Out of curiosity I went to the slrgear site to check the 50/1.8 lens performance. Yes, it a cheap basic lens but it is often considered a good lens. Well, I've never seen a chart so ugly for any m43 lens! http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/150/cat/10 You have to stop it down to f4 or f5.6 to get performances similar to the Pana and Oly kit zoom: http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1400/cat/15 http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1588/cat/69 So I checked the Canon 24-70 and is not bad but it is debatable if it is any better or worse then the Pana and Oly pro zooms. Then the Canon 85/1.2 and the chart is quite horrible, not even comparable to the Nocticron. Nikon 105/2.8 is terrible. I'm talking about what I see in the "blur index" chart, I have not interest in bashing other systems for the sake of it. So I went to the Otus 55(!) and again it never reaches the sharpness of the Oly 75 and f4 ever. So I'm wondering: is this true or is just some measurement "effect" (they use DxO software BTW). Is the different format ratio that is helping? The smaller surface to cover? Shorter flange distance? Less telecentric designs? To make it simple: are m43 lenses really so much better? Ok, lens performance is not only about sharpness, there is CA, distortions, etc. but let's talk only about the slrgear "blur index" for now.