Don't underestimate your "lesser" lenses

Going through some photos taken in the Lake district earlier this year I spotted a bird of prey in the trees on one image - so I've had a go at enlarging it just to see how much detail I could pull out. The result isn't that great as an image but it was only when I compared the crop to the original that I appreciated what the lens and camera combination had captured.

1. Original image (at 1600 pixels):



2. Heavy crop (at 1024 pixels) with localised highlighting to show the bird:



if you want to see a full size image (at 7360 pixels - very big!) it's here (with the localised highlighting):
https://www.flickr.com/photos/62460860@N05/28331048747/sizes/o/

The focus was on the foreground trees so the hills and trees in the distance are a bit out of focus, but I think you can also see the weakness of the lens (I could probably improve this a little with better PP) - then again the lens cost me less than £20!

The lens is the poorly rated Pentax F 80-200 f4.7-5.6 - a lightweight, plasticky 20 year old zoom - but it's currently my lightweight travel tele-zoom

GO Pentax !!!!!

That's very impressive! By coincidence having just seen what SRS are asking for the new Ricoh DFA*50mm and rashly supposing it is unlikely to outdo (say) the DA*16-50 by much where IQ is concerned, I thought I would compare my old manual Pentax 50mm f1.4 against the DA*16-50 and the DA*50-135. I was shocked how little difference there was, particularly in terms of resolution, and wondered why anyone would pay £1200....given that both 50s are full frame anyway.
It's a lot to pay for auto-focus!
Just kidding...……….




Roger

I'm not saying you are wrong but I am suspicious as I have enlarged the first and I cannot find the bird!

Check out the tree at the bottom right with the shaded trunk - it's over in the branches to the right about half way up

p.s. if you open the large image (the one with the link instead of embedded image) then you'll find it much more easily