I've got the 100 without L and have shot about 10k pictures with it using a 60D crop body. You can get it used from ebay, since it has no IS there's nothing that could already be worn down. My opinion:
1. sharpness is not an issue with macro lenses because they are *not* the sharpest you can get, at least not at non-macro distances! A macro lens is basically a zoom lens with a fixed focal length. You can notice this because the picture gets way darker at macro distances (*) - however, unlike Nikon the Canon lens still reports the same amount of light which is simply wrong and you have to manually compensate. Use macro lenses for macro work, get a prime like the 85 or 100 for sharpness. In addition, on 1:1 live objects you have to use f/10+ so the optimal sharpness of 6.3-7.1 doesn't help you much - or you have to use focus stacking with still objects.
2. forget the L version, it's way too expensive except if you're rich. You don't need it because a) the IS doesn't help at macro distances and b) even if IS would help the improvement would be too little (see *) - you do need a tripod for 1:1. The sharpness of the L and non-L version is nearly the same. The one improvement on the L lens might be dust resistance, which is a problem because outdoor macro shots tend to be near the earth.
3. A little disadvantage of the EF-S is obviously that you cannot keep it if you ever go full frame, nor can you sell it to a ff user.
4. A big disadvantage of 60 compared to 100 is the working distance. With 100, live objects won't frighten as fast. With 100, you often still can use the internal flash in addition to external remote flashes. And yes, you will want to use a flash even on 1:1 live objects in bright sunlight (see *)