If you follow the 2X equivalents for simplicity, 14mm is equivalent to the 75 degree view of the 28mm focal length on full-frame 35mm. However, that comes with a more squarish view of the world so the coverage is actually a little more expansive on the short-side dimension of the frame, a little less on the long-side dimension. That said...

The 28mm focal length has been considered to be about the widest focal length that you can use when shooting people. Any shorter of a lens and you start getting stretched faces and other uglies showing up. The 24mm focal length proved to be quite a bit more usable for many photographers because it allowed for more cropping options and allowed for square or 8x10 crops without losing too much of the image. The 21mm focal length was the absolute limit for human photography and just like the 24mm focal length, it allowed for cropping options with good angular coverage in image height. But without cropping the image, rarely were any focal lengths shorter than 24mm usable for photographing human activities except for the rare expansive whole-room shots. The majority of close-in shots of people are taken in the one body-length distance. To get the same subject size with an extreme wide-angle you have to be so much closer to the subject that you've now invaded their sphere of comfort.

I preface all this for a reason. The E-System was originally launched as a professional camera system primarily for photographing human activities. Even the 4:3 image format is conducive to this instead of landscape photography. The 14-54 lens has proven to be an extremely usable lens for the wedding/event photographer and it is not uncommon for some of us to shoot entire weddings or events exclusively with this lens. The 14mm wide-end is just wide-enough most of the time because the image is already more squarish so the angular coverage of the image height is similar to that from a 24mm lens on a full-frame 35mm camera.

Is 14mm a bit cramped?  Sometimes with event/wedding photography it is because it just doesn't get wide enough to show the architecture of the room. But whenever I'm actually working around people, it tends to not only be wide-enough, but I will usually bump the zoom forward just a touch to get back in my comfort zone of 35mm equivalent. This reduces the face-stretching that occures at the widest angles.

Now keep in mind the original premise of the E-System design and you can see why the 11-22 lens was created. This lens is the near-perfect event/wedding photography lens where you are working close and you also need the occasional room-wide shot. A wide-angle, for the wedding/event photographer, is really less for the entire-room shots and more for allowing close-in photography. The widest angles are for the rare room shot, and you end up shooting most of the time in the mid-point of range. Think of it as a nominal 17mm lens with zooming function to tweek the coverage.

The 9-18 as well as the 7-14 are not "normal" lenses. These are typically not lenses that the event/wedding/portrait photographer would use for more than just a handful of shots. As such, they really have a different purpose. As a complete imaging solution, the E-system has to satisfy not only needs of the working event/wedding photographer, but that of the landscape, sports, wildlife and casual-use photographer. This is why it is critical that the entire range of focal-lengths be covered.

I've been quite entertained about focal-length trends. Back in the film days, rarely was anybody concerned about extreme wide-angles. It was mostly about telephoto lenses. Then with digital we got the dreaded crop factor and suddenly we were all concerned about wide-angles. People who never shot wider than 28mm in their life were up in arms over the fact that they couldn't get extreme wide-angles in their digital cameras. The "awareness" of the limitation became a demand for such lenses. The 7-14 lens is a good example of this--OK, Olympus built the lens, but honestly, how many of us actually ended up buying it and using it at the 7mm focal length for more than a handful of "gee look at how cool this is" pictures? As a working pro, I can think of a few shots where it would be nice to have, but those shots won't bring in any additional income and I can always present alternatives and the clients are no less satisfied. Extreme wide-angle shots are an effect. Not unlike Cokin filters are effects and the "Shindlers" where we destaturate the entire picture except for a flower or something like that. Extreme wide-angle shots are just a phase many people are going through, but as always, it eventually passes. Not to say they don't have valid uses for the landscape and architectural photographer, but for general use, they aren't what you typically are going to use.

Ken