Hi,
I did that when the E3 & 12-60 first came out.
For me, a 12 (or 24mm equivalent in any format) is a must as it is one of my key focal lengths,m so inevitably I would take the 11-22 plus either 50 or 14-54 as a second lens for walks, days out, etc, but when traveling, had to carry at least 3-4 lenses.
Now with the 12-60, I use a single lens to cover 90% of my general, family, and travel photography. As a 2.8-4.0 12-60 (or 24-120), it is one of the reasons (IMHO) to stay in the Olympus system. It is fast focusing and bright, and optically excellent and noticeably better than my very early 14-54 (bought with my original E1 when they were first introduced) at every aperture and focal length. The 12-60 at maximum aperture and 12mm has more distortion than the 11-22mm but as I use it for groups, travel, etc, it does not affect my photography but I do (rarely) miss the 11mm setting. That said most of the time, when I find the 12-60 to be not wide enough, the 11-22 would not be either. That said, I have owned the 7-14 several times and (because of its weight/bulk) it rarely gets used. The 9-18 is a great complement to the 12-50 except that it is not weather resistant (critical to my travel needs) so I hope Olympus eventually reinvents the the mid range 11-22 wide zoom (maybe as a weather sealed 9-22).
The optical speed (2.8-4) and finder brightness/size in the E3/12-60 combination defines the 4/3 system advantages for me. Although here it is viewed as "heavy", compared to the true equivalent of what I previously used it is both optically superior and considerably less weight. Previously I used a 5d or 1Ds (the 12Mp version) with the Canon 24-105 F4 . The 5D died in bad weather in the Arctic Ocean (trip saved by E1/14-54) and the 1Ds/24-105 combo weighed 500 grams more. In addition the 24-105 (also an early version) was optically unacceptable at F4 (especially in the corners and edges).
In the Nikon system, situation is similar (and I have owned both the D700 and D300. With the FX system (D700) there is no 24-100 equivalent 2.8 and the 24-70 (like the 14-35) weighs too much (900 gms) and only covers to 70mm the 24-120 lenses are optically not nearly as good and are 3.5-5.6 considerably darker. The DX system is similar with their 17-55 2.8 (not great for distances and not the same zoom range). The new 16-85 covers a range similar to the 12-60 and is optically quite good but dark (at 5.6) and IMHO not as well built. In addition, I found that the E3/12-60 (and 50-200 SWD) using single central point AF was faster than the same mode on the D300 & D700 with any of the zoom lenses. I cannot speak for multipoint focusing as I don't use or understand it (or why I would use it).
Anyway, I hope you find this rambling info useful, but whenever I think about changing my main SLR system, one of the key reasons I don't is the 12-60 (+ E3 & 50-200)
Ed Rauschkolb
