• 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 18x50 (2 Viewers)

Ronald,
The only owling feature(?) that I'd note for the 10x42 is that the depth of focus seems small. That can sometimes help when looking at a bird through branches, the bird is at focus and the intervening branches fuzz out It has been useful for me when focusing on birds in shrubbery. In my limited experience with owls, they usually duck behind some evergreen branch, which sometimes can be faded out of focus w/o losing the bird.

OK, thanks;

I normally do my owling in the dead of night, when it's quiet and peaceful at last. In an overcrowded country like mine there's always the humming and buzzing of vehicles and planes in the background,well into the night.
Because it is very dark I scan the silhouets of trees against the night sky after I kind of located a hooting owl. For this I need bright optics, so a specialised glass, that would be used only in the darkest of circumstances.
These are expensive unfortunately. My favourite would be an outstanding 8x56
rather than a 7x42, because of the greater detail recognition.
I may have to save up for another year since I'm thinking 1400 € rather than 800.
The Canon 10x42 IS L goes for around € 1050 here.
Too much for me right now. Shame, though.

Best regards,

Ronald
 
You have good eyes!
For me, it is very hard to spot an owl even in daytime, so late at night is just not on.
Absent cheating by using an image intensifier, some starlight scope which you can now get third generation units pretty cheap, something like an old Zeiss Oktarem should come pretty close to your needs.
Docter still builds those porros with modern coatings as their Nobilem line, not sold here much but presumably you have a better dealer network. One of their 12x50 was the sharpest glass ever for me. Not sure they do an 8x50 any more, but worth looking for. Minox makes an 8x58 as well, if memory serves, but I've not ever held one.
 
Hm... Thank you for the suggestions, etudiant.

I've done a thorough research through BF and Jan Meijerink's reviews, and can't find a single bin that would satisfy me at night.
Sure, there's the Zeiss 8x56 Classic ( € 1439.- Whoops!) and the Swarovski 8x56 SLC
( € 1720.- Ouch!! ), but these have shortcomings I've decided I can't handle. The Swaro's are too heavy and have a 9.20 m close focus; the Zeiss Classics are not waterproof, have a close focus of 7 m, and fold-down rubber eyecups. Both have a focus wheel that tends to freeze in cold circumstances, a horror I wouldn't like to deal with.
7x42 options would include the Swarovski Habicht and the SLC, but 7x is not good enough. I've owned the Zeiss 7x42 FL and, though very bright, I found it lacked image detail recognition in low light.
The Docters that you suggest are not available here, as far as I know. I have never, ever seen them in shops or on the Internet providers.

I've counted my blessings and decided to place the Canon 10x42 L IS on top of my shortlist! These will do at night, thanks to the IS and bright image, and are attractive for day use as well. They are waterproof, the focus wheel is smooth even in freezing temperatures, they have edge-to-edge sharpness, a good enough FOV, twist-up eyecups, and image stabilization which will do the trick in the dark. Even with my 18x50's there was significant difference with IS turned on to see details in low light. I reckon that the 10x42 L IS's are even better.
I'm just a slave to IS, I guess, there's simply no alternative when you've got hooked on that.

The 10x42 L IS's are just too good to ignore. Why spend big bucks on high end optics when you can have a tremble-free view for even less money?

IS rules!

Best regards,

Ronald
 
The 10x42 L IS's are just too good to ignore. Why spend big bucks on high end optics when you can have a tremble-free view for even less money?

IS rules!

Whilst I agree on the IS Rules" remark the 10x42 IS have problems that have been hashed out a few times already.

1. They're 10x37 when you consider the measurements folks have shown the they're vignetted. Shame.

2. They're warranty is short and they're not cheap.

3. They're heavy.

I've considered them a couple of times and I can't make the leap. I love IS, 10x, ED objectives with 6.5 degrees FOV and flat to the edge but I can't make the leap.

It looks like of the current range 15x50 might be my next IS bin (to use alongside a wide FOV 7x) but 2 and 3 above still apply.
 
I think too much has been made about the Canon 10x42 IS L vignetting issue. While it certainly has a less than 42mm real aperture, I think the 37mm figure often quoted is rounded downwards or represents a unit somewhat different from mine. When this first came up, I measured my sample with an adjustable card obstruction in front of the objective lens, and got just under 38mm vertical, just under 40mm horizontal and 39mm diagonal (both diagonal directions).

This is one part of the story, the other part is that I also did some extensive darkness viewing comparisons between the 10x42 IS L and my early vintage Nikon 10x42 SE. With both hand held and the Canon used unstabilized, I was struggling to see any difference in what I could see with the two binoculars at light levels where no color was perceived, down to virtual darkness. Once I pressed the button and heard the "click" with the Canons, the difference was not only instantly visible but dramatic. As one of the tests, I used a newspaper placed on a table in a very dark room. With the Nikon the font size literally needed to be twice as large to be legible when compared to the stabilized Canon. Also back when I still had the 15x50 IS, I would always check its night viewing capacities against all of the premium binoculars I was testing, knowing that it had a very small exit pupil and total light transmission about 10%+ below that of the premiums. I never found anything that would show more detail in night-time viewing, despite binoculars such as Ultravid 8x42 or Zeiss FL having what obviously looked like (and were) a brighter image. So it seems to me that hand shake is even more of an impediment to seeing detail in darkness than it is in daylight, and for night-time use I will always choose an IS binocular if I can.

Kimmo
 
Hi Kimmo,

Thanks for chiming in; your findings confirm my thoughts that an IS bin might actually be good enough for my night prowls. Despite the smaller than 4.2 mm exit pupil, the 10x42 still has the largest exit pupil of all Canon models, which would be great to line up my pupils in the dark with the bin's exit pupils.
One thing I haven't done yet, is measuring the maximum dilation of my eye pupils in total darkness. As my pupils are very small in daylight, even under clouded skies, I seriously doubt that they will reach 7 mm in the dark. I should not be considering anything with a 7-ish mm exit pupil, more like 6 mm at most. I'm 53, by the way. (54 next month.)
I have to make sure, but the thought of sitting in total darkness for at least half an hour, then make a flash foto of my eyes, doesn't attract me.

As I see it now, the 10x42 L IS's have the edge, even if I find it hard that I won't be able to lay my hands around a pristine Zeiss 8x56 Classic as a consequence. Don't know what it is, but I simply love this "eiffel tower" bin, the view and the looks.
There's also a 400 euro price difference, which helps me to focus on the Canons and forget the Zeiss. But I sure hope that I find a store that has several 10x42 L IS's and no Zeiss 8x56 Classics, because I can't trust myself in not buying the latter.

It will take some considerable time before I decide when to go for another pair of IS bins, just as it took me to purchase the 18x50's. But I'm very glad I bought these, in retrospect.

Best regards,

Ronald
 
It looks like of the current range 15x50 might be my next IS bin (to use alongside a wide FOV 7x) but 2 and 3 above still apply.

These have climbed up a place on my shortlist as well, but are still second to the 10x42 L IS's, since I have my 18x50's to keep me happy.
One day, though, one day...

Best regards,

Ronald
 
Kimmo,
Thank you for your very informative post.
It seems the Canon 10x42 is even more of an all rounder than generally appreciated!
Makes me want to go out owl hunting. We sometimes get visiting Long Eareds here in Central Park.
Just have never heard them hooting there.
 
Whilst I agree on the IS Rules" remark the 10x42 IS have problems that have been hashed out a few times already.

1. They're 10x37 when you consider the measurements folks have shown the they're vignetted. Shame.

2. They're warranty is short and they're not cheap.

3. They're heavy.

I've considered them a couple of times and I can't make the leap. I love IS, 10x, ED objectives with 6.5 degrees FOV and flat to the edge but I can't make the leap.

It looks like of the current range 15x50 might be my next IS bin (to use alongside a wide FOV 7x) but 2 and 3 above still apply.

Kevin, et al.

I've read so much here and elsewhere about the Canon 10X42Ls being only 10X37s, so I measured the diameter of both the exit pupils and objective lens on my own pair. My pair's exit pupils measure 4.2 mm horizontally (and slightly greater, 4.3mm and 4.4mm vertically), while the objective lenses indeed measure as 42mm. If there were some internal restrictions narrowing the effective objective diameter to 37mm, that would equate to an 8.8 power bino, and I'm quite certain, given the difference between my Nikon 8X32 SEs and my Canon's, that my Canon's are indeed 2X greater than my Nikons. Admittedly, however, I don't know how to measure the actual power of either.

Furthermore, when looking through the Canons from the objective lens, I see nothing but a perfectly round and unrestricted view; though I'm not sure what I should be looking for to see any restriction. Nonetheless, I think the measurements noted speak for themselves. My pair is new within the last 2 months, so it may be than Canon has addressed whatever was causing other samples exit pupils to measure in the 3.7 to 3.8mm range.

To address your second point, the warranty is short compared to a 25 year or lifetime warranty, but the 3 years Canon offers is longer than any other IS bino that I know of, with the possible exception of the Zeiss 20X60 at over $6K.

Thirdly, while they are somewhat heavy, I can actually hold them more steady without the IS engaged than any other 10X non-IS binocular I've tried. Of course, extended use is fatiguing, and I've found that using a monopod setup adds significant pleasure. I can leave the IS off and achieve an ever sharper image, though not by much.

Comparing these to Canon's 15X50s, well, there's simply no comparison. The 10X42Ls are brighter, clearer, sharper, show slightly better contrast, have less CA (almost non-existent), and the IS seems to work better. I've had three pairs of the 15X50s, and none of them were acceptable to me. Maybe that's just me, and maybe I got 3 defective pairs in a row, but they all went back. Perhaps if I hadn't already been spoiled by the 10X42s, I would have found the 15X50s to be far more acceptable, but I don't think so. I'm a stickler for image quality and resolution, and the 10X42Ls are the only Canon model I've yet experienced that satisfies.

My only caution on acquiring any of the Canon models would be to make sure the retailer has a liberal return policy. Sample to sample variation can make the difference between loving them and sending them back.

Dean
 
Considering how good Canon can make their lenses I guess the sky is the limit for their bins. Is the 10x42 IS as good as FL etc?
 
Kevin, et al.

I've read so much here and elsewhere about the Canon 10X42Ls being only 10X37s, so I measured the diameter of both the exit pupils and objective lens on my own pair. My pair's exit pupils measure 4.2 mm horizontally (and slightly greater, 4.3mm and 4.4mm vertically), while the objective lenses indeed measure as 42mm. If there were some internal restrictions narrowing the effective objective diameter to 37mm, that would equate to an 8.8 power bino, and I'm quite certain, given the difference between my Nikon 8X32 SEs and my Canon's, that my Canon's are indeed 2X greater than my Nikons. Admittedly, however, I don't know how to measure the actual power of either.

Furthermore, when looking through the Canons from the objective lens, I see nothing but a perfectly round and unrestricted view; though I'm not sure what I should be looking for to see any restriction. Nonetheless, I think the measurements noted speak for themselves. My pair is new within the last 2 months, so it may be than Canon has addressed whatever was causing other samples exit pupils to measure in the 3.7 to 3.8mm range.

To address your second point, the warranty is short compared to a 25 year or lifetime warranty, but the 3 years Canon offers is longer than any other IS bino that I know of, with the possible exception of the Zeiss 20X60 at over $6K.

Thirdly, while they are somewhat heavy, I can actually hold them more steady without the IS engaged than any other 10X non-IS binocular I've tried. Of course, extended use is fatiguing, and I've found that using a monopod setup adds significant pleasure. I can leave the IS off and achieve an ever sharper image, though not by much.

Comparing these to Canon's 15X50s, well, there's simply no comparison. The 10X42Ls are brighter, clearer, sharper, show slightly better contrast, have less CA (almost non-existent), and the IS seems to work better. I've had three pairs of the 15X50s, and none of them were acceptable to me. Maybe that's just me, and maybe I got 3 defective pairs in a row, but they all went back. Perhaps if I hadn't already been spoiled by the 10X42s, I would have found the 15X50s to be far more acceptable, but I don't think so. I'm a stickler for image quality and resolution, and the 10X42Ls are the only Canon model I've yet experienced that satisfies.

My only caution on acquiring any of the Canon models would be to make sure the retailer has a liberal return policy. Sample to sample variation can make the difference between loving them and sending them back.

Dean

Thanks, Dean,

That's what I like to hear. You've made me drooling, I want these!:eat:

Maybe you're right that Canon is addressing the exit pupil diameter anomaly right now, I couldn't find a single internet provider that stores this particular model right now. Normally you'd see them readibly available like the other models. I think I'll phone around and see if I can shed some light on this phenomenon. I could be all wrong, but it's too much of a coincidence, there may be something going on at Canon HQ.

No need for me to hurry to get a pair, though; still haven't got the cash for it right now. I'll gladly wait and see what they come up with.

Best regards,

Ronald
 
Kimmo,
Thank you for your very informative post.
It seems the Canon 10x42 is even more of an all rounder than generally appreciated!
Makes me want to go out owl hunting. We sometimes get visiting Long Eareds here in Central Park.
Just have never heard them hooting there.

By all means do, sir!

I for one am anxious about how these Canons perform under night skies,
I'll be looking forward to read your impressions!

Best regards,

Ronald
 
Ronald,
Unfortunately, there are some social constraints on wandering around Central Park at night with binoculars, so it will take time before I can offer my impressions. Hope you can find a place to check them out in the meantime.

It is interesting that Dean finds the restrictions less than earlier reported. If Canon has upgraded the glass, it would be consistent. Canon does continuously upgrade their cameras and lenses, with frequent firmware downloads to improve the functioning, Perhaps the same approach is used here. .
 
I understand, there's no hurry.

To my surprise the 10x42 Canons reappeared on the stock lists here, so I didn't phone around after all. The exit pupil issue I will take into account when I'm going to try out some samples.

I seem to have an approval from my wife to go and spend some serious money, so that won't be the problem. The problem really is what to get?
I was all set for the Canon 10x42's, but I still have other contenders to consider.
For a really easy view I can't rule out the Zeiss Classic 8x56, nor the Swaro 7x42 Habicht, and to aggravate the decision making I made the mistake of reading the reviews of the Steiner Discovery 8x44's. These are a lot lighter in weight than the Canons or the Zeiss, open bridge design, fully waterproof, tough as nails, in viewing image reminiscent of the old Nikon Venturers ( which I happened to try out 10 years ago and which I liked very much ) but with even greater FOV ( 130m against 122/1000 m ), and with state of the art hydrophobic coating on the ocular and objective lenses to boot.
Steiner calls it Nano Technology, it really seems to work so well, I could do without a rainguard as far as I'm concerned.

I'd like some hydrophobic coating on the Canon lenses as well, that would be really great in making these bins perfect in adverse conditions.

Still not decided, but I'm going on a bin-hunting safari that will eventually give me a great trophy.

Going to take my time,

Best regards,

Ronald
 
Steiner is a mystery to me.
They have a solid reputation, built on their military optics imo, but have not been able to break through into the first tier of civil market players. A bit like Kahles perhaps.
It does seem that the Steiner Fero 12 Macralon body glass sold to the German Army (and to the US military) was not a success, the follow on business went back to Zeiss Hensoldt and Fuji. So I'm skeptical of them, especially as their supply chain is completely unknown. It is a bit like a well established Zen Ray imo.
As an aside, owls should be well into courtship and even into nesting at this point, so they will be getting quieter.
So you have some time to appraise the options, without undue sacrifice.
Very much agree that hydrophobic lenses for the Canons would be a big plus, would even consider hydrophobic screw on filters, despite the fogging problems that leads to.
All that aside, IS imo provides a qualitative difference for birding., which none of the conventional options address. Maybe your local dealer would let you test drive the glass for a few days or so?
 
Etudiant,

There is a store in my region with a generous return policy, but I haven't confirmed whether they stock the Canon models. I'll give them a call to find out.

I know of other stores with most competitive prices in the higher price class, and stocking the Canon models, so I can go and try the 10x42's out, but I'm not so sure if I can take them home and try them out for a few days, and return them if I'm not satisfied and get my money back. Only way to find out, is to confirm this by giving them a call. Or to visit them on a day they stay open after dark, of course, and see for myself how the Canons perform. The store where I bought my two pairs of Canons sell on the lowest price class, but there are others who do the same.
According to their website, the Canon 10x42 L IS's now go for € 1099.- that's 50 euro's more than last time I checked ( last year ).

The owls have settled down this time of year, indeed. Very quiet in my back woods. It will not be before the end of may that I will hear them again, the chicks will start calling out then.
Plenty of time to contemplate and look around.



Best regards,

Ronald
 
Kevin, et al.

I've read so much here and elsewhere about the Canon 10X42Ls being only 10X37s, so I measured the diameter of both the exit pupils and objective lens on my own pair. My pair's exit pupils measure 4.2 mm horizontally (and slightly greater, 4.3mm and 4.4mm vertically), while the objective lenses indeed measure as 42mm. If there were some internal restrictions narrowing the effective objective diameter to 37mm, that would equate to an 8.8 power bino, and I'm quite certain, given the difference between my Nikon 8X32 SEs and my Canon's, that my Canon's are indeed 2X greater than my Nikons. Admittedly, however, I don't know how to measure the actual power of either.

Furthermore, when looking through the Canons from the objective lens, I see nothing but a perfectly round and unrestricted view; though I'm not sure what I should be looking for to see any restriction. Nonetheless, I think the measurements noted speak for themselves. My pair is new within the last 2 months, so it may be than Canon has addressed whatever was causing other samples exit pupils to measure in the 3.7 to 3.8mm range.

Dean, I seriously doubt Canon has changed the optical design of this binocular. How did you make these measurements?

It is actually quite difficult to measure the exit pupil with sub-millimeter precision at home without an optical bench. This measurement must be made with the binocular focused at infinity and at the focal plane determined by the eyerelief, NOT by measuring the size of the "hole" on the surface of the eyelens.

To measure true aperture of the objective is quite easy fortunately. See my thread on the Swift Audobon for descripiton with pics.

cheers,
Rick
 
Hi Ronald,

before choosing a bino for owling IMO you need to know your eye pupil´s diameter at the dark. Did you measure this?

Steve
 
Dean, I seriously doubt Canon has changed the optical design of this binocular. How did you make these measurements?

It is actually quite difficult to measure the exit pupil with sub-millimeter precision at home without an optical bench. This measurement must be made with the binocular focused at infinity and at the focal plane determined by the eyerelief, NOT by measuring the size of the "hole" on the surface of the eyelens.

To measure true aperture of the objective is quite easy fortunately. See my thread on the Swift Audobon for descripiton with pics.

cheers,
Rick

Hi Rick,

To be sure, I don't have an optical bench, and clearly I was rounding my measurements--No sub-millimeter accuracy here. The bins were mounted and a bright light source was placed on the objective lens side to get highly defined exit pupils. I used a metric ruler to do the measurements, as I've seen others do in pictures posted on the CN forum. It was this method that someone used over there to determine the 3.7 mm exit pupil, so I attempted to do the same.

Now, I must say, I'm not sure about infinity. I did focus the bins on a far away object before doing the measurements, but it may not have actually been infinity. It wasn't night time, so I didn't have any stars to focus on. These things go well past infinity on the focus wheel, so I hope no one's been running the focus wheel all the way back to determine infinity.

I have to wonder how many manufacturers actually take the measurement of the exit pupil at the focal plane of the eye relief? That would seemingly always be a smaller reading than that taken at the eye piece. So, given the methodology you describe, it would have to be less than the 4.2 mm I measured.

All I know for sure, Rick, is that these things perform at a very high level and are very bright, clear, and sharp. Just this morning I had them and my 8X32 Nikon SEs out watching birds on the lake, and the Canon's are definitely brighter than the SEs. That perception may be due to the greater power or the larger objective lens of the Canon, but if exit pupil (which takes both into account) is the final arbiter for brightness (which I'm sure it isn't), then it would be consistent for the Canon's to be a bit brighter.

Would it truly require Canon to actually change the optical design of the binocular to achieve a true 42 mm aperture? What has been cited as the limiting factor resulting in the reduced aperture others have reported? Just curious, not doubting it.

Dean
 
Warning! This thread is more than 14 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