I don't need a new lens. But Friday I was given the news that I am cancer free for eight years (officially) and in 2 more years (if I remain cancer free) I can stop having an annual cystoscopy. In celebration I want to buy myself a new lens. I don't have a lot but I have about $200 (maybe up to $260) that I can spend. What I would love to have is a 40/2 Summicron C or a Rokkor-M 40/2. (or even a Zeiss Planar 45/2) Since those are an impossibility I thought I would open it to the wisdom of the board. I would like a reasonably fast, sharp lens. I want MF because I like MF. I have a small collection of Super Takumars (28.3.5, 50/1.4, 55/1.8 and 105/2.8) that I like quite a lot. I also have a Helios 44M and an Industar 50/3.5 (on the way). As I said, I don't NEED anything and I am quite happy with what I have but it has been a long difficult journey to get here and I have a little bit of a balance in my PayPal account after selling some gear and I feel like a little celebratory splurge. Some of my favorite all time cameras (film) are my Olympus 35RC with its 42/2.8 lens and my Minolta Hi-Matic 9 with it's 47/1.7. The EPL-1 has been so fun that I really am having a blast taking pictures again. I realize that something fast in the 20mm (to give me the equivalent FOV of those fixed lens RF cams is going to be pricey so I'd be fine with a medium telephoto. It just means I got to step back a bit. at least F2 would be nice but not a must. I have become quite enamored of the Helios 44 and the way it renders (sorry to rub it in Stefan). So much so that I sold off all my Konicas (and also to streamline to m42). I'd love an m42 lens to make it simpler but again that is not a must. I have been toying with the idea of a Jupiter 8 or MIR 1B. If I don't have to spend ALL my balance that would be a plus but I'm willing to as well. What would you recommend? BTW, that's a picture of MY cystoscope this past Friday. Kevin "dancing with N.E.D."