10x42 or 10x50 IS for astro? (1 Viewer)

Hi all!

I've been thinking of getting a Canon IS binocular for quite some time. The primary use will be astronomy, while secondary use will be general (terrestrial) observation and birding.

I have basically narrowed down my choice to ether the 10x42 IS L WP or the 15x50 IS WP.

I understand the 10x42 has superior optics, but that the 10x50 is no slouch in this department ether (it has field flattener and low dispersion glass). I suppose the 10x42 would be a better all-round binocular, but I find the extra magnification of the 15x50 tempting, especially for astro. I also hope the 15x50 could stand in for my birding scope when so desired (it would be lighter than my Vortex Razor HD 85mm, and dragging the tripod along has become such a hassle).

What do you think, and what would you choose? I'm in a bit of a bind here. :smoke: I also welcome other suggestions of course.

HN

I don't have the 10x42 but judging from 18x50 and 12x36, in comparison with non IS binoculars like 8x42 and 10x50, the 15x50 is a better option for astronomy. Objects are bigger and that counts in moon, star clouds and the galaxies/nebulas at reach, like andromeda, M51,M42 etc. More double stars also. There's no match to a 10x42. Only drawback the weight since the field of view is adequate for all objects. I use it paired with a 8x42 which doesn't need IS and that solves the dilemma completely.

High North,

For what you want it for, and knowing that you have other top-class binoculars in 8x (and 10x?) configurations, I second Konstantinos. The 15x50 will show you more stars, and for birding will give you reach that no other binocular could. In Norway, birding often involves very long distances and pretty clear air, so the 15x will come to its use. And especially when you don't carry a scope with, the 15x50 will open a new world over standard binoculars.

Kimmo

Thanks for you input both of you! Konstantinos, have you owned and compared the 15x50 and the 18x50?

HN

No, I bought the 18x50 directly. I was a bit puzzled about which should I get (I always am, I still think that 10x might suit me better when I buy a 8x and vice versa). But IS works quite well at 18x and not worse than at 12x with my other IS. When I see the moon or M20 at 18x I never whish to see it at a lower magnification, I would wish to see it at a higher magnification for sure (but Zeiss 20x60 is out of reach and Takahashi 22x60 both out of reach and requires a tripod, I'm not sure which of the two is worse).
As I said, I use the 18x50 paired. I keep it in a small Celestron suitcase with the 12x36. And I almost always have a 8x42 roof with me (not to mention the Pentax Papilio 6.5x21 I EDC). So I never miss lower magnification, only the higher I have to setup a telescope for.

High North,

I have never owned or used an 18x50, but had a 15x50 IS as my primary binocular both for astro and birding from about 2002-2007. Since then, the 10x42 IS L. Now onto my second 10x42 IS L.

For astro use, the 18x may be fine and possibly sometimes better than the 15x50, but judging by the comments on Cloudy Nights, although there definitely are a good number of fans for the 18x Canon, there are more who appreciate the 15x more.

For birding and other terrestrial use, the 15x50 would very likely serve you better. This is because the exit pupil is a bit too small in both, but less so in the 15x. And because the 15x has a wider true field of view (both will feel narrow after normal binoculars, but the 15x less so). And because the 15x has better depth of field. And because the stabilization artifacts and CA are less visible at 15x, and because contrast and color rendition will be better with the larger exit pupil. Also, eye placement will be less critical and due to the lower magnification, whatever aberrations there are in the 50mm objective image will be a little less easy to see.

The 18x50 would perhaps be a better choice for someone with rather poor eyesight, as then the additional magnification would be a true benefit and the flaws would be filtered out by the limitations of visual acuity.

If you do get one of these, please do let us hear your impressions.

Kimmo

The exit pupil of the 18x50 is the same the Takahashi 22x60 chose.

Other than that, the 15 is more conventional and therefore a lower risk buy. I might buy that if there wasn't a very good deal for a lightly used 18x50.

About depth of field, I really like the way a bird stands out when the rest of the picture blurs, I get less distraction that way. And 18x gives better resolution regardless of our eyesight, while it is difficult to follow a flying bird with both, unless it is far away or high up (seabirds and raptors).

Still the question was 10x42 or 15x50 and I would say the second, since there are a lot of great 10x42s out there, reasonably steady without IS, while the Canon 15x50 is unique for handheld use.

kabsetz said:

High North,

I have never owned or used an 18x50, but had a 15x50 IS as my primary binocular both for astro and birding from about 2002-2007. Since then, the 10x42 IS L. Now onto my second 10x42 IS L.

Click to expand...

Hi Kimmo!

Did you get rid of your 15x50 IS? If yes, may I ask why? Why did you decide to go for the 10x42 L (instead), and why are you on your second one now (and what happened to the first one)?

HN

High North,

I sold the 15x50 IS to a friend who still uses it quite a lot for birding. His other binocular is a Leica Trinovid 10x42. If he is serious, like in a birding rally, he has the Canon along.

The reason I sold it was that the 10x42 IS L was introduced, and it was better for what I use binoculars for, which is mainly birding. My "problems" with the 15x50 were mainly a result from the high magnification. The depth of field is shallow for short range birding, the diopter adjustment is very critical because of the shallow depth of field, and as I'm no longer young, my eyes have very little focus accommodation so I found needing to adjust the diopter very often when my eyes changed a bit during the day. Similarly, with only 3.3 mm exit pupils, the inter pupillary distance needs to be set pretty precisely for optimal views. And then there's my high visual acuity, which makes me see any and all sharpness deficiencies and stabilization artifacts a bit too easily. I have been happier with the 10x42 as my "only" binocular, but if I could easily afford (and could justify to myself and my family) having several 1-2k€ binoculars, I would probably still own a 15x50 IS.

The first 10x42 IS L I had for about seven years, and then sold to a friend after I got a good deal on a post-modification unit that I could test and that had a better image (lower aberrations) than the first one. By modifications I mean that after the first few years of production, Canon changed some of the internal baffling and enlarged a prism aperture that had been undersized and had limited the exit pupil size. Also the multi coatings have been improved at some point, which can bee seen both visually in the brightness, color balance and contrast of the image and also in the tested transmission results. There have been two (Finnish and German) tests done at different times, pre- and post modification, and if I recall the first one had average transmission of 82-83% and the second 85-87%. These modifications were made unannounced, but there was good discussion on them with photos of the internals of both versions some years ago on German forums, and when I had both for I while I could verify them for myself.

Kimmo

Thanks for explaining your reasons Kimmo!

Do you guys use any special accessories with your Canon IS binoculars? Do you use special carrying harnesses or straps? Have you modified or replaced the eyecups (I read that those could be a problem for some users)? I read online that some people use 58mm threaded UV filters or similar to protect the objectives, since the objective covers that come with the bins aren't that good.

How do you carry and use your bins in the field?

HN

I carried the 15x50 on a Fujinon wide neoprene binocular strap (like an Opt-tech or similar) as the provided nylon strap was way too narrow for the heft. The first 10x42 had its own original accessory strap, which is not quite as wide or nice as the Fujinon, but very adequate. Now on the new 10x42 I have the Fujinon strap again. Neck pains have not been an issue for me with these. I'm sure a harness would be fine also.

What I use almost all the time is a lightweight finnstick screwed right into the tripod attachment thread under the binocular body. My present one is a Cullmann freestyler selfie stick, which is very light and has a foam-padded bottom section. This allows me to hold my hands down over my belly while viewing, greatly reducing fatigue. This way I can view for as long as I like, occasionally lifting one hand up to focus or re-activate the IS if more than five minutes have gone by since I pressed the button.

Eyecups I have not modified. I kept the 15x50 eyecups rolled down at all times although I don't wear glasses while viewing, and with the 10x42 I keep them screwed in all the way or almost all the way. With both binoculars, I rest the top edge of the eyecup rims against my brow. This has been the best compromise for me, providing pretty good comfort and no vignetting of the image. I think you need to have a pretty oriental facial anatomy to be able to use the eyecups fully extended.

I also use the eyepiece rain guard that comes with the 10x42. The 15x50 did not come with a rain guard, and I used a Fujinon one piece guard for it, one of the few that is big enough to fit over these humongous eyecups. Objective covers I rarely use. The protective case that comes with the 10x is very good and practical, the one the 15x used to come with (don't know if it is still the same) is also fine, but a bit less robust and protective. Both have a hardened bottom for the objective end that protects the objectives from scratches or bumps while packed away.

Kimmo

Kimmo,
I am waiting for a pair of Canon 10x42 L to arrive from the other side of the world,always a tense time,like will they be any good!!

I don,t wear glasses and always have the eyecups fully extended, reading some of your comments it sounds that this could; be awkward!Do they click into place and if not do they stay up or do they roll back down.?
Just how much bigger are the oculars compared to others if you struggle to place them in the eye sockets....my preferred position!
suppressor

HighNorth said:

Do you guys use any special accessories with your Canon IS binoculars? Do you use special carrying harnesses or straps? Have you modified or replaced the eyecups (I read that those could be a problem for some users)? I read online that some people use 58mm threaded UV filters or similar to protect the objectives, since the objective covers that come with the bins aren't that good.

How do you carry and use your bins in the field?

HN

Click to expand...

You can see how I carry mine on a previous post. The 12x36 is also carried in a backpack. I use UV filters on the 18x50 and over them 58mm photo lens covers, connected with a string. I connected the oculars covers with string also, so I have 2 pieces to care for and not 4. For the 12x36 I use caps from other junk binoculars (a Bresser 10x50 for objectives and a 10x50 Vivitar for eyepieces), they just happen to fit. I bought a good neoprene strap for the 18x50, while the included with the lightweight 12x36 is just fine.

Supressor,

The eyecups on the 10x42 L IS are twist-up/down. They extend 10mm from fully in, with intermediate click-stops at approximately 5 and 7 mm extension. Their diameter is 45 mm, and the rubber over the eyecup has a somewhat sharp outer edge. If I have the cups fully extended, to see the full field I need to push the eyecups into my eye sockets and then they dig painfully into my nose as well as under my brow. I can use either of the intermediate positions as well, with progressively less pressure and contact on my face, but prefer them fully in and just lightly leaning against my eyebrows.

I suggest you try different positions, and just go with what is most comfortable. I also recommend experimenting with IDP distances. I find that for me, even .5mm off the optimum compromises viewing somewhat. I now use a 66mm long piece of plastic sheet as a template to set my IPD quickly if someone else has tried the binoculars and changed the adjustment.

Kimmo

kabsetz said:

Supressor,

The eyecups on the 10x42 L IS are twist-up/down. They extend 10mm from fully in, with intermediate click-stops at approximately 5 and 7 mm extension. Their diameter is 45 mm, and the rubber over the eyecup has a somewhat sharp outer edge. If I have the cups fully extended, to see the full field I need to push the eyecups into my eye sockets and then they dig painfully into my nose as well as under my brow. I can use either of the intermediate positions as well, with progressively less pressure and contact on my face, but prefer them fully in and just lightly leaning against my eyebrows.

I suggest you try different positions, and just go with what is most comfortable. I also recommend experimenting with IDP distances. I find that for me, even .5mm off the optimum compromises viewing somewhat. I now use a 66mm long piece of plastic sheet as a template to set my IPD quickly if someone else has tried the binoculars and changed the adjustment.

Kimmo

Click to expand...

Ok Kimmo,
Thanks for the reply will see hoe I get on with them when they arrive.
suppressor

With my 15x Canons I have always used the standard carrying strap, I can carry the bins all day with this easily.

I use UV filters normally which are very useful when birding my local estuary during strong winds. There is much spray and sand getting blown about so they protect the lens. I use polarised filters in the winter when there is snow on the ground and bright sunlight, these may be useful if you live in Norway.

Chris.