Pros&Cons on macro alternatives

I plan to get more serious about macro shooting.
What do you guys think about these two alternatives?

1. MP-E 65 + MT24EX + diffuser, cost abt $1500
2. EF-180, cost abt $1250

I have been leaning off and on for each alternative for some time.
If you put the price difference aside, we have of course the obvious differences with 1X and 5x, distance to object, flash and without flash

How about other limitations?

Is it ridiculous to compare these two just because they are so different in terms of usage?
And by that it's just to put your own intentions at first and then decide...

First off the magnification range is 1X-5X and 0X-1X, so the two are complementary rather than alternatives.

You might want to consider the 100mm macro rather than the 180mm for a number of reasons.

The MT-24EX is the way to go but my experience is the flash reflector is so large and close compared to the subject size a diffuser does not do much. You get good modelling with the MP-E and 100mm but I would say the 180mm would require off bracket mounting of the flash heads to get good modelling.

If going for the MP-E you might be wise to get an ordinary macro lens first if you have no previous macro experience, you will need it anyway. The 100mm will be an easier transition for you to the MP-E.

Have a read of this for background http://www.zen20934.ze​n.co.uk …raphy/Macro_Equ​ipment.htm

I'd say get your feet wet a bit in the world of macro first. Spend just a bit on ext. tubes to use with your 70-200/4 L IS lens. You'll use them anyway later even if you get a macro lens. Then , if that goes well, try something a little more "normal" like a Sigma 150 macro.

Thanks guys.
Well, my feet has a least got damp, since I have used a borrowed 100mm for some time.
(The 70-200 with the EF-25 II has of course also been tried out)