Nikon micro lens AFS vs AFD

The last 2 are the same. 60mm f/2.8 AF-S Nikkor is the the G version. The first one (60mm f/2.8D AF) is the older version. The new one has better optics and IMHO also a better lens.

Don't have nor tried the 85mm micro Nikkor.

You need AF-S lenses if you want to AF with a non-motor camera-body such as D5000, D3000, d40 etc...It is all kind of moot because you should MF with macro photography in the first place on a tripod. The difference between 60mm and 85mm is working distance and 2/3 of a stop (F2.8 vs. 3.5). The 2/3 stop is also moot because you want to step down the lens in macros.

In my opinion, the 60mm AF-S is an incredible lens. It can do smooth backgrounds, high resolution and has low flare. The colour rendition is natural but not muted. I use it on my D50 and film cameras - it is great on both.
I give it 10 out of 10. I just cannot see how it can be bettered.

The 60 AF-S is a star performer both in macro performance as well as in bokeh; it makes a good people photography lens (fast focusing etc.) and for indoor / studio close-ups it's a practical focal length on both FX and DX. I assume you use a DX camera; in such a case this lens would also work well for flower shots, though often I find a longer focal length more practical in field close-up photography especially if you want tight close-ups near 1:1 the 60mm can block some of the light that would otherwise strike the subject. For shots around 1:2...1:10 there would not be any problem though. Images made with the 60mm show the background more than those from longer macro lenses, not because of depth of field directly but because a smaller section of background is included in the image made with longer FL lenses, thus making it easier to simplify the background if desired. However, with DX, I think the 105mm micro is in many cases a bit on the long side for studio / indoor photography; of course if you have a lot of space then it's not a problem.

I have not used the 85mm AF-S DX Micro-Nikkor.

Bjorn explains it all very well, with regard to the 60mm lengths.

Follow this link. Special-purpose lenses (Macro, Micro, UV, Medical)

If you're serious about high quality macro work, consider the 85PC-E or even the 45PC-E. While quite expensive, compared to the others, the PC-E lenses do something unique. They allow tilting of the lens which can change the plane of focus and "increase" depth of field. It is just like using a view camera with all its adjustments but on a quick handling digital camera. They are manual focus only and is a bit large as well. While I do not own the 85, but hope to some day, I do own the PC-E 45mm with macro capability. It is among the sharpest lenses I have used. The OP says he's new to photography, so may not want to make a large investment in a single lens but the Nikon PC-E series are quite superb. Good luck.

Thanks everyone for your responses. I forgot to mention that I own a D200. There wasn't much responses on the 60mm f/2.8 AF "D" version so I'm still not sure on which is better. I checked online and the price on the "S" version and the "D" version was very similar. I think I have to go into the store and compare the two

Well, I think I should mention the obvious differences:

The 60mm AF-S is the newer lens, and the AF-S designation means it has an ultrasonic autofocus motor. This means that it focuses quietly, and for this particular lens, it focuses *fast*. It has a nano-crystal coating that reduces flare, ED glass elements that reduce chromatic aberrations, and so forth (theoretically... photozone reviews say both the AF-S and AF-D produce high CA's). It is an internal focusing (IF) lens, so as it focuses, the front element won't move and won't bump anything as easily. The AF-S lens also has a focusing clutch, meaning that even when you're using autofocus, you can over-ride the camera's decision by turning the focusing ring without needing to flip the M/A switch. The AF-S lens also has 9 rounded aperture blades, more is usually better. This theoretically means it renders better bokeh, and perhaps performs better at small apertures.
The older lens, the 60mm AF-D, has a screw-driven autofocus, meaning it uses a link to the autofocus motor on the camera body (if the camera has one, which the D200 does). The focusing is slower, and noisier, but it does have a focus limiter switch (meaning you can force the lens to ignore macro ranges when searching for autofocus, makes it focus faster). The AF-S lens focuses so fast that they eliminated this item, but some people still miss it. The AF-D lens has 7 aperture blades, non-rounded, and it does have an aperture ring (which, is cool, but has very little use except in certain unique circumstances).

Optically speaking though, I think both lenses are roughly equal. It's just whether or not you like the mechanical features, and the latest bells and whistles in the new AF-S lens. I have the AF-S lens, I love it. I've never used the AF-D lens, so I'm only comparing by reading reviews.

The 85mm has similar features as the 60mm AF-S. Some differences are, the 85mm does not have nano crystal coating I believe (not a deal-breaker in my book). The 85mm is a DX lens, which means it does not work on full frame cameras (D700, D3's) unless you activate crop mode. MOST importantly, the 85mm has Vibration Reduction, which is *awesome*. It's max aperture is only 3.5, whereas the 600 goes to 2.8. For macro, this isn't a big deal... in macro you generally stop down. If you want to use the lens for portraits however, this can be a huge deal: 2.8 is preferable, and it's the reason why I personally chose the 60mm over the 85. VR is only useful in certain circumstances (and it's usually not useful in macro), but it's never a bad thing to have.

85mm does give you more working distance for macro. The 60mm is a nice, sharp lens, but if you're trying to take picture of tiny objects (think: ladybugs, flower pistels), at 1:1 magnification, the lens barrel will be so close to the subject (around 2 inches), that the lens barrel itself can cast a shadow on the subject. For slightly larger items, like entire flowers, 60mm give syou a comfy working distance). 85mm will give you a little more working distance for small objects.

Thanks for the explanation Philip, it makes alot more sense now