Nikon 40mm 2.8 Micro, or Nikon 60mm 2.8 Micro?

Hi, I want to save up some money for a Nikon Micro lens, and I wanted to know which of those two had better or more pleasing performance. I know the 40mm is only 280, which is definitely a plus, but I feel like the 60mm has more elements, and I feel like I would be able to get a little closer with the 60mm. So I wanted to know if the 60mm was any better than the 40mm, or if it was at least worth the extra ~300 dollars.

How far away from the subject do you want to be when shooting at a 1:1 ratio?

The longer the lens, the further back from the subject you will be.

Which lens you choose will have more to do with those criteria

All macro lenses are superb, so the focal length will not have much to do with "pleasing" performance

Check minimum focusing distances if that is your primary concern. If not, the 40mm would be better for most other things while the 60mm would be great for portrait work too.

For macro shot purposes, I think I will get the 60MM. But for general purpose, I will get the 40MM.

The 60mm f/2.8 isn't worth the + $300 if you can't decide which one to go with. 40mm is the best macro for the price, they're all sharp the same, extra 20mm is just better in some cases. I'd go with the 40mm if I would be on a low budget, plus it's not like quality is worse.

Here's a Nikon Micro Lens Guide - http://www.the-dslr-photographer.com/2011/07/buying-a-micro-lens-nikon/