The Nikon 105mm f/2.8D lens is a nice alternative to the AF-S VR version. I rented the AF-S VR and liked it straight away (first time every trying macro). I liked it but went with the D version for a purchase, as I felt I didn't need the VR or AF-S since the lens was going to be used soley for macro and not as a multi-purpose lens.
I've taken a few shots with it and so far don't feel like I've sacrificed at all on the IQ. Thom Hogan's review of the AF-S VR version also leads one to believe that the D version is no sacrifice in IQ.
If you are willing to get a used lens, the D version can be had for under $500, putting a price category similar to the third party options. The only thing I don't like about it is that it extends while focusing. There's no rotation, it's just not an internal focus lens. I can't remember for sure, but I don't recall the VR version doing that. It's a peeve, but not a big deal.
Yeah Ive been drooling over the 105 macro since I bought my camera. I cant justify the price just yet. Im actually thinking about getting extention tubes to use with my 35mm 1.8.
Nice images. Looks like good technique on your part.
I've found that the 18-105, despite being cheaply constructed, has very good glass in it and is a nice, versatile lens, albeit slow.
I'd like a macro myself. Nikon, Tamron and Sigma all have good ones in the 85-100mm range for less than $500. The Nikon 105 is better yet, of course, but it costs twice as much, and I don't know that it's really twice as good on a DX camera.
--
http://www.pbase.com/catson (Pbase Supporter)
--
Push the button more--that's a start.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/crankerchick/
