Hi all, I am contemplating a fast UWA lens for primarily getting into astrophotography and also enabling landscapes with lots of movement, where a panorama wouldn't be feasible. There are a number of factors playing tug-of-war with many of the upcoming options, and maybe you guys can help me sort out some of them. The Voightlander 10.5mm f/.95 seems like the best choice for astrophotography, and I don't mind manual focus for the applications I would be using it for. But should I really be considering the EM-1 for astrophotography? I also have a Canon 7d Mk II, and while I currently don't plan on investing heavily into it, should I be considering options there as well? The APSC format would likely allow me to hold the shutter button open longer, but the EM-1 also has live composition... I have heard that there are techniques to get around the noise issue, but I also haven't seen many astrophotography examples from the EM-1 that blew me away like some of the DSLR shots I have seen - although that could be due more to post processing than system capabilities. I am curious about the upcoming pro fisheye. I might find the fisheye effect a novelty I would use every once in a while (not sure, but it sounds fun), but if I want to get a non-distorted, wide angle shot, can I correct it in post processing? Also, were I to use it for astrophotography, would the fisheye effect impact the 500 rule? I love my pro lenses, so the 7-14 is also a possibility (this statement is admittedly mostly fueled by GAS). But, not being as fast as the other two, it's probably the last option. It has a bit more width, but can anyone show me how much of a difference that would make? Also, I think that when applying it to the 500 rule, the Voightlander still wins. Sharpness would be a factor to compare as well, though. As for zoom vs prime, I'm normally a zoom guy (especially with these pro lenses), but at the extreme ends of focal length I don't think it matters, and the 7-14 would overlap with the 12-40 anyways. Am I missing anything?