I'm looking for a macro lens for my Canon 80D. The two crop-specific offerings from Canon are the EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro USM and EF-S 35mm f/2.8 Macro IS STM. They're both on the affordable end of the price range, both feature f/2.8 as maximum aperature, and both offer 1:1 magnification, so I'm trying to figure out what differentiates the two that I can make a decision based on. Obviously, the different focal lengths come with different perspective, DoF, etc. It seems the biggest difference between the two is how close I need to be to the subject to get full magnification. In my case, that's a non-issue.
A little background: My main use for a macro lens would be to take detail photos of my woodworking projects. These would be anything from small, decorative boxes up to full sets of bedroom furniture. I'm not photographing insects or animals, which is why it's no problem to get close to the subject (which mostly negates the 60 mm lens's advantage). I'd be setting up like a full-blown product shoot, so use of a tripod and off-camera lighting is no problem, either (which mostly negates the 35 mm lens's advantage).
Assuming for a moment that both lenses offer the same image quality, what are the practical differences between using a 60 mm lens and a 35 mm lens for macro photography?
But can I assume that both offer the same image quality? The 35 mm lens includes two major features—image stabilization and an integrated ring light—that the 60 mm does not. It's also a newer design, for whatever that's worth. However, the 35 mm lens is $100 (i.e. 25%) cheaper than the 60 mm lens, despite the additional features. That makes me wonder whether it's a lower quality lens. What other reason might there be for the seemingly backward price difference?
If I can expect to get the same quality close-up shots from either lens, given my specific circumstances, I'd probably choose the 35 mm lens, since the side benefit is that now I have a fast 35 mm prime lens for non-macro use. Does this make sense?