There are pretty much no bad true macro lenses on the market at present. There are lenses of varying costs, features, focal lengths, but no actual bad lemons in the bag. Optically speaking performance of all is a very high level and whilst there are some differences, they are generally very minor (and in many areas won't even show up after processing the shot).
An idea of budget helps however a few ideas to consider:
1) Longer focal lengths give you more working distance, this is the distance between the front of the lens and the subject itself when focused at the lenses closest focusing point (ie at a magnification of 1:1). Note this is not to be confused with the minimum focusing distance which is measured from the sensor/film to the subject.
2) Longer focal lengths render increased blurring to background areas of the shot. Typically you've got to go to the extremes of focal length options to really see a massive difference, but it is present. Note that whilst background blurring changes the depth of field remains the same.
Tamron 90mm is a popular budget choice macro lens and typically the shortest recommended if you want to start shooting insects. For subjects like flowers you can use shorter macro lenses (though personally I'd say you want something 60mm or longer - under that and lighting becomes much more tricky as the working distances are tiny) though of course if you want increase background blurring the longer lenses will be what you want.
There is a wide range on the market from Sigma, Tamron, Tokina and Nikon including; Tamron 90mm f2.8 macro, Nikon 60mm micro, Nikon 105mm VR micro (has the VR feature for aid in handholding, has less effect at macro distances), Sigma 70mm macro, Sigma 105mm macro, Sigma 150mm macro OS (older edition without OS still on the market), Sigma 180mm OS (older edition off the market, but still worth considering second hand - a very popular choice along with the 150mm), Tamon 60mm macro, Tokina 105mm macro, and a few others as well.
Note Nikon calls macro micro on its lenses. Furthermore Nikon camera bodies report effective aperture to the user, this means as you increase the magnification closer to 1:1 the maximum aperture (smallest f number) will get smaller (number gets bigger). Typically at 1:1 likely be somewhere around f5.6 (not exactly sure of values but around that amount). Note this is the same no matter the lens brand its just that Nikon reports the changes whilst some other companies (Eg canon) don't report the change in effective aperture, which means those lenses keep reporting f2.8 even though the effective aperture might be smaller.
![[No title]](/data/xfmg/thumbnail/34/34134-d2249816e46b705693bfc543c9b1f481.jpg?1734164670)
![[No title]](/data/xfmg/thumbnail/32/32946-74023d9d5e025fc03f754a05cb917646.jpg?1734162791)
