First off, hello everyone. I'm coming across from Nikon of which I've been a user for over 10years. I've been shooting full frame for the last 3 years and am switching to an Olympus OMD E 5mk2 (it's arrived at the shop and I'm very excited). I'm trading in my D750 body and a selection of lenses for a few MFT lenses. The problem is, I'm a bit confused as to why all the reviews state "XX full frame equivalent". I'm looking at the 60mm 1.8, 17mm 1.8, and 40-150mm 2.8 Pro. Every time I read a review, the reviewer, for example for the 60mm 1.8, will state 120mm ff equivalent (I see the crop factor on the mft is x2). Now. When I went to ff with my Nikon gear, I understood that I'd have to upgrade to ff lenses or I'd have vignetting using my DX (aps-c sensor) lenses. I also understood that going the other direction, ie. fitting an FX (ff) lens to a DX camera body would result in cropping, which I did quite a bit when using my old D80 and scouring eBay for older, non aps-c lenses. In this case with the Nikon, I can see why someone would say that a 30mm prime full frame lense on an aps-c would have an effective length of 75mm due to the 1.5 crop factor. Simply because the full frame lens is designed for a full frame sensor and the DX lens is designed specifically for an aps-c camera ( I won't go in to the distances from sensor to lens etc etc). So. After all that, if all the lenses I'm looking at are designed for the mft camera, why is everyone mentioning the X2 cropped ff equivalent? If I buy the 17mm 1.8 and pop it on my M5, am I expecting to see a true 17mm field the same way I'd pop on a 17mm on my D750? Or should I be expecting a field of view that I'd expect if I'd put a 34mm on to my d750? Basically, should every lens length that I look at be multiplied by 2 or not? If I use a 50mm on my Nikon and want the same view on the Oly, do I buy a 50mm mft or do I have to buy a 25mm to achieve the same viewing angle? Bit of a long post but the reviews have really messed me up a bit with these mft lenses.