I see the 100mm f/2 get recommended over the 85 1.8 a lot.
Why (with a limited budget keeping you out of the L lenses) would you have this lens over the non-L 100 macro?
Does it come down to the larger-than f/2.8, and faster (I'm guessing here) focus, versus having the macro capability?
Seems like if you needed macro, you'd do maybe the 85 plus the 100 macro.
if you need a macro.. you need a macro - yes. The 100/2.0 is a different beast .. i love it for street, concerts and some events, and occasionally for indoor sports. It is 1 full stop faster than the 100 Macro Non IS, has more background blur - especially on APS-C - and the AF is way faster. I would not want to exchange it for the non-IS 100 Macro.
And for me 85mm and 100mm are too close to bother having both focal lengths in primes.
However, I have been toying with the idea to sell both my EF-S 60 Macro and the 100/2.0 ... to get the 100/2.8 Macro L IS ... only 1 lens, FF capable, IS ... but then, I need f/2.0 miore than IS, becaus my subjects are often not static but in motion and in rather low light.