I have a dilemma and I hope the trusted members of this forum can help me out once again!
I have been asked to shoot some pictures for a local high school... just some shots of students in classes, interacting in the halls, etc.  Nothing posed, lit, or pre-planned.  Probably some nice environmental portraits, too.  Again, not lit (besides window light).

 I have come up with two possible solutions that fit my budget.  Your thoughts would be greatly appreciated.
 
Choice 1
- Purchase the Leica 45mm (90mm equivalent) f2.8mm lens.
 
  Pros:
    - Fast lens, with autofocus
    - Paired with my 17mm (35mm equivalent), wide and telephoto are well covered
    - no need to sell my e-p1 (which, silly as it may sound, I have become quite attached to because it was the first camera I took a picture of my son with)
 
  Cons:
    - Forced to use only the rear screen as a viewfinder.  This is very difficult to use when manually focusing a lens.
    - more expensive than Choice 2
 
Choice 2
- Purchase an Olympus e-p2 with Electronic View Finder
 
  Pros:
    - Can easily use all my manual focus lenses (using EVF), including a 28mm f2.8 and 50mm f2.0 (I also have a 25mm holga lens that makes the camera a digital holga... you would love it!
    - composition is easier in bright light
    - selling my e-p1 will lower overall cost compared to Choice 1

  Cons
    - I would have to part with my beloved e-p1 (functionally the same as the e-p2, just without the EVF)
    - The hassle of selling the e-p1 on e-bay
    - Would have to depend on maual focus for any shots that required the 28 or 50mm lenses.
 
One last thing... I do not want to shoot with anything but a PEN, so please keep that in mind when commenting.  Thanks!
Thanks!

Id go for the leica, youll use it for a whole other bunch of stuff, its sharper than anything in the world, the ep2 will loose its value and the leica will not. How ill lit can a school hallway be? Plus the leica will autofocus faster than you can manual focus.

hi javarob75,
no matter which alternative you in the end will go for, I advise you to read this review of the Pana/Leica 45mm/f2.8. - which I own, and, I got to say, am quite happy with.   

                http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/panasonic_45_2p8_o20/page5.asp 

However, the lens gives very good IQ when the user know it's limitations.  You see, it@s not a fast lens, - rather 'normal to slow', I would say.  For inside house/low light portraiture jobs, I can easily think of better alternatives.  For outside/good light it is very good, even outstanding, with a premium COI (center of image) sharpness.  Also the Pana/Leica don't work to well with the PEN cameras, - it's much better in cooperation with my GF1.

You should really consider the Oly 50mm/f2.0 (you'll then need an adapter), - but totally you should be able to half your purchasing budget.  Also: Before making any lens decision, consult how the lens you chose fair by your peer users, - check out the hundreds of photos of any lens, that you can find on flickr dot com.

This sort of tags on to a comment I made on the discussion about the "cheapo camera challenge" http://e-p1.net/other-cameras/pro-photographers-cheapo-cameras-challenges/

At risk of upsetting Lisandra (sorry!), after megapixels, sharpness is IMO the most overrated thing in photography. Sure it's nice and impressive technically but you only need to look at a few photo forums to realise loads of  people are taking razor sharp, immeasurably dull pictures all the time. They seem to think that the sharpness makes up for the lack of, well, everything else in the image. I would agree that there are a few times when a sharp lens is great but for people it's probably more of a detraction unless they have perfect skin.

When somebody looks at a picture, the last thing I want them to comment on is how sharp it is - because that has nothing to do with me really. If they do it probably means the sharpness has superceded the subject of the photo - which is an "epic fail" I believe the term is, unless you're a pixel peeper.

Now if the choice was between an E-P2 and a Leica lens at f1.4 (or even f1.8 ) I'd say go for the lens. But it isn't. The ability to gather more light, for me, far exceeds almost everything else because it opens up a bigger world of possiblities. And the difference between a 2.8 and a 1.4 is night and day (almost literally).

This sort of tags on to a comment I made on the discussion about the "cheapo camera challenge" http://e-p1.net/other-cameras/pro-photographers-cheapo-cameras-challenges/

At risk of upsetting Lisandra (sorry!), after megapixels, sharpness is IMO the most overrated thing in photography. Sure it's nice and impressive technically but you only need to look at a few photo forums to realise loads of  people are taking razor sharp, immeasurably dull pictures all the time. They seem to think that the sharpness makes up for the lack of, well, everything else in the image. I would agree that there are a few times when a sharp lens is great but for people it's probably more of a detraction unless they have perfect skin.

When somebody looks at a picture, the last thing I want them to comment on is how sharp it is - because that has nothing to do with me really. If they do it probably means the sharpness has superceded the subject of the photo - which is an "epic fail" I believe the term is, unless you're a pixel peeper.

Now if the choice was between an E-P2 and a Leica lens at f1.4 (or even f1.8 ) I'd say go for the lens. But it isn't. The ability to gather more light, for me, far exceeds almost everything else because it opens up a bigger world of possiblities. And the difference between a 2.8 and a 1.4 is night and day (almost literally).

Depending on your subject, Sharpness may be a factor, for Macro it is a factor, a  lens like the P/L is a great macro to INF without adapters, making it a versatile lens. I own a 55mm Micro Nikkor just for that reason. I can go from 1:2 to INF, and f/3.5 it makes good portrait lens with a goopd DOF for just enough depth for a close-up of a face without having too much OOF. But, sharpness is relative to your subject and intent. Many times, a little softness on the right subject will make a better composition in interpretation. 

The exact reason I bought the Zeiss ZM 50mm f/1.5 Sonnar over the ZM 50mm f/2 Planar. The C-Sonnar was made to front focus about 2cm off (The ones optimized for f/2.8 ) to achieve the lovely ever so slightly soft effect for close portraits that the 5cm f/1.5 Sonnar of the 1930's was made famous for., this only works on my M5, on my G1, since it is TTL focusing, I would have to front focus manually... not an easy task, since I don't know the exact amount of shift I need.

Many love these SLR Magic lens and all the CCTV lens that have plenty of technical issues as far as sharpness... BUT, because there over all IQ being "Dreamy and vignetted", these are a very popular choice for not so ordinary image composition.

Practice. Go somewhere where theres moving people and more or less the same light of a hallway. Set your sonar at f2 and see how plausible it is (how many real keepers you get). I still kinda suggest the leica cause to me manual focusing a 100m fov f2 lens on a moving subject in an ill lit room sounds daunting. But then again Im one of those nervous people..

I'm with you on the focus issue. It's not that I can't focus a manual lens with the e-p1... but the act of focusing the lens takes away from my concentration on  composition.

Practice. Go somewhere where theres moving people and more or less the same light of a hallway. Set your sonar at f2 and see how plausible it is (how many real keepers you get). I still kinda suggest the leica cause to me manual focusing a 100m fov f2 lens on a moving subject in an ill lit room sounds daunting. But then again Im one of those nervous people..

I have no issue focusing my Zeiss ZM Sonnar on my G1. In case I was misunderstood. It is razor sharp at all f/stops (Similar to the Zeiss ZM Planar f/2 on a RF.). I was just saying If I wanted similar wide open effect my G1, I'd have to "Practice" like you say, to nail down the amount front focus needed.


EDIT: 9:55 EST
@ F/1.5 + .6 ND


I find, on moving subjects, I'd just close down to f/8 or f/11 to allow for deeper DOF for movement.