Nikon MACRO lens

[IvanSanchez]

Okay so I am getting tired of taking terrible pics with my standard 18-55 55-200 lenses.
Any suggestions on a nice macro lens that's not gonna kill me on the price? 300-500$ price range

I'd also like to be able to take good portrait shots with it as well. Is there a lens that doubles as a macro and low f-stop lens for people shots.

I own a Nikon D5000.
Thanks!

[photogdude]

http://www.keh.com/camera/Nikon-Autofocus-Fixed-Focal-Length-Lenses/1/sku-NA06009042485N?r=FE

is probably your best value.

[myjohnson]

I don't think the 105/1.8 is exactly the best value.

It is indeed a great lens that does macro work and also double as a portrait but there are cheaper options out there.

First, the standard kit lens should work relatively fine. If the pictures are not coming out sharp with the kit lens then the settings are off. Honestly sounds like OP needs more light so that he can use higher shutter speeds and not give up any dept of field.

Second, the nikkor 50/1.8 prime lens is very cheap. Takes very sharp pictures, AF is super fast, and works great as a portrait lens. However, it is not a true macro lens so you can't get super up close.

Third, the older nikkor 60/2.8 is going to be the best value. Used and in good condition you can fine it for 240-280 bucks. Its a true macro lens but AF can be slow depending on the camera body, i.e. D5000/D90.

In sum, I would stick it out with the kit lens and get an sb 800 or 600.

[madugo]

first of, macro lens are never suggested to use as portrait lens...
1. because most of the macro lens are overly sharp for portraits...you do not want super fine details on the model's face, as it would show a lot of things you do not want in a portrait, like pimple and fine detail of the pore...it wouldnt be very pretty when it comes out...so you would need to spent a lot of time on after capture, or you can use a Diffusers soft filter, i tried it and it came out not so great.
2. most of the macro are F2.8, i suggest at least a F1.8 for portrait...not saying you would use F1.8 most of the time, but there are situations F1.8 come out better...

[photogdude]

Maybe we should ask why do you think you need a Macro lens,but i agree with myjohnson that your money would be best spent on a sb flash unit.

[IvanSanchez]

Thanks for the input!
Well there's two reasons
1. I'm more than certain that this whole fish tank keeping thing is gonna stick for a while meaning i'd want to shoot and post tons of sweet shots of the tanks.(I see some on here all the time that are superb!!!!)
2. i'm wanting to take more shots of people (Ex. people/friends, plants, insects.)

I also thought(Please correct me if i'm wrong!!!) that lower f.# lenses take great low light pictures... I'm a local guitar player in Houston and play for some local churches in the Houston area(Second Baptist) and last week I took my D5000 with my 18-55mm to take pictures of the lady I played for Debbie Forrest(check her stuff out!) in Clearlake and most of the pictures required me to have somewhat high ISO and low shutter speed to get the shots. Later switched to the 55-200mm b/c of the awkward feeling I got from moving too much in the front row to move back a but and not disturb the audience. I wish I had that good blurry backround for some of the pictures.
Then again i'm a complete noob at DSLR's and it's probably just me wanting great results early in my practice rather than trial and error lol!

Even a nice prime lens that would allow good focus on close up objects(the 18-55mm wont focus on my tanks when i want to get a nice shot.)

Advice???? :) Did this clear up some? Please school me in the art of digital photography!!!

[madugo]

it does sound like you need a flash a lot more than a macro lens...