Comparing Pana 12-35mm zoom to some primes

It was indeed very convenient. It also doesn't matter (see below).

The 12-35 performs better than every other m4/3 wide-normal zoom yet available, making it an exception, thereby making it "exceptional."

Check your dictionary and you'll find that reasonable corresponds with words like "moderate," "sufficient," and "fair," all of which are rather tepid descriptions for a lens that is so "EXCEPTIONAL." Sorry, but I didn't give these words their definitions. I just know what they are.

But....do you DOUBLE DOG dare me?

I doubt that: my head is not that easily spun.

I would imagine if you compare images coming out of the m4/3 camera and 4/3 or m4/3 lens of your choice to those from a Hasselblad, Mamiya, or even an M9, you would see a clear difference there, as well.

It seems to me that you're pretty sensitive about this issue. I'm sorry I ruffled your feathers. But none of this matters, really, because in the first place, as you pointed out in another post, we all choose one set of working methods or another, and there's no need to try to impose that methodology on others, and in the second place this is all just splitting hairs and sawing BBs. The differences between the 12-35 and every m4/3 prime in that range are, at least according to every account I have read and every set of actual images I've seen, minimal. Whichever is better isn't better by enough to matter, at least to me. The convenience of the zoom is another matter.

--
Frank