Well, I was pretty sure I'd love the DA40, so no big surprise there. And the A50/1.7 was just replacing an M50/1.7, so no surprise there at all. The M28/2.8 was a *bit* of surprise, because I was looking for either the M28/3.5 or the A28/2.8 version when the M28/2.8 fell into my lap, and even though I had heard various stories of it's inferiority, I find I love this lens. Further research shows that the reputation of the other two as "better" is maybe not as well-deserved as I had thought. Anyhow, I got exactly what I was looking for: a very good and reasonably fast 28. So I can't really call it a surprise.
So, the *real* surprise is clearly the M100/2.8. It's surprising for several reasons. One, I didn't mean to buy it :-) - I was actually bidding on an M85/2, but while browsing for those, I came across the 100 and placed what I thought was a lowball bid on that while I was at it. I didn't win the 85, and I more or less forgot about the 100, but next thing I knew my lowball bid had won.
Almost instantly, I had regrets. My fears were that would be both longer than I wanted for concert photography when close up *and* shorter than I wanted when further back; that f/2.8 wouldn't be enough improvement over the f/3.5 of my M135/3.5 to seem worthwhile; that I'd find it too short to be a general replacement for the 135 in my everyday kit; that it would be too long for portraits and thus make me still crave a portrait lens; and that it wouldn't be all that sharp wide open.
Somehow, I managed to be wrong on all counts, and just as surprisingly to me, this has become my most-used lens. I guess not *terribly* surprising because its numbers are inflated by all the concert photography I do, but I'm finding it *surprisingly* versatile for other purposes, too.
So, without further ado (that was enough already), some of my M100/2.8 shots:
(I'm relatively certain the EXIF lies here - I probably forgot to change the SR focal length. But if I'm wrong and this really was the 28 - there's a little love for it too!)