Crop – Teleconverter or Bigger Lens

Crop, Teleconverter, or Longer Lens: What’s the Best Option?

When your lens doesn’t give you the magnification you need, what’s the best solution? Should you crop your image, use a teleconverter, or invest in a longer lens? This is a question I’ve tackled myself using several Olympus lenses, along with extensive research through reviews and videos from photographers. Some claim teleconverters are a waste of time and that cropping is better, but does that hold true? What works for me might not be your preference, but learning about it can never hurt—especially since my reviews are always unbiased and purely based on my own experience.

The following overview is partly universal but also leans on my personal experience with Olympus/OM System. I’ve found their teleconverters to be excellent, particularly when paired with their compatible lenses.

My Journey: From Panasonic 100-300mm to Olympus Pro Gear

It started with the Panasonic 100-300mm, my first lens for bird and wildlife photography. It’s a solid starter lens but quickly felt limiting. This was when I began testing the claims that cropping is better than using teleconverters. Cropping worked—up to a point. Push it too far, and you lose usability: imperfections are magnified, blur remains blur, and pixels just get bigger. While cropping can be effective (I still crop often), it has its limits.

After that, I upgraded to the Leica 100-400mm, which offered a significant improvement. But I still wanted more reach, so I bought the Olympus 300mm f/4 Pro, along with both the 1.4x and 2x teleconverters. Then came a big question: should I get the new OM System 150-600mm?

To decide, I tested the teleconverters thoroughly. The results were impressive:

• With the 1.4x teleconverter, the image quality barely suffered, and the lens remained bright enough for most situations.
• The 2x teleconverter performed well too, though with more noticeable light loss.

The 150-600mm was tempting, but it came with extra weight, bulk, and a steep price tag. Around the same time, I had an opportunity to try the Olympus 100-400mm, which could also work with teleconverters for a significant reach boost at a fraction of the price.

After testing, I concluded that the 100-400mm was already heavy enough for handheld shooting. Adding the 150-600mm, likely requiring a tripod, didn’t align with my style. So I passed on it.

Today, with my Leica 100-400mm for standard bird and wildlife use, the 300mm f/4 Pro and teleconverters, or the Olympus 100-400mm with MC-14, I have all the reach I need. I can crop further when necessary and am very satisfied with my setup.

The Comparison: Crop vs. Teleconverter vs. Longer Lens

Here’s a quick breakdown of the pros and cons of each approach:

1. Cropping
   • Pros: Free, no additional gear needed.
   • Cons: Limited by your sensor’s resolution and image quality. Overcropping amplifies imperfections.
2. Teleconverter
   • Pros: Cost-effective, portable, and versatile (if you already own a compatible lens). The 1.4x converter often has negligible impact on quality.
   • Cons: Some light loss, especially with higher magnifications like 2x.
3. Longer Lens
   • Pros: Maximum reach and light-gathering capabilities. Often the best quality.
   • Cons: Expensive, heavier, and sometimes less versatile (may require a tripod).

Ultimately, the choice depends on your specific needs and style. Personally, I’ve found a combination of teleconverters and careful cropping to be a great balance of cost, quality, and practicality. What about you?

• Cropping is convenient but degrades quality.
• Higher-resolution cameras are versatile but costly.
• Teleconverters are compact and effective but require sharp lenses and sacrifice light.
• Longer lenses are optimal for quality and bokeh but are expensive and harder to handle.

Choosing the right option depends on the photographer’s budget, shooting style, and specific needs.

The choice between cropping and using a teleconverter depends on several factors, including the quality of the teleconverter, your camera’s sensor resolution, the lens you’re using, and your expectations for image quality. Let’s break it down:

Teleconverters: Advantages and Disadvantages

Advantages:

1. Increased Reach: A teleconverter effectively increases the focal length of your lens, allowing you to fill the frame without cropping.
2. Higher Detail at Full Resolution: If the teleconverter is high quality and paired with a good lens, you retain more native resolution and detail than you would by cropping.
3. Preserves Framing Options: With the longer reach, you don’t have to crop as aggressively, which means better print quality and more flexibility in post-processing.

Disadvantages:

1. Image Quality Degradation: Poor-quality teleconverters can introduce softness, chromatic aberration, and reduced contrast.
2. Light Loss: A 1.4x teleconverter reduces light by 1 stop, and a 2x teleconverter by 2 stops, which can impact autofocus performance and low-light shooting.
3. Autofocus Challenges: Some camera and lens combinations struggle to autofocus when teleconverters are used, especially with slower lenses.

Cropping: Advantages and Disadvantages

Advantages:

1. No Light Loss: Cropping doesn’t reduce the light reaching your sensor, so exposure settings remain unaffected.
2. Simplicity: No extra equipment is needed, and there’s no risk of optical degradation from an additional lens element.
3. Flexibility in Framing: You can adjust your composition in post-processing.

Disadvantages:

1. Reduced Resolution: Cropping decreases the pixel count, which can lead to loss of detail, especially if the image is cropped heavily.
2. Magnifies Sensor Imperfections: When cropping, you’re enlarging the pixels and any noise or imperfections in the image.

Key Question: Are You “Magnifying Pixels” When Cropping?

Yes, cropping effectively “magnifies” the image by enlarging the remaining pixels to fit the desired output size. This means:

• Detail loss occurs because fewer pixels are used to represent the subject.
• Noise becomes more prominent if the image was taken in low light or at high ISO settings.

By comparison, a teleconverter optically magnifies the image, projecting more detail onto the sensor. A good-quality teleconverter and lens combination can often outperform cropping.

When to Choose Each Option

1. Use a Teleconverter If:
   • You have a high-quality teleconverter and lens that work well together.
   • Light loss and autofocus performance aren’t critical issues for your situation.
   • You want the best detail at native resolution.
2. Crop If:
   • You don’t have a high-quality teleconverter or your lens isn’t compatible.
   • You prioritize simplicity or flexibility in post-processing.
   • Your camera has a very high-resolution sensor (e.g., more than 25MP), making cropping less damaging to final image quality.

Performance Comparison:

Which Should You Choose?

1. Olympus MC-14 (1.4x):
   • Best for general telephoto use where retaining maximum image quality and autofocus speed is critical.
   • Ideal for action, sports, and moderate wildlife photography.
2. Olympus MC-20 (2.0x):
   • Perfect for specialized long-distance photography, such as birding or capturing subjects where maximum reach is crucial.
   • Recommended only if your shooting conditions offer plenty of light or you’re using a very sharp lens like the 300mm f/4 or 150-400mm f/4.5 PRO.

Conclusion:

When deciding between cropping, a teleconverter, or a longer lens, each option comes with its own pros and cons. However, in my opinion, if you’re looking for the best balance of quality, cost, and results, a teleconverter often delivers the most practical solution.

If you do choose to invest in longer lenses, it’s important to manage your expectations. Owning a super-telephoto lens with an extreme focal length doesn’t guarantee sharp, stunning photos of distant wildlife.

Shooting at long distances comes with its own set of challenges. For one, movement can become an issue, making a tripod or other stabilizing gear essential. Additionally, longer lenses often mean greater light loss, requiring higher ISO settings that can introduce noise. But one critical factor, often overlooked, is atmospheric distortion. My friend Ted from TPJ Photography once pointed this out to me, and I’ve experienced it myself, even with a 400mm lens.

On hot, humid days, you can sometimes see the air shimmering over long distances. Attempting to photograph a deer at 100-150 meters or more under such conditions is often futile. Cold weather and mist can also degrade image quality, making it nearly impossible to capture a sharp shot. The farther away your subject is, the more difficult it becomes, and that’s when you realize the limitations of even the most expensive super-telephoto lenses.