Macro lens vs raynox?

[Gladiator]

I want to get into macro photography. I have a Canon EOS 550D with 18-55mm & 55-200mm lenses. My question is am I better getting The 100mm f2.8 usm macro lens, or a raynox? Please help I'm so confused.

[Elmo]

For image quality the Lens by far but the Raynox is a cheaper entry route. Another down side is after using the micro you might not like your current glass as well as you used to. But should you really become a micro person you will find a true micro in in your stable. So you might want to get the raynox to try micro. then if you like macro you can save for the 100 f:2.8 IS L macro.

[Gladiator]

Thanks, I know I definitely want to do micro, so you have just confirmed what I was thinking any way. I have read about people putting a raynox on a macro lens. Is there any point?