Ex. Tube or Macro?

[jmm102167]

I have had the Oly E-500 with the standard (entry level) 14 - 45 mm zoom which has produced some pretty impressive results but the limitations have come up. I am intermediate in skill level but I have hit the limits of focusing distance and low resolution with this lens as I am into macros quite a bit.

I am ready to jump on the Zuiko 50 mm f2.0 ED Macro and I have heard it is a very nice lens for what I want and more. It runs about $400 after rebate. Now, there is the extension tube option as well which rings in at about $140 and I could use my standard lens in front of it.

I wanted to get opinions on this. If I get the tube will I just wish I got the lens? I have a feeling that this will be the case because even though I will have higher magnification abilities I will still have the lower level optics with the standard 14-45 mm zoom on the tube. Are there any advantages to the tube and will this be something that I will use even with the 50 mm Macro later if I get both?

I know little of tubes and I have this impression (it may be very false) that they are a low-cost replacement for quality or "cheating" in a way. I have the money for the lens but I don't want to spend it unless it is indeed required.

Thanks for any ideas/comments.

[brucep]

The macro lens will be far more versatile. I've been using my 25mm extension tube with a few of my lenses (check my gallery if you're interested), but have ordered a macro lens for its ability to focus on anything from infinity down to life size (1:1 at 5.9").

My tube will see far less use, but will enable me to get much closer to skittish subjects when used behind my longer lenses.

Your 50mm being an f/2 will also enable you to take photos in very low light (though with a very shallow depth of field). I don't recall if your camera has a 1.6 'multiplication' factor (small sensor as my 20D)... if so, 50mm is also in the range of a portrait lens (like 80mm).