Are they really THAT much better? I'm going through a bit of a nostalgic thing here missing my old canon gear, so I'm trying to see if staying with the OMD and getting better lenses will make me just as happy, and make my hands and back/shoulders MUCH happier! I'm looking into getting two primes. Something in the 17ish range and something in the 25ish range. Now I'm going between the PL15 and the voightlander 17 and the PL25 and the voightlander 25. Now either way I can't really afford a second lens if I get a voightlander. I'm not 100% sure I'll need a second though. If you go through some of my photos you'll see what I shoot. Mostly gardens, flowers, landscapes, food shots, some people. Now currently I've been using the 12-50 and 40-150, I'm also thinking of upgrading to the 100-300 for birds and animals that are slightly more friendly. I did shoot that a lot and it's been harder where I am right now, which I'm hoping may change in the next year or so. We'll see. Admittedly the 25 seems closer to the 22.5 I'd need measuring with the zoom then the 17. The 15 seems too far out from that. So I guess it would have to be between the 17 0.95 and the two 25s. Basically are they really a grand better? Are they really better in general? For someone who is really missing DSLRs is it the best choice to get that look?