The Canon RF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 lens is one of those rare pieces of gear that might actually change how you approach everyday shooting. It’s not built for prestige or to impress with specs, but it opens the door to focal lengths you can’t reach with a kit lens or a phone. At $219, it offers a chance to experiment with telephoto work without committing to a major investment, and that alone makes it worth your attention.
Coming to you from Jared Polin, this straightforward video takes a close look at the Canon RF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 lens. Polin demonstrates how it handles in real-world settings, from ballparks to parks, giving you a feel for what this lens is capable of in the hands of someone shooting casually or with intention. The key point he makes is that while the lens doesn’t pull in a huge amount of light, it delivers reach and versatility that a phone or short zoom simply can’t match. That’s especially important if you want to capture sports, wildlife, or even portraits at a distance. While it’s not flawless, it’s a tool that gives you room to play without breaking your budget, especially if you're a beginner ready to explore.
The video also makes it clear who this lens is really for: anyone just starting out with Canon’s mirrorless system who wants to step into longer focal lengths. With cameras like the Canon EOS R50 or R10, the 75-300mm becomes an affordable way to experiment with compression and subject isolation. Polin points out that sharpness holds up well at the shorter end of the zoom, while the longer end introduces softness and artifacts you’d expect in a budget lens. Still, it’s more than capable of producing results you’ll be proud of, especially compared to what a phone could manage in the same scenarios. This balance of limitations and possibilities is what makes it so interesting to consider.
Key Specs
-
Focal length: 75-300mm
-
Maximum aperture: f/4-5.6
-
Filter thread: 58mm
-
Weight: 1.12 lbs (a little over 500 g)
-
Minimum focus distance: 4.9 ft (1.5 m)
-
Maximum magnification: 0.25x
-
7-blade aperture diaphragm
-
Super Spectra Coating for reduced flare and improved contrast
-
DC autofocus motor
Polin emphasizes that you shouldn’t expect miracles indoors or in low light. When shooting at night or in dim gyms, you’ll see grain and higher ISOs creep in, which is the tradeoff for the smaller maximum aperture. Outdoors, however, it shines, especially if you’re patient with focusing and mindful of its minimum distance. Autofocus isn’t cutting-edge, and you’ll hear the older motor working, but it’s reliable enough for casual sports, wildlife, and portraits. The build feels lightweight, and though the extending barrel and plastic parts give it a budget feel, the metal mount adds a bit of sturdiness.
What makes this video worth watching is not just the test shots, but the way Polin frames expectations. He compares it directly to Canon’s higher-end options, including the 100-300mm f/2.8 that costs nearly 50 times more. You see exactly what $219 buys you and where it stands against pricier glass. He also puts the lens through different scenarios so you get to see performance in situations you might actually use it. Check out the video above for the full rundown from Polin.
To my way of thinking, the most viable comparison to make would be to compare this new RF 75-300mm to the old EF 75-300mm. That EF version is terrible, inasmuch as optical quality is concerned. So it would be interesting to see if Canon is now able to make a similar lens with much better optics, in roughly the same price range.
As Canon's 2nd brightest 300mm lens you can buy for RF mount, sure... compare it to a 100-300/2.8L.
This thing's brighter than the 100-500 in that range, brighter than the 100-400, or the 200-800. Canon shooters really have to cope alot with unsually dark tele options
That's an interesting insight, Jon.
Canon made a fairly popular 300mm f4 for the EF mount. I think that would be fairly easy to engineer and manufacture, and I think it would sell well, especially if:
1: it had really good close focusing capabilities, such as to yield 1:05f max magnification
2: it paired well with the 1.4 tele-extender
3: it had bright edges and corners, hence no need to correct for vignette in post
I could see a really well-designed 300mm f4 selling great, especially if they did the things I suggest above instead of "crippling" it to protect the sales of other RF lenses. Even if they push the aperture down to f4.5, it could still sell great, as it would even be a bit smaller, lighter, and less costly for consumers.
I had the EF version of this lens ... In my opinion, It was trash. I found it to be one of the worst Canon lenses I've ever used. I too would like to see a side by side of this RF version compares to the EF 75-300.
They're the same lens, just rehoused. Optics are identical.