Just wanted to fill in a bit more on macros...
I'd assume that 100 mm Macro lenses are more like general purpose lenses capable of close focusing than special purpose macro lenses. On the other hand you would expect a macro lens to be acceptable for reproduction so it is quite probable distortion and focal plane curvature would be minimized.
I normal shooting there is a single point of focus, and that point is very seldom in the extreme corners. Normal lenses may therefor be better in the position of optimum focus than macro lenses.
A couple of months ago I shot some blue prints of a reactor tank in A0 size (or so) using my Minolta 100/2.8 Macro lens. The result was quite impressive, very sharp to the extreme corners. There was very little radial chromatic aberration but that was easily eliminated in Lightroom.
The Zeiss 100/2.0 Macro that "Stever" talks about is on of the best "Macro" lenses ever built.
Finally, a small comment on built in image stabilization. It actually works and it works with all lenses. There may be advantages with image stabilization in lenses, but lens based image stabilization essentially mean that some optical groups move around the optical axis. It's very much possible that if IS fails we would end up with a lot of unsharp images. On the other hand, the moving sensor design on the Sony Alphas is probably quite delicate. I would probably avoid wet-cleaning my Alpha sensors!
Stever and Erik, thank you for this info on makros.
Good light to all! - Hening.