difference in composition and sure makes life easier.

What kind of background are you looking for? When you seek those great blurred background a longer focal length will be preferred. Think of a focal length of 100mm or more. When you want your subject is its environment than is a shorter focal length more adequate.

How big is your subject and how much do you want to be in focus? A long lens will give you very narrow DOF so take this into account. A trick is to use a 105 VR in conjunction with a 1.7convertor. This gives you more working distance but won't affect DOF.

When you work from a tipod a VR (OS, IS, whatever) will not help you.

A have used a lot different macro lenses. When you are a pixel peeper you MIGHT see a difference but really i doubt it. From my experience to find the right focal length for your taste is the big challenge...

A good starting point is something around 85 - 105 mm is good. So the 105VR certainly comes in mind, but the question is really is it the best lens for you? Technically it is a very fine lens and probably won't dissapoint you.

Personally I end up with a 25mm macro lens and a 150mm (on DX). But again, this is not 'the best' combination for evertone but suits my needs, style and preference.

Hope this help. Please let me know if you need more info.

Jeroen

A big hello to all and especially to Neil. This is my first post - I actually read the forum for the first time today - but have been nosing around the site and picking up some helpful tips for the past couple of months. Thank you everyone.

As it happens, I bought the 105mm Micro two days ago and I couldn't be happier. I have never owned a macro lens and really don't have too much hands-on knowledge to draw on. However, I did my research and everything I read turns out to be true.

The AF is fast (very), the build quality is solid and importantly - it feels nice in my hand. I imagine this point will gain in significance with time. As I bought this lens primarily for macro, there will be plenty of manual focusing too and jockeying about with equipment which doesn't 'fit' me, would only drive me to despise it eventually.

Of course, it is lovely at 105mm too. It hasn't seen the light of day yet and where I am currently staying is a touch tight at 105 (I had to shoot through the door frame from one room to the next in poor light) to judge against the gorgeous 85 1.4G. But none-the-less - it can live with anything else I have. By the way, I am shooting full frame, but I stuck it on a D300s and the results are comparable.

Sasko 1 - as you wrote - the lens is not 'that' expensive, but I found it far superior to the other Micro Nikkor's I tried. Cheap at twice the price. I can't really see the sense or benefit of the 40mm or 60mm - assuming most people own a 50mm anyway. Out and about with a 105mm micro and a 50mm makes great practical sense to me. The alternative combo' would render the 40mm or 60mm end of the lens redundant.

Here's a shot straight from the camera - the reverse of a 2Euro coin.