An Extension tube VS A dedicated Macro lens adapter?

[Prajwal J Ullal]

After spending, and exploring, an year with my Canon 100mm f/2.8 Non IS Macro lens, I sometimes feel hungry to get even closer and to record even more details in the subject. Lately I have started getting back to the Reverse lens technique, but it surely is not the whole and sole option for higher magnification macro shots. I have seen few of my friends and photography lovers' works, who are into macro photography, use extensions tubes or Raynox DCR or both, to get really close, full frame shots, of the tiny beauties of nature. I am curious to know which one of these are a better option, an extension tube set or a Macro lens adapter like Raynox DCR 250.

In general one advantage that I see with Raynox is whenever I want to get closer to the subject I can just pop the adapter in front of my lens, rather than removing my lens and then fitting the extension tube and later fitting the macro lens.

I havent used neither the extension tube nor the Raynox, so was curious to know about them from our forum members and experts. DO let me know which would be a better option, this will help me in making the right decision, equipment wise as well as budget-wise.