So I'm mulling over what my next lens purchase will be once I finally manage to sell off the remainder of my Nikon FX glass (a surprisingly difficult process). The main thing I lack at the moment is a long telephoto for landscapes and the occasional street/action shot. I actually do have a telephoto option in the Panasonic 14-140 but I've been pretty disappointed with the results from the long end of that lens - to the point that I've not bothered to use it in several months. I need AF and at least some ability to zoom , so that rules out primes and legacy lenses. I do shoot landscapes, so it needs to be reasonably sharp and contrasty when focused to long distances. At the moment I'm torn between either the Olympus 40-150, the Panasonic 45-200, or the 4/3 Olympus 50-200/2.8-3.5. I suspect that the 50-200 is much the sharper lens, when focused correctly, but as I've learned with my 4/3 12-60, AF is slow and not always all that accurate on adapted lenses. Plus the 50-200 will be a pig to lug around (bigger and heavier than a FF 70-200/4, and it extends enormously) - hardly in keeping with the underlying goal of m4/3 (lighten my load). On the flip side, I've seen a lot unhappy comments about 45-200 and 40-150 performance at the long end, and a good many samples indicating that neither lens is really 'all that' at the long end. Any comments/suggestions at this point would be welcomed, particularly from people who have used some or all of the lenses mentioned! Thanks!