There are 2161 lenses in our database and 3523 owners opinions.
You can also
compare lenses side-by-side
Search by:
Canon EF 300 mm f/4L IS USM
Pictures:
Specifications:
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 |
Owners reviews (6)
Add your opinion
Overall
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Cons: Old outdated stabilizer.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.
Overall
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
Overall
Owner since: 2 years
Price:
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
Overall
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.
Overall
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
Overall
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.