10 ms·

A 20mm lens is not an excellent portrait lens. It will make your face look fatter.

• deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
• masomenos 16y ago
  Going by the analysis in the post, and in the parent comment, the 20mm would probably be positively correlated with attractiveness because it's easier to get a shallower depth of field with it. However, you're certainly correct that conventional photographic wisdom is that people look better on longer lenses, for just the reason you cite -- wider angles can distort faces unpleasantly. It would have been interesting to see an analysis of lens length & perceived attractiveness from this dataset.
  • starkfist 16y ago
    You have to be too close to the face in order to throw out the background with a 20mm 1.9. It's going to make the nose look weird and accentuate a double chin, if you have one. (I have the same camera and lens)
    • j00lz 16y ago
      I get great results from using that lens for portraits. The 20mm lens is really a 40mm due to the x2 cropped sensor in m4/3 cameras.
      • jonah 16y ago
        40mm equiv. is too wide for portraiture. typically you use around an 85mm lens. this would work out to 40-50mm in micro four thirds.
• anamax 16y ago
  > A 20mm lens is not an excellent portrait lens. It will make your face look fatter. It depends on the sensor size. A 20mm lens in (35mm) full-frame is a very wide lens. A 20mm lens on a Canon/Nikon DSLR is the same as a 35mm lens on a (35mm) full-frame. A 20mm lens on a point-and-shoot is even "longer".
  • tincholio 16y ago
    In a (micro)4/3ds camera, 20mm is equivalent to 40mm in 35mm, which is close to a normal lens. It's on the short end for portraiture, but you can get nice results if the lens is fast enough.