There are 2095 lenses in our database and 3493 owners opinions.

You can also
compare lenses side-by-side

Search by:

Canon EF 300 mm f/4L IS USM

Manufacturer Canon
Model EF 300 mm f/4L IS USM
Lens style Telephoto
Focal length 300 mm
Maximum aperture f/4
Angle of view 8.2 o
Closest focusing distance 1.5 m
Maximum magnification 1:4.12
Minimum aperture 32
Number of diaphragm blades 8
Auto focus type USM
Lens Construction 15 elements / 11 groups
Filter diameter 77 mm
Macro No
Available mounts Canon EF
Dimensions 90 x 221 mm
Weight 1190 g
Additional information Marketed March 1997
Average rating (6 owners reviews)
Build quality
Optical quality
Value for money


4.78 Good
Owners reviews (6)
  1. Pistabacsi
    Pistabacsi 18 August 2016, 11:24
    Build quality
    Optical quality
    Value for money


    IP 148.6.x.x
    Owner since: 7 years
    Price: 900 USD
    User profile: Amateur

    Cons: Old outdated stabilizer. Heavy (the new Nikkor with similar specs is only 750g).

    Pros: Excellent optical quality, i.e, very sharp, very good contract. Affordable. Massive built.

    Summary: Very usable for bird photography and for portraits from far away, without interacting with your model.

  2. CanonEFFans
    CanonEFFans 3 November 2015, 22:53
    Build quality
    Optical quality
    Value for money


    IP 104.161.x.x
    Owner since: 1 month
    Price: 1200
    User profile: Semipro

    Cons: Images often come out soft, even at f8. Old IS design

    Pros: Good combination of price, weight and size. Solid build.

    Summary: Coming from the 70-200mm f4 I was expecting this Prime 300mm lens to offer a major step-up in term of sharpness and resolving power. It is slightly better sometimes, but sometimes worse, and leaves you feeling underwhelmed. Comparing these two, the 70-200mm f4 to the 300mm f4 in real world situations, I used: - a new 70D body - Handheld, at the same distance to the subject, around 25 meters - Both lens at f5.6 (which is the sweet spot for the 300m) - Shutter 1/500th or faster - Both lenes mirco adjusted, giving no difference on Live View vs Viewfinder focussing - Both cropped in software to give the same image and sufficiently zoomed in to reveal sharpness. The 70-200 yields sharp results every time, and I mean when expanded up so the subject fills the same frame as the 300. Many shots on the 300 come out softer, some are about the same, and about a ⅓ of them are slightly better on the 300m. (after correcting the 300mm's CA in Lightroom). The results vary greatly, some good and some bad, so maybe a the IS not locking on reliably? You'd think a noisey IS also means vibration, which can't be good. I swapped the lens for another copy guess I just had a bad one, but the second was the same. It's also sensitive to UV filters, and I had to take the UV filter off the 300mm to get comparible performance to the 70-200. So surely it must be easier to make a prime lens sharper than a zoom lens? And also easier to make an a smaller aperture sharp, compared to the enormous technical challenge of the huge f2.8 - which Canon managed to make incredibly sharp. So what's up Canon? Can we get an update to this lens please? You shouldn't need to heft around the 2.4kg of f2.8 glass just to get sharp images at f5.6. I get the feeling that today's 20mp crop sensors are very revealing of any softness, which you can now see in this lens design from 1997. On the early full frames cannons from 10 year ago (11mp) it was probably fine, but times have moved on. We now have around 9 pixels were there was only one. Don't get me wrong this is a very good lens, but needs an update to bring into line with the 70-200 below, and the 300mm f2.8 above. Realtors Marketing | printing services

  3. Mark
    Mark 3 February 2013, 08:51
    Build quality
    Optical quality
    Value for money


    IP 58.8.x.x
    Owner since: 2 years
    User profile: Amateur

    Cons: IS can be a little noisy

    Pros: Image Quality. Sharp, high contrast, Relatively light and can be hand held

    Summary: I use this for safaris, sometimes with the 1.4 TC. Great quality

  4. Sunny valentine
    Sunny valentine 10 March 2012, 23:21
    Build quality
    Optical quality
    Value for money


    IP 119.42.x.x
    Owner since: 1 year
    Price: 1200 Euro
    User profile: Semipro

    Cons: No negatives, great lens.

    Pros: Sharp and reasonably fast, good with TK 1.4 as well. IS better than expected.

    Summary: A great lens.

  5. CorJan
    CorJan 28 February 2012, 18:24
    Build quality
    Optical quality
    Value for money


    IP 80.254.x.x
    Owner since: 6 years
    Price: 150Euro
    User profile: Amateur

    Cons: to short for small wildlife

    Pros: sharp, even with 1.4xII, good contrast and colour

    Summary: with 1.4x best affordable tele

  6. Dajon
    Dajon 12 December 2009, 06:00
    Build quality
    Optical quality
    Value for money


    IP 70.66.x.x
    Owner since: 4 years
    Price: 1500
    User profile: Semipro

    Cons: Tripod collar could be smoother

    Pros: Tack sharp even wide open. Well made and IS works perfectly. Good macro (1:4)

    Summary: A great lens --Im glad i bought this one instead of the 100-400L.

Add your opinion

Build quality 0 1 2 3 4 5
Optical quality 0 1 2 3 4 5
Value for money 0 1 2 3 4 5