thank you guys. what about the tele portion of my questions? anyone has a nice recommendation, the lenses that caught my attention based on Robin Wongs post and some image thread here in mu-43.com are the O75-300 and P100-300. any experiences?

__________________
www.chrisleskovsek.com

Chris, have you considered the Olympus 12mm on the wide side? Okay, I know it is expensive, but what sold me was that it was as sharp, or sharper, than the 7-14 @12 in the corners. Obviously, it doesn't go deep into ultra wide territory, but I find the focal length and lens (46mm filters, snap focus) to be pretty flexible.

__________________
Kyle / E-M5 and E-PM2
Flickr Photostream

Hi Kyle, yes! i have seriously considered the O12 im still deciding. i just dont want to overlap and be redundant with my system. Im thinking in the P7-14 for outdoors and landscapes, while the O12 could work for walkaround wide, street shooting. specially if im going to jump on the P25 or if Olympus releases the new 25 "pancake". so i need to make a decision in terms of going for the P7-14 or O12 since i could only afford one of those so i can get some other stuff i want-need.

__________________
www.chrisleskovsek.com

No experience with either, but I am also pondering these two lenses. What I have found here and other places is the consensus seems to be that the Oly focuses faster on the OM-D and may be slightly better optically. Refurbs can be found for under $700, so the price difference is a bit less, but the Panasonic certainly wins the price battle.

Really hope Oly will remake the 50-200 from 4/3 - m4/3 needs that lens.

__________________
A few of my photos can be found here: http://jeffryscott.com/

The 9-18 is a great lens, I recently bought the 7-14 and sold the 9-18 but to be honest I can't say I notice any difference in the IQ or general performance. I got the 7-14 because I now have the 12-35 and the difference between 9 and 12mm wasn't enough in my view so got the 7-14 which makes it worthwhile. Once expanded the 9-18 is the same size as the 7-14.

I'm waiting for the 35-100 before getting a tele lens none of the current selection of m4/3 tele's really inspire me, all a bit slow and I'd prefer the IQ and speed of the 35-100m once it's released. I used to have the 100-300 but sold it through lack of use however it is a very good lens and I had no issue with the IQ or general performance.

I also used to have the 20 and now have the 25, the 20 just never quite did it for me, hard to put a finger on it, the images maybe seemed a bit sterile hard to describe but the 25 is excellent and I've no regrets selling the 20.

You could get the 12-35, it's a great lens and covers you down to 12mm if thats enough for you.

__________________
G5, GH-3, 7-14, 12-35, 35-100, 25.
RX100

I don't think there is any consensus that the 75-300mm is better optically than the 100-300mm if the OP is considering a choice between them. If anything, I think that users' opinions slightly favor the Panasonic, but any optical differences are probably dwarfed by differences in cost, size/weight and OIS in the Panasonic for those without IBIS cameras.

__________________
OM-D+HLD-6 ~ G5 ~ 7-14mm ~ 12-35mm ~ 14-140mm ~ 35-100mm ~ 100-300mm ~ 45mm/1.8 ~ 75mm/1.8
D700 ~ D300 ~ 24-70mm/2.8 AF-S ~ 80-200mm/2.8 AF-S ~ 17-55mm/2.8 AF-S ~ 300mm/4 AF-S ~ 28mm/1.8 AF-S ~ 85mm/1.8 AF-S + drawers full of MF lenses and film bodies

http://newellj.smugmug.com
http://www.flickr.com/newellj/

The 100-300 is a decent performer; only got it over the Olympus because I found a very good deal on it (as new from a dealer with warrantee for 350 euros...no-brainer). It's nowhere near the performance my 70-200 was, and it's a very long tele, not a medium long tele lens - starting at 200mm f.o.v (full frame equivalent) it's a wildlife lens more than anything else. For it's size and range it's crazy small. My 100-400 Canon (which I like but don't necessarily love) is a little better, but crazy much larger and will go on the market pretty soon.

Right now, I'm waiting until Photokina to see what gets announced; my current thinking is to drop the 20 in favor of a 25/1.4, and get rid of the 12-50 and get the 12-35 (or a theoretical 12-60 from Oly).

__________________
EOS: 5DII, 30DIR, 24-105L, 35L, 135L, 15/2.8 FE, Σ 50/1.4, Σ 105/2.8 macro
Mu43: GF2, E-M5, P14/2.5, P20/1.7, O45/1.8, P7-14, O12-50, P12-35, P100-300
Legacy: Contax Zeiss 50/1.4, 35/2.8, Leica R 50/2.0, 28/2.8, Pentax 50/1.7

I enjoyed reading your post and all the answers so far. I've been looking at the same lenses to expand my m43 glass collection and going through the same research. I was leaning for the 7-14mm when I came across the current sale on the Rokinon 7.5mm at buydig.com. I know it's a fisheye and much different then a flat UWA, but at $239, I couldn't pass. I'm expecting to receive it tomorrow. I hope it does not leave too much of a gap with the Oly 12mm. Maybe I can do without an UWA zoom...

Seeing this thread pop up again in my subscriptions got me thinking about the title, "top m4/3 glass" and I wondered, what would I rate my top glass for m4/3 as. Just for the heck of it, from what I personally have used and owned, these are/were the truly outstanding lenses:

Zooms
Panasonic 7-14mm f/4.0
Panasonic 12-35mm f/2.8*
Pansonic 14-140mm (not quite on the same level as the 12-35, but very good, and my favorite of the 3 Panasonic tele zooms for both IQ and overall usefulness)

*Can also add the Panasonic 35-100mm f/2.8 to this list for sure if it's equal to the 12-35mm quality

Primes
Olympus 12mm f/2.0
Voigtlander 25mm f/0.95 (17.5mm f/0.95 I've used and it was also excellent and might have an edge over the 25 but I only had it a short while)
Panasonic Leica 25mm f/1.4
Olympus 45mm f/1.8*

*probably to be supplanted on this list by the 75mm f/1.8 as soon as I've tried one!

__________________
500px | flickr

“The camera is an instrument that teaches people how to see without a camera.” -- Dorothea Lange

As for 20 vs 25, I love almost everything about the 25/1.4... Such superb image and color quality - fantastic!!!! But one thing... It's a relatively boring focal length, in my view. The 20 is a bit more interesting for focal length, but definitely takes a back seat to the 25 in all other aspects. So neither is quite "it" for me. I have them both and love them both, but the moment a 17mm f/1.8 or 1.4 with high grade rendering and build quality (as the 25/1.4 exhibits) arrives on the scene, both my 25/1.4 and 20/1.7 will likely see little use.

Regarding the 7-14 and 9-18, the "seven" is my favorite pet and I call it the "seven" because to me its pretty much a 7mm prime and that's all I ask of it. Amazing lens! I do keep the "nine" around as it is a slightly more versatile lens for times when I desire that versatility more than the sheer drama and glory of the seven. For me there is plenty enough difference between the two lenses to have and use them both.

I agree with Jay that the 14-140 is an awesome lens which provides quite high quality images... it should, as it's not an inexpensive lens at all. And for my purposes, I find 140 about as long in focal length as I ever desire, which isnt often anyway. I rate the very versatile 14-140 as just a slight bit behind the 7-14 and 12-35 for IQ. Its a great lens, for sure. I am also eagerly awaiting the 35-100/2.8 and the rumored 12-60. I don't consider 14mm to be much of a wide angle, so having the 12-35 is fantastic with the 12mm wide end on it and amazing IQ. If the rumored 12-60 provides comparable IQ (even if not quite as fast) as the 12-35, I would be tempted by that lens...but only if it is a high grade lens.

__________________
Don