Would it be crazy to buy a NIKKOR Z MC 50mm f/2.8 over a Tamron 90mm f2.8 Di III Macro for Macro photography?

I have a Z50ii and am looking to replace the Tamron SP AF 60mm F/2 Di II Macro I had that broke. I've narrowed it down to these two and am a little torn on how to proceed. I previously wasn't considering the Z MC 50 mm as everywhere I looked it seemed like people were saying it's an inferior macro lens to the Tamron 90 mm. However, I got a chance to try it and it takes really nice images, and the lightweight and smaller size is nice as I am looking for something that will be carried around frequently. This is all for amateur hobby photography.

As far as macro goes, I am primarily using it to take images of flowers and other non-mobile objects. I definitely want the option of having 1:1 reproduction, but the majority of the time I'm not shooting at quite that high a magnification. Yes, I have to get really close to things if I do want a true 1:1, but that feels like less of an issue as I'm not generally shooting things that move. I do see people complain about it blocking your lighting when you're that close however, which is not something I was able to test when I tried it, so I don't know how much that would affect me.

One of the benefits I do keep running into when looking into the Z MC 50 mm is that it can double as a more versatile prime for more everyday shooting, but I already have the Z DX 16-50mm f/2.8 VR that covers everyday use, so I don't need the aspects of the MC 50 mm that overlap with being more general purpose, I just need something for true macro and otherwise very close up shots.

So for macro / close ups alone, would I be crazy to get the Z MC 50 mm over the Tamron 90 mm macro? If the MC 50 mm were a lot cheaper I probably wouldn't even be asking this question, but the Tamron 90 mm and MC 50 mm are almost the same price ($700 and $670 respectively) and it seems like everywhere I look the Tamron 90 mm is the "superior" macro lens compared to the MC 50 mm. Are there really major differences in the quality though? I understand that I can be further away from the subject with the Tamron 90 mm and the Tamron gives better bokeh, but am I losing out on much else with the MC 50 mm?

I think I would be happy with the Z MC 50 mm based on the couple of hours I got to use it, but I have not had the chance to try the Tamron 90 mm, so I'm wondering if I'm crazy to spend pretty much the same price on what most reviews seem to suggest is a less capable macro lens. Any advice from anyone who's experienced both, or at least the Z MC 50, is appreciated!