Does it make sense to get a non-macro and a macro of similar focal lengths?

Question

I recently asked a question on which prime lens to get after the kit lenses, and in my shortlist of lenses there was quite a lot of overlap of focal lengths along with macro & non-macro versions of a lens. From what I've read so far, macro lenses have a smaller maximum aperture than their non-macro counterparts (usually around a stop faster), and the AF performance may be poorer (some like the EF-S 60mm macro are said to have fast AF). However, in terms of optical performance, they seem to be just as good as any prime.

So, as per a comment to the earlier question, I'm asking this specifically - does it make sense to get a non-macro and macro lens of similar focal lengths? Ex. (Canon specific), the EF 50mm f/1.8 and 60mm f/2.8 macro have pretty similar focal lengths (vastly different prices though), or the 85mm f/1.8 and the 100mm f/2.8 macro.

Answer

Buy lenses based on your needs. If you do need a macro lens and a super-fast lens of the same focal length to get your photos, then yes, it makes sense to buy both lenses. If you can do with the maximum aperture of macro lens or with the minimum focusing distance of the non-macro prime, then you don't need the other.

Also, collecting lenses can be a hobby by itself. For example, there are people out there with vast collections of 50mm or 135mm lenses.

Check more discussion of this question.