>>4382713
Lol I just sold mine and lenses. Can’t decide between a Nikon 200-500 f5.6 or camera body.
Don’t get the 25mm 1.7 it has focus shift issues. 12-32 pancake is fun. 100-300 is not sharp.
Look forward to color noise purple/green splotches in darker tones even at base iso.
Enjoy pretty good 4k and crap 1080p video.
Install cinelike d/v profiles to play around with grading 8bit vid.

>>4382717
m.zuiko 14-42mm powerzoom for pocketable travel snapshits
Panasonic 14mm f/2.5 and/or m.zuiko 45mm f/1.8 prime if primes are your jimmy
m.zuiko 60mm f/3.5 macro for macro / short telephoto
m.zuiko 40-150mm for muh reech; beware it isn't very sharp but very cheap and convenient

As long as you're just taking snapshits everything is passable though. Dont go down the "pro" lens rabbit hole or you risk spending fullframe money on 1/4 the camera usefulness.

The Panny 20mm f/1.7 might be all you need. The m.zuiko 9-18 and panny 35-100 f/4-5.6 are also great for travel. The three are tiny and work great together.

>>4382718
Out of these I recommend the 45mm f/1.8, 60mm macro (it is f/2.8) and the 40-150 f/4-5.6. I wasn't personally impressed with either of the pancake zooms or the 14mm f/2.5. The 17mm f/1.8 is also ok, just get one made in Vietnam.

>>4382717
>muh video
the cancer that is killing photography

>>4382819
Nobody tell him video is just a sequence of photos

>>4382837
and a bundle of sticks its a faggot

>>4382713
Dont spend shit on this meme PNS chasing equivalence, AF speed, sharpness, and other garbage. It will never satisfy.

LUMIX 20MM F1.7
LUMIX 12-60 - WHICHEVER ONE YOU LIKE MORE

/micro four thirds

Traveling with more lenses than this is ass anyways

>>4382718
Olympus lenses do not work on panasonic bodies except for exif, corrections, and autofocus.

>>4382713
pana 20mm pancake: tiny and sharp, slow as tits autofocus though but great otherwise, everyone shills it because it's good
some sort of standard zoom since you're traveling, the oly 14-42 ez or pana 14-42 (not the electro-only PZ one) or compact and neat pana 12-32. honestly there's a dozen different lenses in this segment and they're all pretty damn similar without even including the pro/leica lenses, just pick whichever one feels normal to use since olympus and panasonic have opposite zoom ring directions
other than that it depends entirely on what you're shooting

>>4382718
my 40-150 is sharper than my china oly primes from 40 to about 130mm, and then at 130-150 it completely falls apart which is a shame but not the end of the world

>>4382846
so basically they work 100% other than the on-lens Fn. button, of which none of the listed lenses have? sounds good to me

>>4382922
No dual IS, weather sealing doesn't work

>>4382924
there's only a handful of olympus lenses that have image stabilization to begin with, and it's only the 90mm macro, the 12-100 pro, and the shitpost-worthy 150-400 "costs more than my car" super tele, IIRC. so not something you ever really run into unless you specifically bought one of three or four lenses that would be a mess to use on a compact rangefinder-style gx85 anyway. oly went with plain lenses and IBIS, panasonic went with no in-body IS but image stabilization on even basic kit lenses, so olympus was left out to dry once panasonic also got in body IS
>weather sealing doesn't work
put a bag over it, i don't trust lens to body sealing no matter the brand or camera