Hi, I'm new! Okay, now that that's out of the way, let me explain I'm a hobbyist photographer, I currently own a Sigma SD10 DSLR and a few lenses, but due to changes I find myself more and more wishing for something smaller and/or WAY faster than that old Sigma. (The SD10 body weights 950g...) Anyways, I've fallen (hard) for the Pana DMC-G3 and currently planning to purchase one as soon as I a) get the money and b) find a good deal. My most used lens on the SD10 is a 28-200mm/3.5-5.6 MACRO that I most commonly shoot from 40mm onwards to full tele. (Then I like to "play" with my kit 18-55mm that has a 0.5x Wide converter bolted to it, I love the thing Mostly I photograph the various activities that my three (3, 6 and 9 years) kids invent, so that's the reason I neeeeeed a faster camera. The SD10 manages about 1.5fps for 6 consecutive shots, and then stops for almost two full minutes to write to card. (I HATE that...) Anyway, that's there so you know some of my shooting habits and can advise based on that. My real question is: is the Pana 45-200mm worth lots of money? The thing is, I found a deal for the G3 + 14-42mm kit lens for 500€ (that's practically the lowest I've found anywhere near here). I know now, that the 42mm "tele" end will not suffice and I will want to go longer. But the store that sells that, also has another bundle: G3 + 14-42mm kit + 45-200mm pana for 900€. That's way much more money than the bundle, and I'm really short on cash around here. So even though I would really like to have the longer lens, is it really worth almost 400€ for the lens alone? Is there anything cheaper that would be close enough for that one that I could get later, or is the 45-200mm even cheaper by itself somewhere else. tl;dr: 45-200mm owners: do you thing the lens is worth 400€?