Is the Pana 20mm 1.7 good for portraits?

[Sprockethead]

Is the Panasonic 20mm 1.7 good for portraits? I'm still learning about some basics here.

How close can I get with this lens before a portrait will come out screwed up? How far away from a person's face is the optimal distance? I hear that features can be distorted if you stand too close.

What about groups? Any tips there?

This is officially my only lens... so I need to hone some techniques when taking shots of people.

Any advice is appreciated!

 

[renato]

depends on your requirements...

20mm on m4/3 equals to 40mm on 35mm film format, so I would not suggest to shoot any tight portraits with that focal length, otherwise you will end up having facial features distorted. I would say shooting waist level portraits is ok, but to get into 'head and shoulder' framing you will need a longer lens. But again, all is up to your personal sdtandards.

Renat

 

[David Gandy]

Great answer, Renat. I concur.

depends on your requirements...

20mm on m4/3 equals to 40mm on 35mm film format, so I would not suggest to shoot any tight portraits with that focal length, otherwise you will end up having facial features distorted. I would say shooting waist level portraits is ok, but to get into 'head and shoulder' framing you will need a longer lens. But again, all is up to your personal sdtandards.

Renat

 

[Sprockethead]

Thanks for the response.

What lens should I buy that is built for micro 4/3 (no adapter) if I want to be able to take good portraits?

 

[renato]

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0909/09090202panasonic45mmmacro.asp

 

[Sprockethead]

Ah, and at $900 it gives me something to look forward to for a while...

What about this one? Good for portraits?

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/olympus_14-42_3p5-5p6_o20/

I think I'm going to have to move this over the beginner's forum in a minute. Thanks for the replies, though.

 

[Travis]

Is the Panasonic 20mm 1.7 good for portraits? I'm still learning about some basics here.

What about groups? Any tips there?

The 20mm would be a great choice for group portraits, but probably a bit too wide for close-ups (head to shoulders portraits). You have to be very close to your subject, and though there isn't a whole lot of distortion on the 20mm, portraits are usually more flattering at longer focal lengths.

Here's a few informal group shots and portraits of my family with the 20mm. I was a good distance away from the kids for the group shots, but the close-ups were taken at very close range. If I were taking portraits of anyone other than my family, it would be WAY too close. The 20mm does great indoors or in low light, but it's probably not appropriate for close-up portraits. Groups and full body shots would be ideal with this lens.











--
http://travisimo.smugmug.com/

 

[Travis]

If you don't mind manual focusing, there are many more less expensive options than the upcoming 45mm. Using an adaptor, you can use a wide variety of manual focus lenses that are fast and bright. I picked up a Canon FD 50mm F1.4 lens for about $60 on Ebay. You need to buy an adaptor (about $75), but this would probably be a better choice for portraits. And manual focus usual isn't a problem for posed portraits since the subject stays fairly still and you have more time to focus.

Travis
--
http://travisimo.smugmug.com/

 

[Sprockethead]

That sounds like a really great idea. How quickly can you focus on something manually? Faster than the E-P1 in low light? ZING! Just kidding, I love the E-P1.

But seriously, are we talking like 10 seconds to manually focus in on a subject or so?

Also, Sigma makes a 50mm lens for four thirds. It's just not as "inexpensive."

Perhaps I should trade in my 20MM for the Sigma that I didn't realize existed until now? This might suit me better. And I assume that 1.4 would perform even better in low-light, correct?

 

[thinkfat]

no, you want a focal length of about 40-50mm and f/2.8 at least (preferably faster). The Oly lens you mention is too slow (f/5.6) at 50mm.

Until you saved enough $$$ for the 45mm Leica DG macro lens, I suggest trying Canon FD lenses. I have very good results with the 50mm f/1.4 and its darn cheap, even if you add the cost for the adapter. Manual focus though.

--
Everybody loves gadgets, until they try to make them
http://www.flickr.com/photos/thinkfat
http://thinkfat.blogspot.com

 

[thinkfat]

That sounds like a really great idea. How quickly can you focus on something manually? Faster than the E-P1 in low light? ZING! Just kidding, I love the E-P1.

But seriously, are we talking like 10 seconds to manually focus in on a subject or so?

Yes, it depends largely on how skilled you are with your fingers . It gets faster after trying a while (unlike the E-P1 ).

Also, Sigma makes a 50mm lens for four thirds. It's just not as "inexpensive."

Perhaps I should trade in my 20MM for the Sigma that I didn't realize existed until now? This might suit me better. And I assume that 1.4 would perform even better in low-light, correct?

Actually, the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 could be a very good choice for a portrait lens. Can't say if it will autofocus on the E-P1 and how quickly. The E-P1 is said to be fully compatible with all Oly 4/3rds lenses, don't know if this extends to Sigma lenses...

Be warned however, the Sigma lenses tend to be very bulky . It will mess up your camera completely. The 20mm is a perfect always-on lens. The Sigma 50mm is more like "big mama" in comparison.

--
Everybody loves gadgets, until they try to make them
http://www.flickr.com/photos/thinkfat
http://thinkfat.blogspot.com

 

[Sprockethead]

How long does it take to manually focus on something?

 

[RoyGBiv]

That sounds like a really great idea. How quickly can you focus on something manually? Faster than the E-P1 in low light? ZING! Just kidding, I love the E-P1.

But seriously, are we talking like 10 seconds to manually focus in on a subject or so?

Also, Sigma makes a 50mm lens for four thirds. It's just not as "inexpensive."

Perhaps I should trade in my 20MM for the Sigma that I didn't realize existed until now? This might suit me better. And I assume that 1.4 would perform even better in low-light, correct?

The sigma is what I aim to equip myself with for portraits for the time being.

I have the oly 4/3 Zuiko Digital 50mm f/2.0 macro, which is a gorgeous lens for portraits if it wasn't so damn slow with its focusing. The oly zuiko is really much much more of a macro lens than a portrait lens.

I'll be honest, I'm skeptical that the Leica Elmarit 45mm f/2.8 will be all that great for portrait either, for the same reason. It has a distance limiter, which might help speed up the focus racking. But it'll still have a macro-oriented step motor, which I'm skeptical about whether it'll rack fast enough to be "adequate" for candid portrait use.

MF on a patient subject is easy, and doesn't take long, even with lenses made primarily for AF. You just have to make sure the subject sits there for a couple seconds. But it is long enough where candids are difficult if you're not experienced, and if your focus ring is optimized for AF step motors. Manual focusing a lens made for human hands to operate work much differently than those optimized for servo motors, and is a joy to use, if you can get your hands on one. It's still a challenge to get candids right, but less so than if you had a focus-by-wire set up.

--
'I have no responsibilities here whatsoever'

 

[nniko]

if you don't mind the advice of a recent upgrader to more serious photopgraphy (p&s until e-p1, bought in july), i'd also recommend going for manual lenses. I got a good deal for a Pen F 38mm/1.8, plus adapter was something in the €120 range, which not only takes great photos, but also feels right on the digital pen.. ;-)

of course, manual focussing takes its time (especially with the need to push some buttons to get the magnfied view), so it's not for snapshots. But if you fix your subject with say a plate of French fries, you get some nice shots. At least for me - that's what i've been looking for with the E-P1...



cheers,
niko

 

[ileff]

i'm a p&s newb (fz5), so i'm not certain this is good or not, but i like it!

G1 + 20mm

 

[RoyGBiv]

So, for noobs, I always suggest duncan evans' write up on portraits and focal lengths.

http://www.ephotozine.com/article/Focal-lengths-in-portraits-5687

--
'I have no responsibilities here whatsoever'

 

[Michael J Davis]

depends on your requirements...

20mm on m4/3 equals to 40mm on 35mm film format, so I would not suggest to shoot any tight portraits with that focal length, otherwise you will end up having facial features distorted. I would say shooting waist level portraits is ok, but to get into 'head and shoulder' framing you will need a longer lens. But again, all is up to your personal sdtandards.

Well said, Renato!

But the 20mm lens is of excellent quality and, as you say, don't take tight portraits with it, so a shot that fills, say, half the screen leads to an equivalent focal length of 28mm which is quite a good viewpoint for portraits. Down to a quarter the frameful (i.e. twice as far away as would fill the screen) where you get the equivalent of a 40mm lens. The only problem is that you'll then need to enlarge twice as much to get the final result. That only worries me if I want to print at A3 or larger.

I've been very happy with sharp prints at A3 from half the frame with my G1. And this lens is well up to it!

Mike
--
Mike Davis
Photographing the public for over 50 years
http://www.flickr.com/photos/watchman
G1 FZ50

 

[Sprockethead]

depends on your requirements...

20mm on m4/3 equals to 40mm on 35mm film format, so I would not suggest to shoot any tight portraits with that focal length, otherwise you will end up having facial features distorted. I would say shooting waist level portraits is ok, but to get into 'head and shoulder' framing you will need a longer lens. But again, all is up to your personal sdtandards.

Well said, Renato!

But the 20mm lens is of excellent quality and, as you say, don't take tight portraits with it, so a shot that fills, say, half the screen leads to an equivalent focal length of 28mm which is quite a good viewpoint for portraits. Down to a quarter the frameful (i.e. twice as far away as would fill the screen) where you get the equivalent of a 40mm lens. The only problem is that you'll then need to enlarge twice as much to get the final result. That only worries me if I want to print at A3 or larger.

I've been very happy with sharp prints at A3 from half the frame with my G1. And this lens is well up to it!

So in other words - step back for the photo and then crop it down! That would work for me since I am not printing A3, nor am I being paid by my subjects.

I suppose it would take some major imagination; however, to frame the shot with shoot with the final crop in mind.

But if you say that this gives the ideal portrait then I really, really want to believe you!!

Thanks.

 

[julieng]

Great technique for shooting kids with manual focus is to focus first and then to call them just before shooting.
The swivel LCD on the G1/GH1 allows to operate in greater discreetness

If you don't mind manual focusing, there are many more less expensive options than the upcoming 45mm. Using an adaptor, you can use a wide variety of manual focus lenses that are fast and bright. I picked up a Canon FD 50mm F1.4 lens for about $60 on Ebay. You need to buy an adaptor (about $75), but this would probably be a better choice for portraits. And manual focus usual isn't a problem for posed portraits since the subject stays fairly still and you have more time to focus.

Travis
--
http://travisimo.smugmug.com/

 

[Buchan Grant]

Great shot, this kind of informal portrait is well served by this lens
--
http://www.buchangrant.com