There are 2028 lenses in our database and 3452 owners opinions.

You can also
compare lenses side-by-side

Search by:

Canon EF 100-300 mm f/4.5-5.6 USM

Manufacturer Canon
Model EF 100-300 mm f/4.5-5.6 USM
Lens style Telephoto zoom
Focal length 100 - 300 mm
Maximum aperture f/4.5 - 5.6
Angle of view 24.11 - 8.15 o
Closest focusing distance 1.5 m
Maximum magnification 1:3.8
Minimum aperture 40
Number of diaphragm blades 8
Auto focus type AF USM
Lens Construction 13 elements / 10 groups
Filter diameter 58 mm
Macro No
Available mounts Canon EF
Dimensions 73 x 121.5 mm
Weight 540 g
Additional information Marketed June 1990
Average rating (4 owners reviews)
Build quality
Optical quality
Value for money


3.33 Average
Owners reviews (4)
  1. Mike
    Mike 15 July 2022, 15:31
    Build quality
    Optical quality
    Value for money


    IP 146.200.x.x
    Owner since: more than 10 years
    Price: 70
    User profile: Semipro

    Cons: On APS-C, it\'s very hard to get sufficient sharpness anywhere in the frame at 300mm, and even 200mm needs stopping down. (But see Pros).

    Pros: On full frame, central sharpness is not bad even at 300mm, and 200mm normally looks fairly good even at the sides. I like its real ring USM AF motor and the form factor is reasonably discrete and it\'s not excessively heavy.

    Summary: I have always been a bit disappointed in the optics of this lens, which I do not feel are significantly better than the often-derided EF 75-300 lenses, but my experience suggests less variability than for the cheaper lens, and of course mechanically this is vastly superior. The trouble is that you do lose, with this one, 25mm of focal length where the lens performs best. I wouldn\'t choose it these days for APS-C, though I used to use one that way. If you value its form factor and find a good example cheaply, it can make some sense for full frame even if technically it is vastly inferior to several lenses that also won\'t break the bank. The accurate AF seals it for me as something I like to hang onto. It\'s quite nice on the 6D.

  2. JiMu
    JiMu 15 July 2012, 04:09
    Build quality
    Optical quality
    Value for money


    IP 84.173.x.x
    Owner since: 3 years
    Price: 85€
    User profile: Semipro

    Cons: no IS

    Pros: metal mount, fast and silent ring USM, FTM, low price looking at used models, better image quality than any 75-300mm lens, nice zoom range.

    Summary: I really like that lens and the first lens that was good enough to justify an upgrade was the 100-400mm 4.5-5.6L IS USM lens.

  3. kg1
    kg1 1 May 2012, 17:37
    Build quality
    Optical quality
    Value for money


    IP 67.190.x.x
    Owner since: more than 10 years
    Price: ?
    User profile: Amateur

    Cons: Soft from 200-300. CA is problematic beyond 100mm

    Pros: USM AF is quick. Sharp at 100mm

    Summary: Like the other reviewer, I already owned the lens when I got my first digital body (APS-C). I am able to get nice results with the lens shooting at 100mm but tend to be pretty disappointed with the results at longer lengths. As the other reviewer, I suspect the 55-250mm IS is a better choice than this 100-300mm for APS-C users.

  4. hi-tower
    hi-tower 8 October 2011, 19:19
    Build quality
    Optical quality
    Value for money


    IP 81.217.x.x
    Owner since: more than 10 years
    Price: 400€
    User profile: Amateur

    Cons: Soft beyond 200mm, stopping down to f/8 or f/11 helps only a little. No IS

    Pros: Very quick and reliable AF Sharp between 100mm and 200mm Decent build quality

    Summary: A leftover from my 1994 Canon EOS 5 film camera. This lens struggles to survive in the digital era, as it's sharpness is insufficient especially at the long end. The slow aperture in conjunction with the lack of IS will require you to use higher ISO. If you can get this lens in good condition at a bargain price, you might give it a try and enjoy the wonderful AF and get nice pictures between 100-200mm. In general for APS-C users, the 55-250mm IS is the better choice. Full frame users should look for any of the L tele lenses. Mine had to go as it got replaced by a 70-200 F/4 L IS :-)

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