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

I like taking a lot of portraits and shots of people, and lots of candid shots. Would those two lenses basically be equivalent for me, with the 12mm being a wider angle ? So I could crop my shots and end up with the same thing ? Or is the 17mm more adequate for taking shots of people / portraits ?

U can crop but that won't change the distortion in faces that you''ll get using the 12 for portraits unless you plan full length environmental portraits.  For that matter the 17.5 is probably a bit wide for closer portraits as well.

Tedolph

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 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

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 

But Tedolf has a valid point, the question is impossible to answer technically, I have seen FE portraits but that doesn't make the 7.5 Rokinon the better lens for portraits....

page solid  base of knowledge first and a reference tool like a book or bookmarked set of sites to help sort the needed gear no matter what the expense.

I use the PL25 often for candid portraits, but have always been disappointed by the distortion in anything framed correctly.

lambert4 wrote:

But Tedolf has a valid point, the question is impossible to answer technically, I have seen FE portraits but that doesn't make the 7.5 Rokinon the better lens for portraits....

page solid base of knowledge first and a reference tool like a book or bookmarked set of sites to help sort the needed gear no matter what the expense.

I use the PL25 often for candid portraits, but have always been disappointed by the distortion in anything framed correctly.

That's because it's not a head and shoulders portrait lens.  See my above post.

-- hide signature --

Here's to learning something new everyday, and remembering it the next.

The Jacal wrote:

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?

None of the blind men are wrong.  The one who feels the trunk says it feels like a snake, etc.

They all are correct with respect to describing the part of the elephant they are experiencing, but none of them say it is an elephant.

Well, so much for metaphores!

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

You are missing the point.

To give the OP a suggestion for a specific lens really doesn't help him.  It's like giving someone a view camera and saying, "here-go shoot a landscape".

He needs to understand how focal lenght effects photography in general, and portrait work in particular.

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

He doen't need a "point" he needs an education!

-- hide signature --

http://www.flickr.com/photos/7467981@N05/
"We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further." Richard Dawkins.!

Oh, why bother-I am going for a ride in my submarine.



Tedolph

Guy Parsons wrote:

dustpuppy wrote:

I like taking a lot of portraits and shots of people, and lots of candid shots. Would those two lenses basically be equivalent for me, with the 12mm being a wider angle ? So I could crop my shots and end up with the same thing ? Or is the 17mm more adequate for taking shots of people / portraits ?

In the M4/3 world it works like this.....

12mm for scenery, street scenes, inside rooms to capture family gatherings, but too many distortion problems for any attempt at portraiture.

17mm same sort of use but less distortion for groups.

25mm for full figure shots and environmental portraits.

45mm for better head and shoulders and some face only.

60mm or 75mm for tight face shots and to to aim for shallower depth of field.

Most people look more normal when photographed from a distance of about 5 to 7 feet, with wide angle lenses you need to get too close and the nose gets too big. So the focal length is chosen to get the framing you want from that 5 to 7 foot distance.

You can use longer focal lengths like 100mm or 150mm to better separate subject from background, but then you are getting too far away from the subject. OK for a single subject under your control, but if in a group or other people are interacting with the subject then you lose control of the subject by just being too far away past that 5 to 7 feet "social contact" distance.

Best to get a kit zoom of 14-42mm or 12-50mm and experiment then check what works best at which focal length and then maybe buy individual prime lenses.

If you had to buy only one prime lens then the 17mm is the most useful choice for general use, but not necessarily for people shots.

Regards........ Guy

Great Post, Thanks for Sharing!:)

Tedolph

(Seriously)

P.S. Too bad the OP had left the room and isn't paying any attention to this stuff.

tedolf wrote:

The Jacal wrote:

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?

None of the blind men are wrong. The one who feels the trunk says it feels like a snake, etc.

Yes, I know it.

They all are correct with respect to describing the part of the elephant they are experiencing, but none of them say it is an elephant.

If someone asked me what the trunk felt like, I would (to stay on topic) say a snake.  I'm not to know that the one who is asking knows if it's an elephant or not, or just confused on one particular point and wants help in clearing it up.

Well, so much for metaphores!

Well, so much for spelling!

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

You are missing the point.

Hmmm, not sure how.

To give the OP a suggestion for a specific lens really doesn't help him. It's like giving someone a view camera and saying, "here-go shoot a landscape".

Or like suggesting a manual macro lens and saying "look, you too can take out of focus shots of daisys."

He needs to understand how focal lenght effects photography in general, and portrait work in particular.

I thought that was what was happening.

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

He doen't need a "point" he needs an education!

Have you had a sense of humour bypass today?

-- hide signature --

http://www.flickr.com/photos/7467981@N05/
"We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further." Richard Dawkins.!

Oh, why bother-I am going for a ride in my submarine.

To go to that other world that you live in, the one where it is acceptable to selectively read posts.



Tedolph

tedolf wrote:

Guy Parsons wrote:

dustpuppy wrote:

I like taking a lot of portraits and shots of people, and lots of candid shots. Would those two lenses basically be equivalent for me, with the 12mm being a wider angle ? So I could crop my shots and end up with the same thing ? Or is the 17mm more adequate for taking shots of people / portraits ?

In the M4/3 world it works like this.....

12mm for scenery, street scenes, inside rooms to capture family gatherings, but too many distortion problems for any attempt at portraiture.

17mm same sort of use but less distortion for groups.

25mm for full figure shots and environmental portraits.

45mm for better head and shoulders and some face only.

60mm or 75mm for tight face shots and to to aim for shallower depth of field.

Most people look more normal when photographed from a distance of about 5 to 7 feet, with wide angle lenses you need to get too close and the nose gets too big. So the focal length is chosen to get the framing you want from that 5 to 7 foot distance.

You can use longer focal lengths like 100mm or 150mm to better separate subject from background, but then you are getting too far away from the subject. OK for a single subject under your control, but if in a group or other people are interacting with the subject then you lose control of the subject by just being too far away past that 5 to 7 feet "social contact" distance.

Best to get a kit zoom of 14-42mm or 12-50mm and experiment then check what works best at which focal length and then maybe buy individual prime lenses.

If you had to buy only one prime lens then the 17mm is the most useful choice for general use, but not necessarily for people shots.

Regards........ Guy

Great Post, Thanks for Sharing!:)

I just hope that you learn something from it.

(Seriously)

Tedolph

(Seriously)

P.S. Too bad the OP had left the room and isn't paying any attention to this stuff.

The Jacal wrote:

tedolf wrote:

The Jacal wrote:

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?

None of the blind men are wrong. The one who feels the trunk says it feels like a snake, etc.

Yes, I know it.

They all are correct with respect to describing the part of the elephant they are experiencing, but none of them say it is an elephant.

If someone asked me what the trunk felt like, I would (to stay on topic) say a snake. I'm not to know that the one who is asking knows if it's an elephant or not, or just confused on one particular point and wants help in clearing it up.

Well, so much for metaphores!

Well, so much for spelling!

I never was much for spelling.........or typing for that matter!

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

You are missing the point.

Hmmm, not sure how.

To give the OP a suggestion for a specific lens really doesn't help him. It's like giving someone a view camera and saying, "here-go shoot a landscape".

Or like suggesting a manual macro lens and saying "look, you too can take out of focus shots of daisys."

that shot wasn't "out of foucs"  it was "soft focus" with "pleasing bokeh"!

He needs to understand how focal lenght effects photography in general, and portrait work in particular.

I thought that was what was happening.

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

He doen't need a "point" he needs an education!

Have you had a sense of humour bypass today?

Well, I am feeling a bit "out of it".

-- hide signature --

http://www.flickr.com/photos/7467981@N05/
"We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further." Richard Dawkins.!

Oh, why bother-I am going for a ride in my submarine.

To go to that other world that you live in, the one where it is acceptable to selectively read posts.



Tedolph

Yes, that world-  a very pleasant place!

-- hide signature --

http://www.flickr.com/photos/7467981@N05/
"We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further." Richard Dawkins.

Admiral Tedolph,

Tedolph Undersea Command.

lambert4 wrote:

But Tedolf has a valid point, the question is impossible to answer technically, I have seen FE portraits but that doesn't make the 7.5 Rokinon the better lens for portraits....

page solid base of knowledge first and a reference tool like a book or bookmarked set of sites to help sort the needed gear no matter what the expense.

I use the PL25 often for candid portraits, but have always been disappointed by the distortion in anything framed correctly.

The problem is nobody bothered to slow down the conversation a bit to find out what the OP meant be "portraits".  Traditional head and shoulder portraits?  Environmental portraits?  Edgy MTV group portraits?  Street candids?

Technically both the 12 and 17 can be used for some types of portraits, i.e. environmental or group portraits.   They are not the classical portrait length of 85-135mm that produce a pleasing rendering of facial features, i.e. little distortion like bulbous noses like a wide angle lens or not too much compression flattening features like a long telephoto.  A 50mm can be used for full-length portraits but a) getting too close with a 50 distorts the face b) doesn't provide enough working distance for lights if you're in a studio.

Anyway, the chorus of "no" may have been a bit premature without knowing what types of images the OP has in mind.  But it is good advice to warn beginners that wides can be difficult to use when photographing people.

Hi

Maybe buy the zoom and learn some photography, this is almost £1000 in lenses your not sure how to use,double if you want black !!

focal length and compression