good news!!!!!
 but i dont understand why, given all the possibilities a smaller sensor and a really shortened optical path offer ,why these 2 companies , panny and olympus cannot produce the small fast lenses that i really want.

small elegant lenses of commanding speed ,i have in front of me a minolta hi-matic 7sII
its a lovely black paint rangefinder for 35 film ,or for the digitally minded, a plate thats the size of a "full frame" sensor ,the image circle is  large , it has a nicely damped manual focus ring- yet  in  spite of these optical demands, it is a small compact lens

one could make a case for ois  making the barrels fatter , but i see lumix point and shoot cameras of all sizes that incorperate this technology even on cameras that cost under 150 dollars and it seems not to make the cameras too big ,
look at the enormous relative size between the front elements of the 17 2.8 pancake or the 20 1.7 pancake and the barrels these lenses live in [without ois in both]
look at the the absurd high price of the 7-14 f4, how about  making a  14 -42\45 kit lenses that start at f 2.8 ?instead of 3.5 the face of the zooms have enormous arera relative to the front elements, theres room !!  
yet must start so slow???3.3    3.5?
heres what id like to see;    


                                         a 6- 12 f 3.5 ois zoom for     about 500 dollars
                                          100 - 400 4.5 - 5.6 ois zoom   ~  400 dollars
                                           a  30 mm f2 macro               ~   400 dollars
                                           a 12 mm f 2.8                  0  ~   300  dollars
                                                 14 f 2    for              400 dollars
                                               a 5.5 or 6 f 3.5     for   400 dollars


since these primes would be fly by wire i would want a nicely damped manual focus ring
this is not rocket science  to do  if it was a priority the enginers could do this even if thay made these lenses non ois i would be happy as long as some type of in body ois is available

im not dreaming at all,. look at the price of a tokina 11-16 for nikon and consider that less optical glass must be used and fewer raw materals  the cost of lenses spiral as they get bigger , small kit zooms are under 200 dollars  for most digital slrs  which are bigger

look at the price for a 24   2.8 full frame  by canon

they could do this if they wanted and were not so greedy

Normal AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D Autofocus Lens
B&H # NI5018DAF In Stock Price: $124.95
    
Telephoto AF Zoom Nikkor 70-300mm f/4-5.6G Autofocus Lens - Silver
In Stock  Price: $139.95 Calculate Shipping

Zoom Telephoto AF Zoom Nikkor 70-300mm f/4-5.6G Autofocus Lens - Black Price: $154.95 FREE SHIPPING    

wide Angle AF Nikkor 28mm f/2.8D Autofocus Lens
B & H Price: $269.95 FREE SHIPPING

AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D Autofocus Lens
$319.95 Calculate Shipping  

Wide Angle AF Nikkor 35mm f/2.0D Autofocus Lens
price: $329.95 Calculate Shipping

Wide Angle AF Nikkor 24mm f/2.8D Autofocus Lens
Price: $359.95 FREE SHIPPING

Telephoto AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D Autofocus Lens

Price: $434.95 Calculate Shipping    i copied these price from band h 10 minutes ago

there is no reason for a decent lens to be priced insanely
a 12 mm focal length on this format is not exotic , its a 24 equiv plain and simple.  the price for the nikon i listed are for full frame lenses  they require large optical elements which the single greatest contributor to the cost of a lens .if you doubt this compare pro telephotos that are one stop faster than their slower counterparts

tokina offers an excellent 11-16 for nikon and canon autofocus d-slrs its about 550 dollars
there is no reason a similar field of view lens zoom could not be developed for the m 4\3 lens arsenal at about 2\3 to 3\4 the price

its logical,  but with manufactuers insulting the consumer with 1700 dollar wide zooms for m4\3  wide zooms it aint gonna happen until we vote with our wallets,  take another look at those nikon prices, and imagine m4\3 equiv focal lengths at a fair price , i know i do !

 i just purchased a 12 .5 pentax 1.4 c mount lens
the image circle is not quite big enuf ,as it is designed for a smaller sensor than the ep-1 but a modified design could perhaps overcome this . apparently some "tv"  c mount lenses have image ciricles big enuf already ...the lens cost ?........119 dollars.

such lenses are are also available as 8mm fast primes too , as far as wide angle zooms are concerned before dslrs did you see any 14  to 40 or 18- 55 or 18 - 70 zooms no they didnt exist .and if they did they would have cost a kings ransom . take a look at the focal lenghts of zooms on smaller sensored compacts, for example the 24- 72 equiv ricoh gx 200 lens is marked 5.1- 15 .3mm[ and a much smaller sensor ] there is nothing absurd in these numbers

just as there is nothing absurd in wanting a 6 to 12 zoom for m4\3 at the price point i suggested

smaller sensors change the game tremendously and the shorter optical path of m4\3 even further. it is a mistake in thinking that the difficulties of producing a 12 m 4\3 lens presents the same challenges as designing a 12 mm for full frame ,they are simply not the same thing  but apparently the old paradigms that applied to full frame design constraints and costs  guide much opinion in these matters

i think this is mistaken thinking

Cosinaphile, you're not understanding the challenges of optical design.  The difficulty of design is not in the focal length, but it the focal length relative to the format.  A 6mm lens to cover a tiny 1/1.7" sensor is not difficult to design.  A 6mm lens to cover the 4/3 sensor is VERY difficult to design.  A 6mm lens to cover 35mm is essentially beyond the realm of phyisical possibility (in a rectilinear lens...6mm fisheyes do exist). You have to compare similar field of view.  The design of a 7-14 for m4/3 is very similar to designing a 14-24 for full frame. They have very similar optical designs. You'll notice that in the way lenses look. For instance, The Nikon 14-24 (which is absolutely ginormous) and the Panasonic 7-14 look an awful lot alike in design (though one is obviously much smaller). 

An 8mm lens for cmount is for a smaller sensor than m4/3, so it's not even close to as wide as even an 8mm lens on m4/3 (which would be much easier to make for cheap than a 6mm lens for m4/3.) 

A 12.5mm lens for cmount that doesn't cover the m4/3 image circle is likely roughly equivalent to a 14mm m4/3 design, and roughly equivalent to a 28mm full frame design...that is, it's not a difficult design to make. It's a moderate wide angle.  Those are generally not complex. 

Also, you are saying nothing about optical quality.  My old Sigma 70-300 APO was 1/4 the cost of my current Canon 70-200 f/4L IS, but let me tell you, overlapping focal range is about the only thing they share.  Build quality, sharpness, color, bokeh, IS...everything on the 70-200 is superior to the 70-300, except the extra 100mm range. 

"Cosinaphile, you're not understanding the challenges of optical design.  The difficulty of design is not in the focal length, but it the focal length relative to the format.  A 6mm lens to cover a tiny 1/1.7" sensor is not difficult to design.  A 6mm lens to cover the 4/3 sensor is VERY difficult to design.  A 6mm lens to cover 35mm is essentially beyond the realm of phyisical possibility (in a rectilinear lens...6mm fisheyes do exist). You have to compare "
i am exactly understanding the difficulties
you really should read my posts again to understand the point im making to you - because what you wrote above is exactly the point im making to you

in fact a 6 mm design challenge  for m4\3 mount should present  a similar challenge to 12 mm on full frame. a solveable optical  problem , as you seem to concede above

a 6-12 zoom on m4\3 mount  should be a similar optical design challenge  as a 12 -24 on a full frame ,
but should be LESS costly as the shortened optical path and smaller image circle should make it cheaper , if information from olympus about advantages of a shortened optical path are  to be believed. As for information on such a lens covering a full frame image circle, you can refer to the sigma  ff lens ,but other manufacterers offer similar type zooms

so , in fact,im NOT dreaming to think that a 6-12 small zoom in quite possible  and at the price point i originally suggested , or even LESS

similarly , focal length wise , there is nothing absurd about a 5.5 or 6 mm prime lens it presents similar design challenges to an 11 or 12 prime in the world of full frame  lenses that are not impossible as you seem to suggest

as far as hoping for small zooms well i dont think im dreaming there either , compare the size of the a 7-14 m4\3 lens with its larger olympus counterpart   and you will understand what im driving at. The m4\3 mpount lens  is perhaps half the volume and im guessing half the weight or less

compare the price of a 50 1.4 to a 50 1,8 the 1.4 is almost 3 times the price , it is the cost of the optical glass that accounts for the difference . this is indisputiable  
IT IS THE SIZE OF THE LENS THAT ACCOUNTS FOR THE DIFFERENCE IN PRICE

again i will refer you to a typical  kit zoom to  HELP make my point ....what do you think the cost and size  of a 14 - 42  3.5-5.6 designed for the image sircle of a full frame sensor would cost if they produced one

try that thought experiment

i think that 1700 dollar wide zooms  for the m4\3 mount are an insult to me as a consumer and adopter of the format ,and possible even an impediment  to the wider adoption and ultimate sucess of the format in the photographic marketplace

i expect the marketers and the designers to produce field of view equivelents that are seen in full frame and aps-c lens design and it should be done for less cost , perhaps 3\4 the cost .this is logical thinking

not double to triple the price   which is the crap they`re pulling now

no you are mistaken in this,
a 14 - 42 3.5 to 5.6  designed for full frame would be 14 to 42 !but with an image circle usable on that format. it WOULD be enormous  and it would be very expensive , THAT is my entire point!

the wide angle from oly and panny are grossly overpriced , as are most of their lenses
[the 7-14mm m4\3 is 1400.00 US] the 7-14 zukio is 1700 $
i am dissapointed by this .further , as an adopter of the m4\3 lens mount system i consider it unacceptable.
this is gouging the consumer , there is no other way to look at it
and they are late to the game with the fast  prime if they ever get there.

you say ultrawides have never been cheap  but many fine ultra wide zooms are in existance
that are well in the sub $1000 range. The 14- 24 nikon you mentioned is an f 2.8lens, as a 3.5 or 4 lens it would be much , much cheaper and an equiv fov for the m4\3 image circle should be cheaper to produce still , not to mention the incredible advantage of the greatly shortened optical path to simplify wide angle lens design,  that should have   impacted prices greatly , but has not!
if nikon can offer this;

[Nikon's new  full frame 24-120mm zoom lens is now even smaller than its predecessor, the AF Zoom-Nikkor 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6D IF, and features an innovative Vibration Reduction , VR system minimizes image blur caused by camera shake] at  599,00 us funds,then olympus should offer a m4\3 lens of 12-240mm at a similar  f stop or faster and at a similar price , or even alot less
why not??

i am deeply unhappy with this situiation and i am not about to make excuses for the shortcomings and extragavent prices panny and olympus put M4\3 adopters thru  . it is simply unacceptable to me ! but im willing to concede that it might ,on the other hand, be acceptable to you .

This  is why I have spent $1000 on cosina glass and adapters in the last month

if panny or oly had a decent wide angle zoom or prime at a fair price say under 900 dollars i would surely want one ,BUT THEY DO NOT
i agree with you that i over simplified  with the cost analysis between a 50 i.8 and a 50 1.4
there is certainly some extra costs in r & d d to make the faster optic perform well wide open  , but the glass is i believe, ultimately, the primary cost factor
how much r & d do you think the ep-1 cameras with kit lens cost? [ tons!!!!] yet olympus chose to sell them for $799 US a wise and i think very fair  decision and one i have continually praised them for

whereas ,the 25 f1.4 lumix is 800 dollars , give me a break it should not cost more than 400


i do not understand comparing the cost of leica and canon glass however

the 2 cosina voigtlander lenses that i own a 28 1.9  ultron [price $444]  and the 50 1.5 nokton [price $360]are nice performers  the 50 is amazing in fact wide open  and  wonderfully fast!
although not quite the build quality and optical excellence of leica they are both really nicel, heavy, optically very good ,metal barelled lenses that i love the look and performance of .

the leica equivs are in the range of  $4000-$5000 each, how much of that price difference is due to extra r and d and materials cost is anyones guess ,but  personally ,i would chalk up a good part of the cost difference to the "leica tax" , or as i like to put it the inclusion of that incredibally expensive red dot


is asking for an affordable 11-16 aps-c [for m4\3  a 8.5 to 12] or 10-20aps-c  [a 7.5mm to 15 mm  equiv]or 12 -24 full frame [ a 6mm-12mm ] equiv dreaming?
is it unreasonable to want it to cost the same or less as what savailable to give similar fovs for larger image circle systems ? i dont think it  is

 is it  crazy to want a m4\3 equiv to a  8 or 10mm fisheye or rectilinesar fisheye equivelent ? for  6 -7 or 800 dollars

i think these are reasonable expectations