Originally posted by audiobomber I like the 100mm range for macro because of the longer working distance, especially for insect macros. I tried a 35mm macro on a coin and by the time I got to maximum magnification the lens was actually touching the rim.
Right. It is important to keep in mind that the only thing that makes a lens of a given focal length "macro" in terms of magnification is that it can focus closer than another lens of the same focal length. So if you want a closeup picture with a 35mm lens, you have to get *really* close. A 100mm lens will take the same basic picture in terms of magnification at a much greater distance. Of course, we're still talking inches, not feet, but a couple of inches can make all the difference.
I'd also consider which would make a more useful lens for you in general. If you already have an FA35, or DA40, or FA31, or anything else in that general focal length range, but don't have anything good in the 100mm range, that would be another vote in favor of the 100mm. But if you don't have a good prime around 35mm, that's probably something you really want.
Quote: Another possibility would be to buy a Raynox diopter to use with your 50-200mm.
I second this as a cheap and effective way to at explore the idea before deciding to spring several hundred dollars on a macro lens.