Hi I've had a little look around and I think if you are referring to the Nikon range of lenses then they probably are very similar to the Canon ones and the simple answer is yes.
However, it does also depend upon what you want to photograph. If the subject is likely to fly away when approached then obviously a longer focal length lens would be appropriate but if you can get very close without losing the shot then the smaller focal length would do just as well.
I find that I can get very close with my 100mm lens but even then I have to approach very slowly if I am to be successful.
Hope this helps, it's a difficult decision but in the end I found that the more expensive option was actually the best
yeah.. i am nikon user. Actually I do think 105mm definately the best.. just i might not use it very often. But very interesting to see ppl take macro shot and wanan try. Actually, what so special about macro lens and make it so sharp? it seem like no way for my 200mm normal lens to achive same effect and sharpmess of a 105mm macro lens.
I had the same problem when I was first looking into macro photography, I wanted to have a go but I couldn't justify buying the lens, just in case I gave up after a few weeks and then had a lens that I would never use.
What swung it for me were the staff at my local camera shop, who explained that it could be used as a normal 100mm lens as well. So if I didn't carry on using it as a macro lens I would still have an excellent 100mm lens, it does great portraits see [link] .
As to it's sharpness, it's a good quality prime lens and as such it's sole function is to get a crisp clear image, which it does at all distances