I caved this weekend. I had been fighting the temptation for months and I just gave in. I had been using using the Olympus 70-300mm with pleasure for the past year as a cheap alternative with no complaints what so ever. Okay, a few complaints. It's a decent lens, but it isn't a great lens. What it lacked in resolution, it definitely made up for in terms of its near-macro 1:2 magnification. And I put some effort earlier into filling out the sample image page for the lens since there wasn't much there: https://www.mu-43.com/f81/olympus-70-300ed-f-4-5-6-zd-4-3-image-thread-9911/index2.html But I made the mistake recently of comparing it to my Konica Hexanon 200mm f/3.5. Up until this point, there was no dissatisfaction. But when I compared the images, I realized that this old prime was noticeably sharper than the 70-300mm--to the extent that a shot with the 200mm at f/5.6 enlarged to the size of the Olympus at 300m at f/8 was at least equal, if not superior to it. I would have been perfectly content. But then I started taking the 200mm out instead of the 70-300mm. https://www.mu-43.com/f56/pitt-addington-marsh-greater-vancouver-oly75mm-konica-200mm-f-3-5-a-37759/ So I caved. I've sold the 70-300mm and I bought a used Olympus 50-200mm SWD. I figure that if I'm going to be carrying around a heavy telephoto, I might as well go one step farther. It'll be arriving tomorrow. Hopefully, I'll be able to get for some shooting this weekend. My rationalization? Well, I know that when you get into the telephoto range, size reduction for parallel (real) focal lengths becomes less and less possible--Panasonic's 100-300mm isn't really any smaller or lighter than the similar zooms (in terms of real focal length, not equivalent) for larger format systems, so even an native lens in the same FL range and aperture wouldn't be much smaller and AF isn't an issue for what I would shoot with it (landscape & nature). Anyway...we'll see if this was a good idea or a bad idea soon.