Okay, the 45/1.8 is small, light, silver, cool-looking, sharp, and $300. I'm getting that anyway. The Nocticron 42/1.2 is kind of big, $1500, a good lens, but at only a stop faster than the 45/1.8, something I really don't want. The Voigtlander Nokton 42/0.95, however, I do want. And as does everyone, I want the 75, one of the greatest ever. I can only afford one $800 lens right now and I can't decide which to get!! The 42mm FL would be more useful for indoor shots. In low-light hand-held situations it will be over 2 stops faster than the 75. And at 0.95, it will in all situations have more background blur than the 75. MF isn't a problem for me as I enjoy it, but the problem is that the Nokton is getting its bokeh from being at f0.95, meaning super shallow DOF, and probably lack of sharpness and some dreaminess? Stopping down to f1.2 it will give me a bit more DOF and sharpness and still give let's just say equivalent bokeh to the 75. If I owned it I might use it at f1.2 a lot. Stopping down to f1.8 or f2.2, however, the Olympus will show it up in all situations (except for indoors when I'm walking backwards and hit a wall!). Since I have the 45 already, you might say get the 75. But if I'm going somewhere in low-light, with those lenses, my choice would be my 28/2, 25, 20, etc., whereas if I had the 42/0.95, I could get away with a longer FL (the Nokton 42 is 1.5 stops better than the 45) indoors and grab that more often. So, simply having two lenses around the 45mm range would not reduce either to not being used. I know it'd be a weird comparison, but does anyone have both the 75 and the 42 Nokton? To compare you'd have to take shots from different lengths, but that's okay because that's what I'd be doing anyway. I don't think anyone has done any comparisons because they aren't really comparable lenses, but to me, as you can see, they most definitely are!