In article <105836267wnr@boldyrev.demon.co.uk>, oleg@boldyrev.demon.co.uk says...

>I am looking for a 50mm lens for my Nikon. In the same time having a
>macro lens would be fun (who would argue). Wanna spent no more than >$170-200.

I would look for a user-condition Nikkor 55mm f2.8 Micro-Nikkor, which
may just fall into your price area, is a reasonably fast f2.8, and is
excellent at normal distances, even wide open.

>Here's my quesions:
>1. If I'm buying macro, do I compromise the infinitive depth of field at all?

No, macro lenses simply focus closer than regular lenses (though they may
be optically different to allow them to be sharp over a greater than usual focus range, or specific lenses may be sharper in part of their range than
in other part(s).

>2. Should I go for macro or is it better to look for the fastest lens >available and then use extension tubes or converters or even reverse-rings

If you want a normal 50mm to do double-duty as a macro lens, choose a
4-6 element type for better closeup performance, which means no f1.2-1.4's.

>(which way is better, BTW)?

Depends on the specific lens. Achromats (2-element closeup lenses) work well
with some 50's, tubes can be good, converters can be good (all stopped down
to at least mid-apertures). Reversing a 50mm is generally not convenient or
advantageous for normal macro work.

>3. Any suggestions on brands?

In addition to the above, I might consider the Sigma 50mm macro, though
I have not tried it. The 55mm f2.8 Nikkor is a very fine lens, though.
Hope This Helps