Hello all! About a year ago I aquired my first m43 camera, a panasonic G3. I have been using a 100-300mm pany zoom for, amoung other things, shooting insects.In bright sunlight it seems to work quite well and I can get "pretty good" detail from about 5 feet away, which is far enough not to scare the insects. The problem I find is I would like to see "more" detail on the beasties than what I am currently getting (we always want more don't we? ). Anyway i've never used a macro lens before but inspite of the added difficulty and expense It will probably entail I've started thinking of buying just such a lens, perhaps either the Oly 60mm 2.8 or the PL45 2.8. I have used a magnification lens on my 20mm f1.7 so I know how tricky macro can be because of narrow dof but I'm hoping a dedicated macro lens will lessen the finikityness of bringing the subject and what little dof is available together in one place. I must admit I'm also sort of hoping people will recomend the Oly as its cheaper and seems to produce slightly more magnification than the panasonic. However, the Oly lacks OIS and realistically most of the time I'm not going to be using a tripod. So I supose (given the relative difficulty of macro photography to begin with) what it comes down to is which lens will give me the greater keeper-rate on my G3 body? That is of course unless the difference in keeper-rate turns out to be negligable or worth less to me than the €200 price difference. The other consideration i have knocking around in my head is portrait performance. I don't currently own a dedicated prime lens for portraits, so how well the macro lens handles portraits might also be a factor. If I wasn't thinking to buy a macro right now then a portrait lens would be my next purchase. If the macro out performs my pany 20mm 1.7 for portraits then perhaps I might not need a dedicated portrait lens at all? Thanks in advance.