Hi, I am becoming more and more interested in trying Four Thirds lenses on my Panasonic GX7. Mainly because of price at the given image quality, I found, up for sale, an Olympus Zuiko Digital 35mm f 3.5 Macro for 60 Euros and an Olympus Zuiko Digital 14-54mm f 2.8-3.5 I at 100 Euros, I found, up for sale, an Olympus Zuiko Digital 35mm f 3.5 Macro for 60 Euros and an Olympus Zuiko Digital 14-54mm f 2.8-3.5 I at 100 Euros, and from what I have read they offer very good image quality. Also, an Olympus MMF-2 at 50 Euros (alternatively, if it's sold off before I can buy it, there's a Chinese made Four Thirds to Micro Four Thirds for 60 Euros) is up for sale. I know it's going to focus slow (very slow in low light) and it's going to be noisy too and I think I can live with that, for now, since I shoot mostly landscape at wider than 100mm and I will keep my Sigma 60mm f 2.8. I wonder, in terms if image quality, if Panasonic 12-32mm f 3.5-5.6 does offer better image quality (or the like of Panasonic 14-42mm f 3.5-5.6 II / Panasonic X 14-42mm f 3.5-5.6 PZ / Olympus 12-50mm f 3.5-5.6, though these are more expensive). Oh, and should I try to go to a legacy 50/100mm f 3.5 macro lenses instead of the Olympus Zuiko Digital 35mm f 3.5 Macro ? From what I understand the wider angle gives more DOF and it would make it a bit easier to get the subject in focus, though the small working distance will make it hard for sensitive subjects not to be scared and fly away. And if a lens is 1:2 macro (when used in FF) shouldn't the magnification double when mounted on a Micro Four Thirds camera because of the 2x crop factor, making pseudo macro lenses into half macro and half macro lenses in full macro lenses and, subsequently, full macro lenses in 2:1 (like the Olympus Zuiko Digital 35mm f 3.5 ?