OMD: Can I take the same pictures with the 12mm f2.0 and the 17mm f1.8 ?

tedolf wrote:

The Jacal wrote:

BingoCharlie wrote:

The 12mm is too wide for portraits. Your subjects won't like the distortion, and you'll get a bunch of extraneous peripheral detail in your shots.

17mm is equivalent to a 35mm FF lens, which has been used by photographers for decades as a "standard" walkaround length. It's still a bit wide for portraits, but much better than the 12mm.

Consider the PL 25mm instead. It will give you great portraits, but will still be wide enough to take environmental shots if you choose.

Even the 25mm is pushing it a bit, you won't be able to get a 'proper' head and shoulders portrait. It's better more to the environmental end of portraiture. For portraits you need at least 80mm equivalent. Like the Oly 45mm (90mm eq) or get an old manual 50mm lens, cheap and good.

Jon.

the blind men describing different parts of the elephant. The problem here is that the OP doesn't have a basic understanding of how focal lenght effects depth compression or why there are different focal lenghts at all.

So if one of you wants to write a treatise, be my guest.

I suggest that the OP start with a basic photography book from the 1970's/80's which discusses the effects of focal lenght on depth compression/expansion, DOF, etc.

The Kodak Guide to 35mm photography might be a good place to start.

Otherwise this piecemeal approach to the subject is going to do more harm than good.

Of course this begs the question-why is someone who doesn't know anything about photography starting out with a complex $1,400.00 machine and $700.00 lenses?

Tedolph

Sorry, which part of my advice was wrong?

Hell, I even mentioned manual lenses, you've got to give me some credit for that!!

I ​almost​ uploaded an out of focus picture to prove my point