I really like my Sigma F/2.8 50mm.   This is capable of 1:1  and does a credible job.  The problem with 50mm is that 1:1 is not more than an inch from the object.   But....honestly, looking at my shots, 1:1 is almost always TOO close...unless you are doing one of those spectatular shots showing the eye cell patterns of a fly or dragon fly...

I also have a longer Sigma, the 105mm macro, also an F/2.8. This lens certainly provides a bit more room from the subject for photos but even then, at 1:1 you are close enough to spook a living thing.

The problem with the 105 as a prime other than macro is distance. You are far away, if a scene of any sort even with more than one rose in it your tail is backing into the street to get the distance! The 50 is easy to take nice normal shots since 50mm is considered a "normal" view anyway, as in 1X magnification, same size as original.  Both lenses do pretty well in portrait style shots.  I used the  50mm in a wedding when I shot some photos for a bro-in-law getting married.and being in rooms for some candids the 50 did very well...but honestly a zoom going down a bit would do better and did on some shots.  But, the zoom could not do macro...

My choice, as much as I love the 105mm, my choice is the 50mm.  The difference in closeness in a MACRO shot is not great enough to be noticed by the living creatures. Either is too close unless your timing is ready to go.  And, I don't want to be more distant for such shots.

As a prime, the 50 is superior in my use but the 105 is quite credible. Both are fast enough.  I have used and do have a faster lens but at even 2.8 dof is impossibly shallow, faster is not an advantage.

My two cents worth is now posted.   ; )      Tom.