Macro lens

I am looking for a macro lens, and have never tried macro photography before.
My camera is a Nikon D5100, and I´m looking into buying Nikon D610 or Nikon D750 next year.

The question is:
I´m looking into three different lenses, and would like the best of those for my camera. The lenses are:
1.  Sigma 105mm f/2.8 EX DG OS HSM for Nikon
2.  Tamron SP AF 90mm f/2.8 Di 1:1 Macro (med fokusmotor) for Nikon
3.  Tamron SP 90mm f/2.8 VC USD Macro Nikon

Which one would you recommend? 

I have the non VC version of the 1st lens you list. I have 9 true macro lenses from 55 to 180mm . Most are older manual focus, but 2 are auto focus. Now I have DSLR's which will meter with the older manual focus lenses. That said, I never use AF on any macro shooting. Nor would I use VC if any had it. The reason being, the closer you get to life size, the less effective both AF & VC become. I also handhold almost all of my macro shots & I use either a ring/point light or a soft box equipped speed light. The short duration of the flash effectively stops all motion, be it my own (which is what VC is for) or my subjects. The added benefit of additional light is that it allows me to stop down my lens for more depth of field (which is razor thin at macro distances anyway. I seldom use a tripod except in studio for static subjects or stacking images. In the field, if shooting insects, by the time you set up, the subject is long gone. As for which lens to get, any true macro lens will five you the results you want as long as your technique is good. The focal lengths you list are the best lengths for most macro shooting. I have a D300 & a D7100. Both of these cameras can use older manual focus macro lenses & still meter. I prefer to shoot entirely in manual though & my go to macro lens is a 105mm F2.8 that was made back in the mid 1980's... Be prepared for a learning curve with macro. It's not as easy as it may look. Practice is your best friend. I bought older macro lenses as they cost less & that allows me to save money with which to buy other things. Consider used as well to save some money. Many will say the lenses can do double duty as portrait lenses and they can. That said, I have other lenses that are better equipped for other situations & thus don't use my macro lenses for any other purpose.. KEH.com is a good place to look... Take a look at my macro images in the macro gallery & on my Flickr stream for examples....Any other questions, just ask

What he said. I have the Nikon 105 and VR is worthless when doing macros. AF is sometimes helpful, but your best assistant will be a tripod.

Hard to know which of those is preferable, but I have a friend that uses a Tamron 90 (I don't know which one) and he's happy with it.

garyrhook wrote:

I have the Nikon 105 and VR is worthless when doing macros.

Worse that worthless.  Not good enough to help if handheld, and VR is turned off when you are on a tripod.

Thank you for the answers.

garyrhook wrote:

What he said. I have the Nikon 105 and VR is worthless when doing macros. AF is sometimes helpful, but your best assistant will be a tripod.

Hard to know which of those is preferable, but I have a friend that uses a Tamron 90 (I don't know which one) and he's happy with it.

Sorry. I have to totally disagree with VR being worthless on macro. That doesn't even make sense to me. AF is another story. I manually focus for macro more than not, but the VR comes in handy because I mostly am chasing small critters handheld and any help with camera shake is welcome.