Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 Germany License.

back to index

Comparison "teleconverter vs. interpolation"


All pictures were taken with the Canon 300mm f/2.8 L IS USM on a 40D from a tripod.
IS off, MLU, timer and manually focused using LiveView. Distance ~5m.
There might be a slight difference in size because teleconverters never exactly magnify by factor 1.4 or 2.0.
As I only took one frame each time there is no guarantee that all are 100% shake-free.


First of all a comparison of the different focal lengths at different appertures



(click for 100% view - 1530x2040px, 3 MB)


Comparison of pictures with converter vs. shorter focal length and resizing


300mm resized vs. 420mm with converter (wide open)

(click for 100% view - 2000x1000px, approx. 1.8MB)


300mm resized vs. 420mm with converter (stopped down one stop)

(click for 100% view - 2000x1000px, approx. 1.8MB)


420mm resized vs. 600mm with converter (wide open)

(click for 100% view - 2000x1000px, approx. 1.8MB)


420mm resized vs. 600mm with converter (stopped down one stop)

(click for 100% view - 2000x1000px, approx. 1.8MB)


600mm resized vs. 840mm with converter (stopped down one stop)

(click for 100% view - 2000x1000px, approx. 1.8MB)


600mm resized vs. 840mm with converter (stopped down two stops)

(click for 100% view - 2000x1000px, approx. 1.8MB)


300mm resized vs. 600mm with converter (stopped down one stop)

(click for 100% view - 2000x1000px, approx. 1.8MB)


My conclusion:

- The two converters stacked are not a good deal but it might just be a problem with these specific ones. Two Canon or Sigma TCs might be better.
- In a "controlled" environment you can use a 300/2.8 as a virtual 420/2.8 by resizing without losing too much quality.
- under field conditions and with the right amount of post-processing converters should always beat resizing and of course they allow you to crop (only without the advantage of an extra f-stop)