In the film days, every maker worked hard to have a good, cheap, bright/fast normal lens. For m4/3, it seems that all the autofocus primes with a full-frame equivalent FOV from 35-60mm have some compromise. • Olympus 17mm f/2.8: pancake sure, but not very bright, and not that sharp • Olympus 17mm f/1.8: better, but lacking compared to the similarly styled 45mm f/1.8 and 75mm f/1.8 • Sigma 19mm f/2.8 EX & Art: cheap, but big and dim • Panasonic 20mm f/1.7: very popular; small & bright. The autofocus isn't the greatest and there were problems with banding and some purple fringing on Olympus bodies. We'll see if the updated II model is any better. • Panasonic 25mm f/1.4: lots of folks like the subjective "look" and "microcontrast" of this lens, but objectively it doesn't resolve the details that well • Sigma 30mm f/2.8 EX & Art: like the 19mm, cheap, big and dim Maybe the rumored Olympus 25mm will perform more like the 45mm or 75mm, but with this track record, I'd bet it ends up like the 17mm f/1.8 - good, not great. (And I do hope I'm proven wrong.) The Sigmas have an excuse as they were designed to work well for Sony's APS-C format. But what about Panasonic and Olympus? Is it that much harder to design normal lenses for m4/3?