I was bothered by my results with the Zuiko 14-54mm in testing. It seemed that the focal lengths were not as marked or "advertised". My fixed focal length lenses came out nearly exactly on which says my test is fair. Also my old manual zooms came out just about spot on as well. Since I don't think Oly is a nefarious company I've concluded that the focusing and focal length of their zooms is more complex and a close distance test may not be correct. So, what I think Oly (and likely all other manufacturers) mean is in terms of field width or perspective with shots taken at distances that are many times the focal length. I.E. - "normal photography" in some sense. So I made shots with the lens at settings of 14mm, 35mm and 54mm. I then used the fact that at such distances the field width varies inversely with the focal length. I then computed what the perspective should be for each lens and marked those on the 14mm shot (red for the 35mm perspective and blue for the 54mm perspective). I then cropped the 14mm shot to each perspective. I then scaled the 35mm and 54mm shots to the same pixel width (and height) as the cropped versions. I then compared them side-by-side. When done this way, the 35mm setting behaves like a 35mm lens ans similarly the 54mm which seems only slightly wider than the 54mm crop from the 14mm shot. So, apart from close-up photography those who own this lens can now be happy again!