> If it were even 20% smaller and lighter, it would live in my bag. Is it is,
> though, I'm more likely to take the M.Zuiko 14-150 II, which is slower, but
> much smaller and lighter.
This is one reason why I think the lowly 14-54 is a better lens than
the 12-60 SWD. However, to be fair, the 14-54 Mk2 is a significant
improvement over the original, but the original is still no slouch.
The 14-54 is better for these reasons:
3. CG is not too far forward like the 12-60
4. Less barrel distortion
5. While limited on the wide end to 28mm equivalent, the focal length
range is VERY usable and just right
6. Less speedy, but quieter and smoother auto-focusing
7. Zoom ring is light and quick
8. 1/3 stop brighter at all equivalent focal lengths. (The mk2 is
actually 2/3 stop brighter at some).
9. Better balanced on the non-single digit bodies.
The 12-60 SWD is better for these reasons:
1. No tearing distortion in the corners at the widest settings
2. Faster focusing
3. The clutched focus ring instead of pure fly-by-wire is so much better
4. 24mm equivalent wide angle focal length. The increase on the long
end is a wash because the range between 54-60 (108-120mm equivalent)
is about the least usable focal-length range known to mankind.
5. Better microcontrast.
6. Maintains better subject separation at the cross-over points than
the original 14-54. (the Mk2 is improved in this regard).
7. Less Chromatic Aberration.
8. Better balanced on the E-3 and E-5 bodies.
Yes, I went there.
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/