Okay, so the magnification advantage aspect of being a macro doesn't affect the distance compression? I wasn't sure, since the magnification was higher with the macro lens. I didn't know how that affected things other than the ability to get physically closer to a subject. I guess I am more confused than ever now why I even want a macro at all. I thought I got it, but as this unfolds I am understanding that apparently, macro or not, a 100mm lens will pull in the same shot at 1.5 ft (sensor to subject)that a 200mm lens can do from 3 ft. So can anyone help me clearly understand why I want a macro at all? Otherwise, the 70-200 f/2.8 IS is starting to look more attractive, even though that means I'll have to save for a while.