After going round and round I've finally started my purchases. Thought I'd chime in case others are battling similar thoughts.
I'll start with my use: I hope to make a self funded low-budget feature this year. BUT, the bills are paid via freelance work. Mostly, I get interviews for TV. Many times I'll have a 3 cam setup with a host and a guest, but also some doc type work, too. That said, I've pre-purchased 3 pockets and need to have ample lenses.
Next, I'll share my decision and then get into why in case it helps others. Here goes:
Lumix 12-35 f/2.8
Lumix 35-100 f/2.8
Vedra (mft) 16, 35, 50, 85 (so far. hoping to get the 12 and 25 soon).
My first struggle was my adopted philosophy to only purchases lenses for the long term. Then purchase camera bodies around those long-term lenses. This seems to me sound reasoning even though I've abandoned it for the pockets. Mainly, I abandoned that reasoning because I was getting exhausted by it. Going round and round in my mind about crop factors, and cinema primes vs EF zooms. If I had a massive budget it would be simpler, I think. The more I researched Veydra lenses (I think Denny was first to remind me of those) and watched footage over and over... I gave in. Veydra's have mft mounts and are not my long-term solution. For now, from my vantage point, they outperform Rokinons and I can actually pick them up for not much more than Rokinons at $800(ish) per lens used (btw I'm not bashing Rokinon's -- they've served me well over the years). Now, that sounds like I'm just giving in for Veydra lenses... Thing is, I don't just sort of like them. They appear a fantastic choice. When I realized I could fill out a set of amazing cine primes for $4000 (ish)... It made the decision for me, sort of. At any rate, that decision helped remedy my exhaustion by overthinking everything. Veydra's will hold their value if I don't want 'em later, I should think. So that helps big time.
Once I got over that hurdle, I knew I needed zooms for my interviews (forgot to mention, these are shoots I must travel for). I need lightweight zooms for travel. It was pretty easy for me to narrow it to Olympus 12-40 & 40 -150 verses the Lumix 12-35 & 35-100. All 4 lenses are f/2.8 and I only desired constant aperature. I find myself in dark situations for b-roll nearly every week. That Leica mentioned in this thread has great appeal to me, but I strongly desire the constant aperture.
Leica vs. Olympus. This one racked my brain. I'll share why Lumix won, but I'll tell you why I'm still struggling with this. Simply put... O.I.S. That's the win for me. The pocket doesn't have stabilization. Done. But it wasn't that simple to come to that conclusion.
Here's why the struggle. I abhor the focus-by-wire on that 12-35 Lumix. It's a struggle (for me anyway). I can't test the focus of a shot and have a good "rehearsal" of it. You take the lens focus back to your "one" mark and it's not the same. Every time you rack focus it's a new mark, seemingly. What's more, I really prefer the look of the Olympus glass. It feels more cinematic to my eye. Though, I'm happy to say two of my favorite test footages from the new pocket were shot with the Lumix 12-35 so maybe the BM color science and Lumix glass play really well together...? Or maybe I'm in denial of some type.
Last thing: the Olympus is focus-by-wire as well (I think... correct me if I'm incorrect) BUT, the focus ring clicks to mechanical focus, which is really awesome. So I sacrificed my preference in glass and a better focus mechanism for O.I.S. Now that I've made my purchases, I'm curious how bad the rolling shutter / micro-jitters will be on the pocket? I really haven't seen anything that jumps out. Maybe I coulda' purchased the Oly lenses?
I second guess everything.
At any rate, I have all these handsome lenses laying around awaiting their 3 new triplet lovers (my pre-ordered BMPCC4Ks).
I really hope that jumbled thought process has something helpful for others mangled within it. Lookin' forward to seeing your footage BM peeps! I search for it daily.
Cris