eh - the Nikkor 105 is like $800 so, yes - crazy, but most of us would not want to give our sig others the total of what we have in our tanks - lolcant help ya since im a canon guy, but my macro was 600$ for the lens. sounds crazy expensive, but in lenses, you get what you pay for. Just remember that one. dont go with an off brand.
Here is a newer version of the sigma i was refering too.
http://www.dpreview.com/news/1102/11020803sigma105macro.asp#press
Now with Optical stablization! That is what made the Nikkor superior prior to this release. Rowe photo up here in rochester told me to get the Sigma prior to this release.
That is a good point - will use for a lot of things, but the tank is important.Both Sigma and Tamron make lenses in that range that are very sharp. The caveat is that they are both external focusing. That means that the lens barrel changes length while focusing. Crawling around the bushes taking pictures of bugs that's not such a big deal. It can, however, be a hassle when you're up against the glass of your aquarium.
I think I need to bite the bullet and get the Nikkor 105 - Any thoughts on going non-nikkor?...If you can afford the nikkor 105mm get it, its the best but I had a hard time justifying the price tag on something I would not use often.
I wouldn't worry about the vr option but the newer lenses will prob have it. You will most likely hardly use the vr, I usually just leave mine off 99% of the time.
I just got a mono as I have a cheep portable tri - any idea's for a good one - not a huge SLR (D90)Forgot to mention also make sure a good tripod is in your budget, they can also be pricey.
Mine has the slide bar and tilt and also has a turn knob on the tripod for that slight adjustment when needed.
Get a good tripod, it makes a difference