Canon 75-300mm f/4-5.6 USM ‘iii’ lens review with samples (Full-frame & APS-C)

Here we see one of Canon’s older, budget lenses – originally designed to be a kit lens for older film cameras. As such it’s suitable for full-frame or APS-C cameras. Taking a look at this review – it’s a textbook example of how very differently lenses can sometimes perform on full-frame and APS-C.

If you’ve found this or other videos I’ve made to be helpful, then support me on Patreon!

All photography and video footage taken by me on Canon 6D and EOS M3 cameras.

Be sure to follow my Photostream on Flickr, to see sample pictures of lenses I’ve reviewed and to see previews of upcoming lenses, too!

Music: ‘Opportunity Walks’, Kevin Macleod (


Dev Blxntz says:

Can this be used on a Canon Rebel T5?

Andrew Wilkin says:

Your original review was more accurate. I have one of these lenses and they are not good on a full frame (5D mk i). I agree with the comments below that any in camera lens correction should be turned off for these tests.

Farhaan Tariq says:

there are always some people who will always tumbs you down for no reason…but just because they are jealous of how good you are at what you do.

Michael Angley says:

I enjoy your reviews, but you need more relevant content. Might I suggest hooking up with a local camera dealer, and review their products? I look forward to seeing more of your great reviews.

Reagan Huang says:

emm…. this lens is way too old . seems not worthy of review anymore.

WarrenCorruption says:

Hey I have the
“Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS II” but I just got a new lends that is the “Tamron AF 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 SP Di VC USD XLD” I’m not a pro photographer but I’m having a hard time noticing the difference between the two besides that the tameron goes 50mm more in distance, I like to shoot wildlife and I was watching one of your other videos where you are reviewing the the canon 70-300 I believe and you suggested that tamron was sharper is you wanted to shoot things like wildlife. So I just want to know basically if it’s worth me keeping this lends since I feel like the canon 55-250 is just as good, they seem to be both sharp I’m having a hard time telling the diffrance. If anyone can help me out I’d appreciate it. I dont want to spend money on somthing that I kinda already have and maybe put the tamron money into a nice canon macro 100mm instead. Thank you!

oasisbeyond says:

I think in the real world, it’s not a good lens. You need good lighting for these type of lenses. I have the 70 – 200 crazy sharp but only with good lighting or tripod with it, or if you can lean it on your hand. Focus on this is also too slow.

Billy Tz says:

Hey !
The thing i dont get is why it’s harder to get a clear image on an Crop body. Shouldn’t it be easier since the sensor only uses the center of the FF image that is supposed to be the sharper part of the image?

lez briddon says:

now i’m confused….
how can changing the camera body change the sharpness of the same area of the lens, same beams of light going through same piece of glass taking the same path should hit the sensor in the exact same way. maybe there’s a correction error going on in firmware/software.
either i’m not understanding this right, but its like using a magnifying glass to get an image of the sun on paper, only changing the paper to a smaller one, and then saying the magnifying glass now isnt as good…….

Elhamuddin Najm says:

i wanted to buy a canon 24-105mm f4 or Tamron 24-70 f2.8 VC wich one should i choose?

kyal zin says:

Can i use this on canon eos 1300d?

Stan KMT says:

Please do Sigma 50-150 f2.8 OS lens


Please, review XC lenses for Fujifilm cameras !

Benjamin Huggett says:

Hey Chris, bit of a weird one here; have you ever taken a look at Canon’s 20-35 2.8 L?
I narrowly missed out on buying on the other day, (it was literally grabbed from beneath my fingers on MPB. But I won’t dwell on that any longer) the reviews online seem to be very positive as far as build quality and sharpness goes, but I’m always interested in your take on these things.
It’s an older lens now, and seems to be fairly hard to find, that paired with its relatively small zoom range probably means that it wasn’t very popular in its day, and certainly isn’t very popular today. At any rate, I think it’s a really interesting little lens, and I’ll absolutely be picking one up if I can find one.

Many thanks. Keep doing what you’re doing!

Mohan Krishna says:

There is a new 70-300 released sometime this yr. it would be good if u review that rather than old piece.

Aljon Pobar says:

yongnuo 100mm f2 please

raraschek says:

Chris please review the new USM lenses.. 70-300 IS and 18-135 Is…. Thank you!!

Erick Morales says:

I dislike this lens so much, I’m glad it was offered as a kit lens at a bargain $450 with the Canon 1200d, it was such a pain shooting with it and it was heavily inconvenient, the only “accurate” photos I got out of it were sunset photos and that’s about it.

Hardened Studios says:

*edit* Just finished watching your video. I’m sorry, this is just not accurate. When dealing with depth in real world photography, this lens is a failure. If you are viewing this video, just know that you need to multiply his results by a factor of 2. Its 2x worse than what he see’s in the real world. That purple fringing is SO thick, then when you correct it makes the shot look out of focus. This has to be the most garbage lens that CANON has EVERRRRRR made. This lens is so garbage. I felt so bad about selling it, poor soul that I sold it to. This lens is equivalent to just missing the shot.

Lord Toranaga says:

thank you

Shadow Hunter says:

which one is better …canon 75-300mm or Sigma 70-300 DG Macro

BILL CW says:

HI!Chris,why not test the new 70-300 is II usm ?

Icalestro says:

I waited for this video dude! Love you!

Tyranno says:

I’m a high school student, and I have to use this for sports, I can tell you it makes you think and I learned a lot. Very challenging shoots. Especially at Basketball games.

Dave's Nature Productions says:

Hi Chris, just one question. Why do you turn on corrections in camera? Wouldn’t it be better to see how a lens performs without any corrections turned on in the camera? I know you are testing the Canon, lenses on Canon cameras which have lens corrections for Canon lenses, but it could be useful to see how the lens performs without corrections, especially for those maybe looking to get the lens to use on a non Canon camera which doesn’t have corrections, where chromatic aberrations and dark corners would be more noticeable and probably not fixable on the camera like they would be on Canon cameras.

floex831 says:

Your original review was right on. I do not like this lens. The best but diet zoom is still the Tamron SP 70-300.

Alexandre Anonimous says:

I agree it’s a cheap way to get 300 mm zoom lens with an average performance. Good one for a start

94 7.3 IDI turbo Diesel says:

No image stabilization is no go for me.

Mr Needs says:

Hey Chris, did you ever do a review of the EF-M mount that you use for the M3? I’ve got a few friends that use the M3 but they’ve no idea that you can use the EF lenses and I would like to point them to a video to show how easy it is to use it.

The Cute Wombat says:

You made a clear an honest review the last time. Don’t give yourself a hard time because of crappy talking from others. This lens sucks nowadays and also back then. There is no reason to buy this lens today. I you can’t afford a good telefoto lens, save some money and buy a good lens. 2:56 – Are you serious? This is not quiet! ^^

Nicholas Ten says:

Can you test out the Canon 70-300 IS II USM? Thanks.


i just started with this lens few years ago and i recommend it for beginners 😀

Daniel Jones says:

I learned photography on this lens and it was such a pain. LOL

Remco Ardui says:

I have an older version of this lens, if you point that lens upwards the lens dezooms automaticly because the focus ring is to loose, I think that’s why in this one the focus ring is stiffer

xn67 says:

“So its got some metal in it so its not a complete piece of garbage” haha yes oh yes it is.

Nabeel Shk says:

Its a fantastic lens for the price but needs a lot of Microfocus adjustment, i had to adjust my lens at -20 at tele and wide end as the lens suffers from massive front focus issue but after tuning it the results are worth the money you spend.

team Noxics says:

how much does the lens cost

Ed Waggoner Sr. says:

Nice honest review.  I bought the 55-250 a couple of days after watching your review a number of months ago.  Cheers.

BlueNeon81 says:

It will be great to review 80-200mm f2.8L (Magic Drainpipe) 😉

Zaber Ansary says:

review the new 70-300 is II usm

Mohan Krishna says:

There is a new 70-300 released sometime this yr. it would be good if u review that rather than old piece.

 Write a comment


Do you like our videos?
Do you want to see more like that?

Please click below to support us on Facebook!