enlargement from prime vs. telephoto

This is highly subjective but suppose I want to enlarge a portion of a
photo taken with a premium-quality 50mm lens to equal that of an image
area taken with a premium-quality 80mm lens.


All things being equal, how can an enlargement be as good as a
"premium-quality 80mm lens?"

The enlargement will be 80% more than it would have been otherwise. Grain
and tonality have to suffer.

This is highly subjective but suppose I want to enlarge a portion of a
photo taken with a premium-quality 50mm lens to equal that of an image
area taken with a premium-quality 80mm lens.


All things being equal, how can an enlargement be as good as a
"premium-quality 80mm lens?"

The enlargement will be 80% more than it would have been otherwise. Grain
and tonality have to suffer.

Thanks to all for your comments. I suffer from a very common problem:
not being able to afford the gear I really want. And I'm trying to
figure out where to get the best bang for the buck. I've been a
life-long birder and have taken many trips to the Central and South
American tropics to see them. I've never attempted to photograph them
because the gear required for the kind of images I'd want is too heavy
to lug around. And expensive. But now I'm planning a birding trip to
Africa for next year and since I doubt I'll ever get there again, I'm
rethinking my choice of a camera to carry. I know I don't want to buy
or lug a 600mm lens and I'm not sure I even want to carry a camera
that weighs 3 lbs. So I've ruled out the long premium lenses, leaving
me with choices about normal or short telephotos. I'm not going to try
bird photos per se. Just want excellent images with some ability to
enlarge certain photos with good resolution. I'm used to the
resolution from my MF camera, so I already figure I'm going to
compromise on print detail. I'm considering buying a new/used Canon
10D or Nikon D70 but I'm not sure about the lens. A premium prime lens
has its appeal since I wouldn't be bothered changing lenses, and
that's a very important feature for my style of thrashing through the
puckerbrush. I don't want to lug a lot of gear and I don't want to be
changing lenses. Then there's the 28-70 zoom. Canon's and Nikon's are
both quite good apparently, but they're also expensive and fairly
heavy. Are they better (for my purposes) than their 80mm primes? All
subjective, I know. Bottom line is that the best gear in the world
isn't worth much if I can't afford it or if it's so awkward that I
wouldn't tote it with me. Again, thanks for all your comments. And I
know this can't be answered by anyone but me.

Thanks to all for your comments. I suffer from a very common problem:
not being able to afford the gear I really want. And I'm trying to
figure out where to get the best bang for the buck.


Good used equipment can fill the vacuum for you. You might consider medium
format, specifically a Yashica or Minolta Autocord Twin Lens Reflex. Built
very similar to the Rolleiflex, and can be had on eBay for under $100.00.
Not much to break, no reflex lens to worry about, big negatives. Some
people think that the permanently-mounted normal lens is a limiting factor,
but there are other benefits that might completely offset that trade-off.
See the following Rolleiflex link, for a good overview of the TLR's pros and
cons:

http://www.foto.no/rolleiflex/Kapittel_1.html

If you are seeking maximum image quality for the least cost, this is
probably the best solution. If you can go a bit higher, the Rolleicord or
its more expensive sibling, the Rolleiflex, have a reputation for excellent
optics, primarily Carl Zeiss and Josef Schneider, and can give excellent
results. (I would start off with either the Autocord or a Yashica Model D,
as they are dirt-cheap and you can get a feel for whether you like MF
without risking any real money).


If you want to stay with 35mm, you really should check out two orphaned
camera systems, the Pentax screw mount and the Canon breech mount systems.
Excellent optics, inexpensive prices, good reliability.

I am partial to the Super-Multi-Coated Takumar lenses that were marketed by
Pentax in the early 70s. For an introduction to their optical qualities,
have a look at the following link:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/co...02-11-24.shtml

Thanks to all for your comments. I suffer from a very common problem:
not being able to afford the gear I really want. And I'm trying to
figure out where to get the best bang for the buck.


Good used equipment can fill the vacuum for you. You might consider medium
format, specifically a Yashica or Minolta Autocord Twin Lens Reflex. Built
very similar to the Rolleiflex, and can be had on eBay for under $100.00.
Not much to break, no reflex lens to worry about, big negatives. Some
people think that the permanently-mounted normal lens is a limiting factor,
but there are other benefits that might completely offset that trade-off.
See the following Rolleiflex link, for a good overview of the TLR's pros and
cons:

http://www.foto.no/rolleiflex/Kapittel_1.html

If you are seeking maximum image quality for the least cost, this is
probably the best solution. If you can go a bit higher, the Rolleicord or
its more expensive sibling, the Rolleiflex, have a reputation for excellent
optics, primarily Carl Zeiss and Josef Schneider, and can give excellent
results. (I would start off with either the Autocord or a Yashica Model D,
as they are dirt-cheap and you can get a feel for whether you like MF
without risking any real money).


If you want to stay with 35mm, you really should check out two orphaned
camera systems, the Pentax screw mount and the Canon breech mount systems.
Excellent optics, inexpensive prices, good reliability.

I am partial to the Super-Multi-Coated Takumar lenses that were marketed by
Pentax in the early 70s. For an introduction to their optical qualities,
have a look at the following link:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/co...02-11-24.shtml

writes:

SNIP
bird photos per se. Just want excellent images with some ability to
enlarge certain photos with good resolution. I'm used to the
resolution from my MF camera, so I already figure I'm going to
compromise on print detail.

SNIP
Bottom line is that the best gear in the world
isn't worth much if I can't afford it or if it's so awkward that I
wouldn't tote it with me.

I think you've got some good ideas, and the last comment I'm quoting is
apt. You mention medium format, so let me suggest dropping by the MF
newsgroup and asking there about telephoto. If you're going to be enlarging
images, enlarge from a 6x6 (or whatever your MF format is) instead of the
relatively puny 35mm frame. Used gear, converters -- you may not be able to
get what you want, but you may end up with what you need. (Rolling Stones,
anyone?)

--
Philip Stripling | email to the replyto address is presumed
Legal Assistance on the Web | spam and read later. email to philip@
http://www.PhilipStripling.com/ | my domain is read daily.

writes:

SNIP
bird photos per se. Just want excellent images with some ability to
enlarge certain photos with good resolution. I'm used to the
resolution from my MF camera, so I already figure I'm going to
compromise on print detail.

SNIP
Bottom line is that the best gear in the world
isn't worth much if I can't afford it or if it's so awkward that I
wouldn't tote it with me.

I think you've got some good ideas, and the last comment I'm quoting is
apt. You mention medium format, so let me suggest dropping by the MF
newsgroup and asking there about telephoto. If you're going to be enlarging
images, enlarge from a 6x6 (or whatever your MF format is) instead of the
relatively puny 35mm frame. Used gear, converters -- you may not be able to
get what you want, but you may end up with what you need. (Rolling Stones,
anyone?)

--
Philip Stripling | email to the replyto address is presumed
Legal Assistance on the Web | spam and read later. email to philip@
http://www.PhilipStripling.com/ | my domain is read daily.

wrote:
Thanks to all for your comments. I suffer from a very common problem:
not being able to afford the gear I really want. And I'm trying to
figure out where to get the best bang for the buck. I've been a
life-long birder and have taken many trips to the Central and South
American tropics to see them. I've never attempted to photograph them
because the gear required for the kind of images I'd want is too heavy
to lug around. And expensive. But now I'm planning a birding trip to
Africa for next year and since I doubt I'll ever get there again, I'm
rethinking my choice of a camera to carry. I know I don't want to buy
or lug a 600mm lens and I'm not sure I even want to carry a camera
that weighs 3 lbs. So I've ruled out the long premium lenses, leaving
me with choices about normal or short telephotos. I'm not going to try
bird photos per se. Just want excellent images with some ability to
enlarge certain photos with good resolution. I'm used to the
resolution from my MF camera, so I already figure I'm going to
compromise on print detail. I'm considering buying a new/used Canon
10D or Nikon D70 but I'm not sure about the lens. A premium prime lens
has its appeal since I wouldn't be bothered changing lenses, and
that's a very important feature for my style of thrashing through the
puckerbrush. I don't want to lug a lot of gear and I don't want to be
changing lenses. Then there's the 28-70 zoom. Canon's and Nikon's are
both quite good apparently, but they're also expensive and fairly
heavy. Are they better (for my purposes) than their 80mm primes? All
subjective, I know. Bottom line is that the best gear in the world
isn't worth much if I can't afford it or if it's so awkward that I
wouldn't tote it with me. Again, thanks for all your comments. And I
know this can't be answered by anyone but me.

Cheap but good suggestions for long teles (all used), most available in
mM42 (Pentax screw mount):

Vivitar 400mm f/5.6 (old version)
Meyer Telemegor 400mm f/5.5
Meyer Telemegor 300mm f/4.5
Zeiss Jena Sonnar 200mm f/2.8
Zeiss Jena Sonnar 300mm f/4.0 (P6 mount, but adaptors exist for many
other mounts)

All these will give excellent results and are available cheaply. If you
lack a M42 body, a Pentax Spotmatic can be picked up cheaply and is a
great camera.

Of course some here will tell you that it is impossible to take pictures
without autofocus, auto-exposure and many frames-per-second built in
motor (one wonders how photography even existed before about 1985).

Find our own way...

wrote in message . ..
This is highly subjective but suppose I want to enlarge a portion of a
photo taken with a premium-quality 50mm lens to equal that of an image
area taken with a premium-quality 80mm lens. Approximately 50 percent
enlargement. Is the image with the 50 just 5/8s as clean as the same
image taken with the 80? What I'm getting at is this: how much do I
lose in final print quality by enlarging from a 50 as opposed to using
an 80? I'm sure brands make a difference and not all premium lenses at
given focal lengths are equal to other. But is there a rough rule of
thumb beyond the obvious fraction?

Or you could move three steps closer with the 50.

Michael

(street shooter) writes:

Or you could move three steps closer with the 50.

Neither always possible nor desirable in Africa.

--
Philip Stripling | email to the replyto address is presumed
Legal Assistance on the Web | spam and read later. email to philip@
http://www.PhilipStripling.com/ | my domain is read daily.