Attached Link: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bh2.sph/FrameWork.class?FNC=ProductActivator__Aproductlist_html___66988

I've been mulling it over in my mind for a while now and I think I've made a decision on a lens....but now I have at least one question about it.... Currently all I have for my Nikon is the Nikkor 50mm f/1.8, at first I thought I would buy something along the lines of a 28-70mm as the next step in building my system, but I've come to realize that I am using the digital when I don't want to because I really enjoy taking macro shoots and I don't have one for the slr....I've found that I can do quite well with just a nice bright normal lens but not having a macro lens is bringing my creativity down. I think this lens linked here is the one I want but now I'm confused...I've never bought a real "macro" lens before. In the features it says portraits....does this mean that this lens also works as a regular lens? It's not strictly for macro work? I know that lots of lenses have "macro" on them but they are not true macro lenses....can someone explain what the difference is?

Sorry that link doesn't seem to work maybe this will.....

Lens

Yea ... what it looks like to me is that it's a normal 105mm lens that has internal, rear focusing (hence the front element doesn't rotate as you focus), but has the added feature of being able to focus from as close as 12.4" from the subject for life size macro shots. It remember reading something about the Nikon Close-Up (or Close-Range) Correction System a while back. Supposed to be very good at keeping the images sharp whether you're working normal or macro. I've got a 28-80mm lens for my Canon that allows me to do the same thing, but while it lets me focus from as close as 9.5" away, it's only a 1:2 macro shot. -=>Donald

Attached Link: http://www.photo.net/nikon/105-micro/

There's a review of this lens at this link. It raises some good points, and some concerns (just what you wanted to hear!). [I've found Google is really good for typing in obscure product names + "review"] Having a 1:1 macro on a medium telephoto is nice. That focal length is fairly useful as a general purpose lens. I've always been too penny-pinching to buy really good lenses, and to some extent I think this shows in the quality of my work.

the 28-70mm nikkor lenses I really wouldn't call "macro". Its a bit wide angle, and a good semi-zoom lens. I used to use it all the time at school. Good lens.

Attached Link: http://www.ephotozine.com/techniques/viewtechnique.cfm/recid/65

Have you thought about Extension tubes a cheap way of doing macro shots. Here is a link that shows less expensive ways of going in close. This is a photo I took using Extension tubes and a 28mm-105mm zoom lens, so not as sharp as your prime 50mm lens.

@Donald....after reading the review Misha gave me it appears you are correct! :~) Thanks! @Misha....that is a very good review, and I really appreciate the actual comments from other users after the review. Despite the concerns I think this may be the lens I go with.... @Slynky...yup I know. :~) @Azy...well I never really thought about it. Nice image BTW, but like you said not very sharp. Not, sure the sacrifice in image quality is worth saving a little money though... Wonder how it would look with a 50mm lens?

As there is no glass in ex tubes, your 50mm lens will be just as sharp (This was my first photo with ex tubes and my first B&W film I devloped myself, Plus this was scanned with a crappy 1800 dpi cheap as chips film scanner)no postwork! Using ex tubes this slide was pro devloped and scanned with the Epson 2500 scanner

"...are not true macro lenses....can someone explain what the difference is? "

Most of these zoom lenses have some problems with sharpness at the edges.
Here's a comparison between a Nikkor 28-105 zoom lens and the 2.8/105 macro lense:

http://homepages.ihug.com.au/~parsog/Guy/comp105lens.html

Nevertheless these zoom lenses should be sufficient for "everyday macro shot" like flowers and the like.
The picture here is one of my first macro shots with this Nikkor 28-105 mentioned above.

As a conclusion, the 2.8/105 is a really fine lens and at the top of my wish list,
but for "everyday" shots there are cheaper solutions as well.
(Reverse Rings, bellows, close up lenses and the like)

BTW:
Your 1.8/50 will gives you a good macro performance up to 1:2 reverse mounted with the BR-2A adapter
and stoped down to at least f:16.

cheers
Thomas

@Azy....oh yes I remember those shots, big difference, I think in the first and the shell image! Beautiful stuff! @Zardoz...I had a Canon FD zoom lens that I sometimes used in macro mode...granted it was an older, manuel focus, and not a pro lens. Based on the results I got from that lens, which were not good, I'm hesitant to use a zoom lens in that way. Your image here is good. It's nice to know that there are alternatives available. And in time I think I may go out and buy the reverse rings, bellows, and stuff, just to play around with. Anyone who knows me well knows that I want, what I want and I get what I want.... And I'm willing to spend the money for a dedicated macro lens. I was just surprised to see that I could do more with a macro lens than just take macro shots, and so I needed to know what the difference was.

Look forward to seeing the result