There's not a lot of difference, macro lenses are just good. I own four , the FA 50 macro, the Sigma 70 macro, the Tamron 90 macro, and the DFA 100 macro. All are excellent. I consider the Sigma to be decent go for a hike lens on APS-c, the FA 50 is a standard lens for normal purposes use with macro if you came to a small flower or detail. The a DFA 100 is a favourite walk around on my K-1.
But this is about as macro as I usually get, with my walking around the garden taking pictures of flowers "oh look there's an insect" shot.
If you want more than this you're going to have to get into some more serious set-ups.
This one taken with the DA 55-300 PLM, macro, I don't need no stinking macro.
Most of my macros are pseudo macro, not real macro. (1:1 or greater.) What you want to shoot makes a difference to what you end up buying. Most of my efforts are hand held on walks. If you plan to put more effort into it than that, the rigs mentioned above are more appropriate. With a 2:1 macro, you're already way out in front of any of the 1:1 macros mentioned in terms of real macro shooting. Can you stick a 1.4 TC on that lens?