This thread seems to go on forever, so here's my take:
Normally, when travelling, I ususally take one WA zoom (always the Pana 7-14), one normal zoom (used to be the PanaLeica 14-50/2.8-3.5 but for my next trip, I'll try out the Pana 14-45/3.5-5.6) and one relatively long portait lens (used to be the Zeiss CY 85/1.4, but that has now been replaced by the Zuiko 75/1.8).
When I've bought the lenses that I plan to buy for m4/3, my setup will probably change to:
Pana 7-14/4
Zuiko 17/1.8
Zuiko 45/1.8 (may be replaced by the Pana 42.5/1.2 when it becomes available)
Zuiko 75/1.8
I do prefer primes for travel, since I mostly have enough time to choose a framing that is suitable for the lenses that I have available. The reward is the ability to shoot at very wide apertures when needed and ultimate image quality. The exception from the rule is ultra-WA, which is mostly used for landscapes and architecture, where the ability to move around is often restricted in relation to the photo I want to shoot.
I often travel with two camera bodies, currently 2 x GH1, but that may change to GH2 plus E-PL5 in the near future. If I shoot mostly landscape or architecture, the 7-14 is permanent on one body while lenses will vary on the other. If I shoot mainly street (portraits), the 75 will be permanent on one body, and so on...
"Unfortunately" part of my E-PL5 budget went into a mint Nikkor 28mm 2.0 AI last night, a lens that I've wanted for the F6 for some time now, and that might even find it's way onto m4/3 as well, replacing the OM Zuiko 28mm 2.8 that has been my "normal" lens so far.
Did this look confusing to you? It most certainly did to me :loco: