I will admit up front that I know that decision here completely comes down to personal preference and money, but i'm going to blabber on about my difficulty to decide between these two lenses anyhow. Surely I can't be the only one wanting to get one (or both!) of these while they are discounted (in the US, anyhow). With the 30mm f/3.5 macro currently selling for $99, I only see one way that I could pass it up. And that's if I buy the 60mm for $299 instead! Since I have 17mm, 25mm, 45mm, and 75mm primes either lens would mostly be a special-purpose lens for me. Macrophotography has always fascinated me, but i've never been that good at it. I'd like to get better at it, and I realize that equipment is only part of the equation, with technique and lighting being at least equally (and probably much more) important. (but this is true of all photography, really). However, fun new equipment always gives me a bit more patience to work on better technique. I currently have an adapted Micro-Nikkor 55mm f/2.8 as well as a set of manual m4/3 extension tubes. The lens is well regarded for image quality but i've used it mostly for digitizing 35mm slides. I did chase some snowflakes with it the other day but I was unhappy with the results, although I can't wait to try again next time is snows. I know that everyone says that autofocus is irrelevant for macro, but I sure do miss it -- again I probably need to work on my technique. I do wonder if the Zuiko 60mm would be much of an improvement IQ wise, or if the Nikkor is good enough. If I get the 60mm, I'm thinking I could probably net $100 on the Micro-Nikkor. I can't think of any reason to keep both. Writing this down I'm starting to think there's a better way to ask my question. Knowing that I have the Micro-Nikkor 55mm, and I'm possibly spending between $100-$300 dollars to improve my macrophotography, should I buy a new lens or invest in other gear like a focusing stage or a ring light (or something else I haven't thought of)?