• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Canon IS 10x30 v. Canon IS 10x42 L (1 Viewer)

Sancho

Well-known member
Europe
I had the former, but sold them recently. Today I got a superb deal on a 2nd-hand, unused pair of the latter, and bought them on a whim. I won´t bother with the tech-specifications, which are available elsewhere. Just a few quick observations:
The 10x30 are extremely compact, light and provide a nice, easy and stable view. Comparatively cheap, I could get better views with them than with far more expensive 10x binos by Swaro or Nikon. This was made most evident at an airshow during the summer, when I brought various binos for the kids, and had a chance to compare. With the 10x30 Canons, I could study the pilots in the cockpits as they flew past. Quite incredible, once you´ve got used to the slight "shift" and occasional re-focus of Canon IS binos. However, with birds ar fairly close quarters, the image often appeared rather "lifeless", even though I could discern more detail. I can´t quite explain this, as it sounds contradictory - more detail, less "life"? A little dull, or flat, or lacking in contrast, perhaps.
I hadn´t intended buying the IS 10x42 L, I just went along for a look. I took my 8.5x42 Swarovisions, and Nikon EII 10x35, just for comparison. After five minutes comparing, I decided to take the Canons, at half the price of a new pair. They simply stunned me. I took them to a local harbour and could get incredible views of very distant birds over the water. Very steady IS-system, far less "shift" or re-focus required than in the non-L series versions, superb glass, incredibly flat field. More off-centre CA than in Swarovisions (hardly surprising!), lateral CA and pincushioning quite evident, but not a problem. Darker than the Swarovisions, this quite evident at twilight. In very demanding conditions, CA on flying birds can be seen, but again, not right in the centre and it doesn´t detract from the incredible quality of the view. Been out tonight looking at stars with them, I wish I knew something about astronomy because these are stunning. At close quarters, i.e. in close foliage, they suffer from the problem of all IS-binos, i.e. more "shift" and refocussing required, and the benefits of IS aren´t so evident as a pair of 8x binos can be hand-held satisfactorily. Great eyecups with loads of eye-relief (and I wear glasses).
These are fairly chunky monkeys, at 1.1kg, but with one palm almost underneath, they´re not hard to hold at length. Quite comfortable with the thumb of the focussing hand curled around the eyepiece, fingers on top. Around the neck they could be a problem over time, but I envisage carrying them in the well-padded neoprene case over the shoulder.
I reckon the IS 10x42 L aren´t binos for all occasions, but at medium-to-long distance, as long as you don´t mind the weight/build, they´ll cover most eventualities.
 
I had the former, but sold them recently. Today I got a superb deal on a 2nd-hand, unused pair of the latter, and bought them on a whim. I won´t bother with the tech-specifications, which are available elsewhere. Just a few quick observations:
The 10x30 are extremely compact, light and provide a nice, easy and stable view. Comparatively cheap, I could get better views with them than with far more expensive 10x binos by Swaro or Nikon. This was made most evident at an airshow during the summer, when I brought various binos for the kids, and had a chance to compare. With the 10x30 Canons, I could study the pilots in the cockpits as they flew past. Quite incredible, once you´ve got used to the slight "shift" and occasional re-focus of Canon IS binos. However, with birds ar fairly close quarters, the image often appeared rather "lifeless", even though I could discern more detail. I can´t quite explain this, as it sounds contradictory - more detail, less "life"? A little dull, or flat, or lacking in contrast, perhaps.
I hadn´t intended buying the IS 10x42 L, I just went along for a look. I took my 8.5x42 Swarovisions, and Nikon EII 10x35, just for comparison. After five minutes comparing, I decided to take the Canons, at half the price of a new pair. They simply stunned me. I took them to a local harbour and could get incredible views of very distant birds over the water. Very steady IS-system, far less "shift" or re-focus required than in the non-L series versions, superb glass, incredibly flat field. More off-centre CA than in Swarovisions (hardly surprising!), lateral CA and pincushioning quite evident, but not a problem. Darker than the Swarovisions, this quite evident at twilight. In very demanding conditions, CA on flying birds can be seen, but again, not right in the centre and it doesn´t detract from the incredible quality of the view. Been out tonight looking at stars with them, I wish I knew something about astronomy because these are stunning. At close quarters, i.e. in close foliage, they suffer from the problem of all IS-binos, i.e. more "shift" and refocussing required, and the benefits of IS aren´t so evident as a pair of 8x binos can be hand-held satisfactorily. Great eyecups with loads of eye-relief (and I wear glasses).
These are fairly chunky monkeys, at 1.1kg, but with one palm almost underneath, they´re not hard to hold at length. Quite comfortable with the thumb of the focussing hand curled around the eyepiece, fingers on top. Around the neck they could be a problem over time, but I envisage carrying them in the well-padded neoprene case over the shoulder.
I reckon the IS 10x42 L aren´t binos for all occasions, but at medium-to-long distance, as long as you don´t mind the weight/build, they´ll cover most eventualities.

Congrats, Éanna!

I have the 10x30's, but I understand the IS on the 10x42's works better, from your words. The weight is an advantage IMO, when viewing in a stiff breeze, like I experience in my 18x50's over my 10x30's.

Could you by chance compare the 10x42 L IS's with your Swarovisions in near dark, just to let me know if you can see more detail with them?
I still can't get the Zeiss 8x56 Classics out of my head for owling duty...

Best regards,

Ronald
 
Share your enthusiasm re the Canon 10x42, wonderful glass. IS comes in most handy for tracking small migrants in the tops of trees. When everything is swaying or flitting around, it really helps to have a stable view.
Imo, this Canon is way under priced, even without your steal of a deal, at half the cost of the alphas. It is hard to understand why it is not more widely recognized and used.
 
Imo, this Canon is way under priced, even without your steal of a deal, at half the cost of the alphas. It is hard to understand why it is not more widely recognized and used.

Well its really a 37mm bino to start and it ergonomics, particularly the location of the IS button in my case, do not match up well with some users. Funny because I think it is OVERPRICED when compared to its larger 15x/18x50 brothers!8-P
 
The 10x42s ( internally field stopped down to 37mm)sell for slightly more than half the Zeiss 10x42, or about 60% of the Zeiss 10x32, way low imo given they offer both effective stabilization plus superb optics. Admittedly, they are clunky and the ergonomics are not ideal, but they are wonderful performers.

The perspective on the higher power IS Canons is most interesting,, they may be even more of a bargain than the 10x42.
 
The IS button on the 10x42 isn´t terribly well-placed for my finger either, curiously I found the button-positioning better on both the 10x30 and 12x36. I think the retail price of the 10x42 is pretty stiff, given that they come with a fairly useless warranty period, and that they are, although well-armoured and chunky, a delicate instrument that probably can´t be repaired if damaged. I wouldn´t have bought a pair at full price (now retailing in the UK at about 1,300 sterling). I´ll just have to take good care of these.

Ronald - lastnight I compared the SV´s (8.5x42) to the Canon 10x42 at near-dark. An unfair comparison, maybe, because of the difference in mag. The SV´s were much brighter, but hand-held I could see more detail with the Canons (IS button engaged). With the SV´s on a tripod, it was about even, with perhaps the vote for "most pleasing view" going to the SV´s - certainly brighter and wider, but hard to compare resolution because of the mag difference.
 
Last edited:
I had the former, but sold them recently. Today I got a superb deal on a 2nd-hand, unused pair of the latter, and bought them on a whim.

I've already started saving for when you sell these on the forum! Seriously another pair of bins when you don't actively bird - actually I think you can never have too many pairs...

I have been most impressed with a late Serial No. 10x30 IS, on demo in my local Jessops along with other tethered bins on a shelf. I started looking at these on their own and was impressed. Low CA levels couldn't see an increase on engaging IS, bright, and lightweight. So then I looked at all the other bins on the shelf albeit cheaper lower end stuff mostly and of course it blew them all away for showing detail. The only comparison was the 12x36 also on the shelf but the close focus is too long on these.

Next I brought my my Nikon HG 8x32's in to the shop. Comparing the two I could see so much more detail in the Canons. Looking at a sign in a window opposite I could read detail just not possible in the Nikon's. Even the 10's on the shelf couldn't match the stable image of the Canon's.

I did notice a smaller field, and a slightly blue tint to the image compared with the Nikons but I put this down to getting used to a warmer image with the Nikons.

The 10x42IS I've only tried briefly in the shop at Minsmere and they also seemed great. I thought they would be too big and bulky for me but actually trying them they seemed fine. The only issue is the weight, hence I'm more interested in the 10x30's.

At some point I'd love to get a pair of 10x30's but I don't want to give my Nikon's up and I sometimes wonder if I could live with the stigma of not having a "proper" pair of birders' bins around my neck! Anyway it's not going to happen anytime soon so no need to worry unduly yet.

I've seen Canon IS in the field only a handful of times. Four occasions at Minsmere, once at Titchwell and I notice in the BTO mag. a birder studying Spotted Flycatchers uses them - all have been 10x30's bar one 10x42 and one 15/18x model.
 
The 10x42s ( internally field stopped down to 37mm)sell for slightly more than half the Zeiss 10x42, or about 60% of the Zeiss 10x32, way low imo given they offer both effective stabilization plus superb optics. Admittedly, they are clunky and the ergonomics are not ideal, but they are wonderful performers.

The perspective on the higher power IS Canons is most interesting,, they may be even more of a bargain than the 10x42.

Compared to the little 10x30 the 18x50 gives far more detail in the long range, and with much less effort. I feel I have to 'work' with the 10x's to get the detail I need, IS engaged, whereas with 18x's it's spot on and effortless.
I don't feel the need to buy a scope again, pity though that the Monostat monopod won't fit directly into the screw thread underneath because the mounting plate is a little to wide to fit in between the bulging tubes.
I'd have to fit a ballhead on the monopod to use it.

I wonder what the underside of the 10x42's looks like, the tubes being less bulky than in the 15x/18x models would make it possible to screw in the Monostat directly no problem?

Enjoyed watching a Peregrine sky-playing with a Raven yesterday, at great distance, through the 18x50's. The 10x42's have to be da**ed good if they seriously want to replace my 18x50's. I'm not saying I don't want the 10x42's, but the 18x's have a certain psychological advantage when out birding, due to their formidable magnification. One has the conviction that ANYTHING can be ID'd no matter how far away; not true of course, there will always be a limit to what one can see, but nonetheless there's a considerable amount of confidence when I bring out these big guns.
Magnum Force, the birds don't stand a chance, " Well, you think you can get away without ID, do you, punk? Make my day, then".

The weight is killing me. I have to find a harness, or invent something to carry them with at least some comfort. I carry them in a rucksack now, and have the Zeiss 10x40 BT* Classics around my neck.
The 10x42's are much less weight, I even feel the difference in the hand when I take out the two alkalines to put fresh ones in. That's 45 grams, so a difference between 1220 grams for the 18x's and 1110 grams for the 10x42's should be noticeable.

Best regards,

Ronald
 
The IS button on the 10x42 isn´t terribly well-placed for my finger either, curiously I found the button-positioning better on both the 10x30 and 12x36. I think the retail price of the 10x42 is pretty stiff, given that they come with a fairly useless warranty period, and that they are, although well-armoured and chunky, a delicate instrument that probably can´t be repaired if damaged. I wouldn´t have bought a pair at full price (now retailing in the UK at about 1,300 sterling). I´ll just have to take good care of these.

Ronald - lastnight I compared the SV´s (8.5x42) to the Canon 10x42 at near-dark. An unfair comparison, maybe, because of the difference in mag. The SV´s were much brighter, but hand-held I could see more detail with the Canons (IS button engaged). With the SV´s on a tripod, it was about even, with perhaps the vote for "most pleasing view" going to the SV´s - certainly brighter and wider, but hard to compare resolution because of the mag difference.

Thanks, well done, much appreciated! I think bright bins when out owling
might suit me better, than resolution. However, I feel I need to try them myself, the 10x42 L IS's, after dark, to make a good judgement.

My Zeiss Classic retro epiphany is playing tricks with my bino judgement, lately. Why have they to be so good for 25-year old non-phasecoated bins?
I'm glad that I'm in no position to buy another pair of bins, financially; I'll have to stick with what I have and that's certainly no punishment.
But then again...

Best regards,

Ronald

BTW, I agree that the IS button position on the 10x30's, being in the middle, is a nice feature. With two fingers of one hand I can freeze and focus the image, while supporting the bins lightly on the fingertips of my other hand.

The 10x42 L IS's are € 1149.- , new, here.
 
The base of the 10x42s is flat and slightly beyond the ocular tubes, so a Monostat can be screwed in directly.
I find that the BinoManager harness (Amazon $35 ) works well for me, shoulders the weight and snugs the glass while moving.

http://www.amazon.com/Stearns®-Mad-...TF8&s=electronics&qid=1286067506&sr=8-1-spell

Thank you!

I expected this, so I can buy a Monostat anyway should I decide to get the 10x42s. I don't want an additional ballhead.

The Binomanager seems better than any harness I can get here; worth having. I have seen it some years back in a link, but couldn't order one because they don't ship to Europe, or at least that's what I understood.
I've seen a Dutch company on the internet somewhere, that mediates in orders from abroad, I'll try that.

Thanks,

Best regards,

Ronald

PS: years back I invented some kind of bino yoke from a coathanger which looked ridiculous on me, but was actually quite comfortable. It must be somewhere deep in the archives of forum threads, around 2006 I think.
It was quite hilarious, that thread.
 
The concept of a bino yoke makes real sense if you are carrying big glass.
The primary added benefit of the BinoManager is that it holds the glass to the chest so it does not bounce around.
Apparently the design grew from the experiences of an ATV user and it is still sold by that ATV site:

http://www.atvaccessoryoutlet.com/catalog/pc/viewPrd.asp?idcategory=&idproduct=1088

Note these guys claim they ship internationally, but you pay all duties etc.
 
The best strap I've found for carrying heavy binoculars (or any binoculars, really) is the Op/tech Utility Sling strap. It lets you carry the bins bandoleer style. Unlike other straps of this type, it features a couple of quick disconnects that slide along the strap, so you don't have to drag the strap around to get the binoculars to your eye. It is comfortable to wear for long periods and makes it just about effortless to bring the binoculars up.

http://www.adorama.com/OTUSSBK.html

I'm not sure if they are available locally in the Netherlands or not. But Adorama probably ships internationally.

Mark
 
The best strap I've found for carrying heavy binoculars (or any binoculars, really) is the Op/tech Utility Sling strap. It lets you carry the bins bandoleer style. Unlike other straps of this type, it features a couple of quick disconnects that slide along the strap, so you don't have to drag the strap around to get the binoculars to your eye. It is comfortable to wear for long periods and makes it just about effortless to bring the binoculars up.

http://www.adorama.com/OTUSSBK.html

I'm not sure if they are available locally in the Netherlands or not. But Adorama probably ships internationally.

Mark

Thanks, Mark.

I´ve used straps with sliding connects before, I just made them myself.
The link you gave sparkled an idea, instead of using just a plain strap one could carry a bag bandoleer/style and attach the binoculars with sliding connects to the bag strap. Same effect as the OpTech strap, but room for a fieldguide in the bag, sandwiches, etc.

I´m going to try this out, thanks for bringing this up!

Best regards,

Ronald
 
The concept of a bino yoke makes real sense if you are carrying big glass.
The primary added benefit of the BinoManager is that it holds the glass to the chest so it does not bounce around.
Apparently the design grew from the experiences of an ATV user and it is still sold by that ATV site:

http://www.atvaccessoryoutlet.com/catalog/pc/viewPrd.asp?idcategory=&idproduct=1088

Note these guys claim they ship internationally, but you pay all duties etc.

Thanks, etudiant, I´ll keep that in mind!
 
I have been using the Canon 10 x 42 L for extended periods on a daily basis (i.e. at work), for about 2 months. Previously, I had been using the 12 x 36, so I can't make the same direct 10X comparison as Sancho, but in general terms I second his assessment.

My brief summary of the 10 x 42s...

Pros: super flat field, luxuriously steady image, locking diopter adjustment, don't have to hold IS button continuously, MUCH better build quality than other Canon IS, and obviously better image quality than other Canon IS.

Cons: horrible eyepieces, slow focus, substantial weight.

I ordered the 10 x 42 as a general work binocular due to their unique combination of stabilisation + waterproofing/ruggedness + high optical quality, and also because 10X is suited to the intended range of applications. So far they have performed very well in the field, and are surely the best binocular available for extended behavioural observations at medium range without a tripod. However, the design of the eyepieces would stop me from buying a personal pair. They are a twist-out design, and rotate out to an excessive extent (12.0 mm) - I use them on the lowest 'notch' (7.5mm) and would prefer a notch at around 5 mm. (I don't wear/need glasses.) The diameter of the eyepieces is huge - 45.5mm versus 42.5mm for a ZR 8 x 43 ED2. While I can get appropriate IPD (just), somehow the eyepieces promote the feeling of looking through binoculars versus being immersed in the view.

But I recommend that even the most jaded alpha-user should try a pair in the field. If the ergonomics work for you, it's the most hand-held detail you're gonna see.
 
Thanks for the obs, Stooge! I find the eyecups comfortable with or without glasses on, must be something to do with my eye-sockets. Although I hanker after a higher-mag IS model, I still find the 10x42L view amazing. It´s not a tool for long walks, though, unless you wear a bino-harness, or carry it over the shoulder.
 
Stooge,

A suitable set of rubber O-rings in the gap between the "fully in" and "your optimal eyecup extension" will pretty much take care of the problem of there not being a click-stop made just for you. I have a friend who uses such a system with his 10x42 IS L's.

Kimmo
 
Kimmo - thanks for the tip on the O-rings, that's what I call a good solution: cheap and easy!

Sancho - I am indeed finding that a harness works well with the 10x42s.

Also, another point that I should have mentioned in the previous post...these are ideal binos for use from a boat.
 
Update - I traded the 10x42. Seems rash, I know, but I simply can´t get on with a bino-harness, I find it far too restrictive. I like to be able to take my binos on and off, sometimes hold them in my hand as I walk, etc. The Canon 10x42L gave me the most stunning views I´ve seen, and Kimmo is right - from a boat, they were amazing (I took them to Cape Clear island and used them on the ferry). However, it was clear that as well as crystal-clear stablised views, they were also going to give me curvature of the spine;). I can understand taking a pair of 15x50 IS in a shoulder-bag, if they replace a scope, but the 10x won´t replace a scope. As I said somewhere else, it´s a real pity that Canon never made either the 15x50IS, or the 10x30IS, with L-series glass. They would be well worth the investment.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 13 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top