Thanks to all who offered suggestions, opinions and ideas in response to my macro lens questions.
To help confuse me further, some suggested I seriously consider 50mm macros.
To up the ante of confusion I am now considering 35mm macros, specifically the 35mm 2.8 limited. I viewed hundreds of photos taken with that lens on the flickr site and found that its a lens that can excel at the subjects of landscapes and portraits as well as macro scenes.
My microscopic lens "road map" was to be only two or maybe three lenses: a good macro or two and the 31mm special. Now I'm reconsidering the 31mm because if I invest in the 35mm which appears to be in the same league with the 31mm, the 31mm would be unnecessary.
I couldn't use the 35mm properly on my old film SLR but could it could still be used with Q, M43 and NEX mounts.
More importantly, in your experience/view/opinion is the 31mm so special that it couldn't be replaced by the 35mm?
Last edited by krema; 11-13-2014 at 12:33 PM.
Reason: brain worked again