Looking at the 3G, I think I will only use one if and when I put my camera on the tripod. With a handheld way of photographing, the "fine tuning" seems cumbersome. Afterall the slightest change in handholding will change the OOF portions anyway!
For "spontaneous" photography, I will not use the 3G.
I have the original as well as 2.0. The difference between these two are as follows:
2.0 has better coating on its lens
2.0's largestest aperture is ... welll ... f/2.0 whereas the Original's is f/2.8
2.0 uses a floating magnet to retain its aperture rings, so changing is easy...The Original uses a rubber gasket
Other than the ability to lock your focus in place and fine tune it, the only other difference between a 3G and the other two is that the 3G comes with aperture rings right down to f/22 whereas the Original and 2.0 only went down to f/8. I believe that the extra, smaller rings are targeted at macro shooters.
In considering whether you should go with the 2.0 or 3G, ask yourself what you would be shooting with it. If you want fast, on-the-fly, handheld shots, then go for the 2.0. I believe that the 3G will still allow you to shoot handheld without the need to use the focusing rails but their presence would slow you down, so, if you don't need speed and if you shoot macro and have a need for repeatability or precise control, then the 3G is for you.
For samples, just visit the Lensbaby website and click on each of the Lensbabies. You will be shown a menu where one of the items will be the gallary for the chosen Lensbaby. Here is one of mine, this is a infrared, abstract-macro shot of a stack of mechnical pencil refills, taken with the 2.0 and a specially modified camera. The 3G would have made the taking of this shot a breeze.
P.S. No matter what the "experts" tell you, there is no recreating this image on Photoshop, at least not in anyway that a sane person would try. :bsmilie: