I apologize in advance if this message is a little too basic. I'm a beginner, and I'm trying to learn. (And this is my first posting to this forum.) My new Lumix GX1 came with a lens (H-FS014042) which seems to work very nicely for general use. But I also want to shoot some macro shots, and I also will eventually want a longer zoom. Through research online (including here), I discovered that legacy lenses will work on my camera, so I bought a used canon macro lens (FD mount), with an adapter, for about a hundred bucks. To my non-professional eye, the images produced by this lens are quite good. Now, in thinking about a zoom lens, I can see used Canon FD-mount zoom lenses for well under a hundred dollars online (about 35-75 dollars), whereas native zoom lenses (say, the H-FS100300) are as much as five hundred bucks. I expect that my zoomed images will mostly be of my kids' school concerts and the odd bit of wildlife on hiking trips. I won't be taking sunrise shots of the mist streaming off of Yosemite on early winter mornings -- at least, not very often. I understand that the legacy lenses have the disadvantage that most of the controls are manual, and that the coatings of the lenses are different than modern digital lenses, and that the refraction might be a bit different. But I also understand that a 200mm legacy lenses gives me a 400mm lens on my camera, and that sounds like a huge upgrade to me. So, my question is this: other than the absence of the digital tools for use with legacy lenses, is there any consistent downside I should be aware of? And, if there are not any consistent downsides, is there any compelling reason to buy the native lenses? Thanks in advance for your feedback.