I think I am ready for the Panasonic 35-100/2.8. I've sat here and gone over all the pros and cons and it will just simply my kit so much more that I think it will be worth it eventually. But I am stuck on spending that much money for it. I also understand that Olympus is probably going to release some kind of telephoto constant aperture lens. But if I just sit here and wait for that, I would miss so many photo opportunities. I don't foresee losing out on reselling this lens either. I am mentally with a loss of $100-150 if I do decide to let it go for the Olympus versions in the future. Also, what if I switch to a Panasonic body in the future? OIS would be useful then. Here is my current kit: 9-18, 17/1.8, 25, 14-150. I shoot mostly for travel, street, events. I have some options, let me list them and tell me what you think. 1. Sell 25, 14-150, get 35-100. This is probably the simplest way. I would end up with an UWA zoom, a wide normal, and a telephoto zoom. 3-lenses makes it easy to select lenses for uses, but I'm afraid I would miss that 50 mm equivalent focal length and f/1.4. Is the 50 mm f/1.4 that important? Also, would I miss the super zoom? While the super zoom isn't the sharpest or the fastest lens, it is very versatile and I am very comfortable with it. 2. Just get the 45, again. I've bought and sold 45/1.8 twice now. It is a wonderful lens, don't get me wrong. But the first time I bought the 45/1.8, I didn't use it a whole lot over a period of 6 months. So I sold it. The second time I bought the 45/1.8, I thought I could live with a legacy 50 instead, but the manual focusing put me off. Yes I know I am a spoiled brat that is brought up on AF but it works for me, MF at the moment is only something I fine tune with after AF locks. This option will land me with an UWA, a wide normal, a mid-telephoto, a super zoom. I won't have any weather sealing though. There will be the odd moments that I want to step outside in the rain. The worst thing about option 2 is that I would end up with a lot of lenses. I am very much a minimalist. Clutter drives me insane, my fiance is the exact polar opposite. She litters everywhere I spend a day cleaning and putting things away each week to keep the house organized. It's a constant battle, but such is life. That's a discussion for another day. Obviously I would be spending less money, or perhaps even saving some money by going option 2. But I wouldn't have the 35-100... Which one of these options would you get? I heavily favour the 35 mm equivalent angle of view. I am a big fan of it. So if it comes down to choosing between the 17/1.8 or the 25/1.4, I would stick with the 17/1.8. It is the telephoto end of things that I am debating in this thread.