.D.

The nice thing about longer macro lenses is the narrower field of view. As the 50-60mm lenses encompass a wider angle you are more likely to end up with distracting peripheral elements creeping into the background (at a given magnification of your subject). Hence a 105mm lens is a more versatile lens. The working distance already mentioned also helps. A lot Cheers, .D.

.......and unlike the Flyrite polypropylene dubbing portfolio, if they're reasonably good archival quality sheets, the sides of the pockets don't split when you try to extract something. Cheers, .D.

Thanks, Graham Cheers, .D.

Nothing wrong with Sigma glass. They do a pretty good 105 mm f2.8 macro. They also do a very well thought of ( I've not used one) 150mm macro in a Nikon mount. A bit longer ( and heavier), but it does have a rotating tripod collar - really handy for switching between vertical and horizontal framing when you've got the camera mounted on a tripod. Either would be cheaper than the Nikon lens you mention, and I think the differences optically would be small, if even noticeable. Cheers, .D.

I doubt if you'll find a DSLR that takes old MD lenses. The Sony cameras only have backward compatibility with Dynax/Maxxuum AF lenses. I'd suggest it might be an opportunity to switch brand loyalty! I'm stuck with Sony as I had quite a lot of good Minolta AF glass before going digital - sure it seems like it might look promising ( especially with some of the Zeiss glass, image stabilization etc.), but they do seem to be struggling to keep up with the other big brands in terms of getting new "product" on the shelves. Cheers, .D. (hello , by the way)