I generally like wide angle lenses, out of necessity, as I’m usually in tight to my subject. The distance “distortion” of a wide angle is awesome if you can use it to your advantage. My main concern with macro would be getting enough depth of field with the wide angle.
I like your 35mm shot, I think you could really being the focus on the pistol with less DoF. The 100mm shot is OK but needs more DoF.
if the framing, the camera-subject focus point, and the aperture are the same at the time of exposure, the DoF will also be same. Not sure which pic i prefer, both have their own benefits. I like that with the 35 the green stems fill more of the frame, while the 100 keeps the proportions of the follower more “normal”. There are times I like perspective distortion, but usually when it is more pronounced.
Yes, because you actually are closer to the subject…
I agree, but then the 35mm lens won’t fill the sensor with the subject.
In the examples, being the DoF the same, the 100mm lens gives the appearance of deeper DoF just because the relative distance between all flower parts to the lens is similar. On the other hand, with the 35mm lens, as you fill the frame with the flower, the anthers are much closer to the lens than the rear part of the petals.
Nevertheless, in these examples I like the 35mm version better
P.S.: (if you want to go deeper about photomacrography, visit this forum)
I am no macro specialist and I don’t look at a lot of macro shots.
The 100 mm version here above is superior in my eyes. You get a better idea of the proportions of the plant in the example here above and - this doesn’t show here - you can work from a longer distance with a longer focal length, making it easier to get light on the subject.