Erik I think you would be better served if you used m4/3rd lenses and get rid of the 4/3rd ones. But. If I were you I would consider the E5. When I had mine it seemed the images were sharper and almost 3D looking compared to the m4/3rd cameras and also the IS seemed to work better. Used bodies are everywhere and prices have dropped. The E5 is rugged and would last you many years. Unless the size is an issue.
Either way I would put all my eggs in one basket and use the lenses made for the system without adapters.





Quote Originally Posted by Erik_Olympus View Post
I recently purchased my first micro 4/3 camera after being a 4/3 user for the past 5 or 6 years. I purchased an E-PM2 and I'm satisfied enough with the system to want to purchase an additional lens but I'm torn over which to buy. I'm looking for that one lens that really brings out the best in the camera.

While budget is an issue, I'm willing to spend to get some quality (which also begs the question, would the money be better spent on a better body).

I'm torn between a fast wide-normal prime and a long telephoto and should I get one of each of a mid range lens or get one lens and spend a bit more. Currently I only have one native m4/3 lens - the kit 14-42mm R II.

I also have a few 4/3 lenses, which work but autofocus is slow. I've got the 9-18mm, 14-42mm, 40-150mm, 50mm Macro and 70-300mm. I also have 3 Konica Hexanon AR lenses, 40/1.8, 50/1.7 and UC 80-200/4. I find the E-PM2 pretty well suited for using these manual lenses and have little trouble with MF as long as I don't need to take the shot in a hurry.

The Olympus 12/2 looks very interesting as does the Panasonic 20/1.7. Then again so does the 75-300 ED. Although the 70-300 4/3 lens works, I would think it would be a whole different experience with a native lens.

Something like the SLR Magic HyperPrime might be really fun although it does something completely different.

Or to take it a whole other way, get the Panasonic 14mm/2.5, the Olympus 40-150, and Tokina 300mm.

What do you think?