Roger Vine’s review of the Canon 12x32 IS (1 Viewer)

[John A Roberts]

Roger has added to his reviews of the Canon IS lineup, with the addition of the 12x32 model.
See at: Canon 12x32 IS Review

It includes a detailed comparison to the 12x36 III version




In regards to Roger's comments on the optical construction, Canon only provides minimal details:
an objective of 7 lenses in 6 groups (including a protective glass), and; an eyepiece of 5 elements in 4 groups.
And the only image showing the internal construction is not of significant assistance
(other than making clear the use and orientation of the Porro II prisms):




Rogers reviews of the other Canon models can be found at: Binocular Reviews


John


p.s. For comparison, the different orientation of the prisms on the 10x30 (and 12x36) model:

 

[Canip]

Thanks for this, John.
Great review, as always from Roger (although I would not agree with everything he writes) and nice write-up.

 

[Richard D]

Yes a good review. I was hoping it would be more positive - I found the 12x36 had unacceptable CA so if these are worse... It's a shame as the price has dropped quite a lot.

 

[yarrellii]

This is quite surprising. So Roger says that, compared to the old 12x36, they are:

• Heavier
• Bigger
• Have worse focuser
• Also have lots of CA
• Are dimmer in low light
• Are way more expensive

Seriously, Canon. I would have thought that while replacing such a "mature" model as the 12x36 (my most used binocular for more than a year now) they would really have done their homework, but it doesn't seem so. I really like the level of detail and resolution the 12x36 give, but there are many things I find could do with an improvement, namely:

• Size, weight and shape
• Ergonomics
• CA
• Waterproofing
• Need for constantly pressing the button

Apparently, for a lot more money, only the last issue has been properly addressed (and I would really love some improvements in the first 3). Is it just me or isn't this quite disappointing?

 

[AlanFrench]

I replaced my 12x36 IS II, which had been my main birding glass for about 16 years, with the new 12x32 IS almost three years ago. The main reason for the change was the improved close focus of the 12x32s. The rather long close focus of the 12x36 had sometimes caused me problems. I puzzle over reports of "lots of CA" in the newer 12x32. Like the 12x36, the only chromatic aberration I notice is a bit of lateral color near the edge of the field. Since I center the birds of interest, it generally goes unnoticed.

After I read complaints about chromatic aberration, I checked mine using the light-colored trip on our shed, the edges of branches against the bright sky, and, when available, the edges of snow-covered branches against the sky. I don't see a problem with chromatic aberration, and puzzle over the reports.

Clear skies, Alan

 

[kimmik]

All canon needs to do, nothing dramatic, is give 12x36 ED glass in the objectives, slim down the packaging, maybe a slightly wider eyepieces.

But it wont happen because it would outcompete the 10x42.

Therefore I refuse to buy the 12x36 on principle.

 

[Binastro]

People here always seem to want something that doesn't quite exist.

I have been a happy user of Canon IS binoculars for over twenty years.

To say that the IS doesn't add stability is to me ridiculous.

If it doesn't then the IS binocular is faulty or the batteries are flat.

Regards,
B.

 

[kimmik]

Is asking for ED glass unreasonable in a £700 binocular? Canon was innovative with the bino 20years ago. It has sat on its hands ever since with no real improvement.

 

[Richard D]

Is asking for ED glass unreasonable in a £700 binocular? Canon was innovative with the bino 20years ago. It has sat on its hands ever since with no real improvement.

I don't think so. For me IS has great potential at 12x, but the 12x36 had too many compromises that the 12x32 have seemingly failed to address based on reviews (I've only personally tried the 12x36).

 

[WRL]

I replaced my 12x36 IS II, which had been my main birding glass for about 16 years, with the new 12x32 IS almost three years ago. The main reason for the change was the improved close focus of the 12x32s. The rather long close focus of the 12x36 had sometimes caused me problems. I puzzle over reports of "lots of CA" in the newer 12x32. Like the 12x36, the only chromatic aberration I notice is a bit of lateral color near the edge of the field. Since I center the birds of interest, it generally goes unnoticed.

After I read complaints about chromatic aberration, I checked mine using the light-colored trip on our shed, the edges of branches against the bright sky, and, when available, the edges of snow-covered branches against the sky. I don't see a problem with chromatic aberration, and puzzle over the reports.

Clear skies, Alan

I agree with Alan's comment. I own a Canon 12x32 IS for some years (and a Canon 8x20IS, b.t.w.). I cannot speak for the 12x36IS, however, I am not noticing "false colours" or "dramatic chromatic aberration" in the 12x32IS. If they are there (to an acceptable extent), they obviously don't not bother me specifically. The stabilisation gain is what is "dramatic" with this bino. It appears curious/strange to me if anybody does not admit that fact.
Sure, there are always properties that could be improved. With any bino, the IS Canons are no eception. However, for my personal use (mostly IDing birds) all those "negatives" stand back behind the wonderful steady views these binos are providing.

 

[AlanFrench]

Soon after I got my 12x36 IS IIs they revealed the advantage of a steady 12x view. My 7x42s showed there were Kinglets in the tree line out back. The 12x36 showed they were mostly Ruby-crowned Kinglets, but there was at least one Golden-crowned among them.

A steady 12x view of a Cape May warbler, singing in the sunshine and not far away, is a fine treat.

Clear skies, Alan

 

[Conndomat]

Is asking for ED glass unreasonable in a £700 binocular? Canon was innovative with the bino 20years ago. It has sat on its hands ever since with no real improvement.

Well, the IS binoculars are an insignificant side business for Canon, they don't care.

It's like being a big farmer and selling a few kilos of apples on the side, the big profit comes from the grain.

Andreas

 

[AlanFrench]

They don't seem to care enough to actively promote IS binoculars to either birders or amateur astronomers. Yet they did care enough to introduce new models a few years ago. It's a puzzle.

Clear skies, Alan

 

[Binastro]

The new models are more expensive, so I suppose Canon thought they might make a profit.
Also that they might attract some Canon camera users.

I doubt that Canon made a profit on the older models, which are probably loss leaders.

In addition, their binocular designer, I suspect just one person, had nothing to do.
So, most likely he, was given something to design instead of twiddling his thumbs with nothing to do.

I also presume that they have actually designed and probably built a 20x56 IS binocular, but the cost of making and selling it may mean it won't make any money.

Usually it is the accountants or the boss who makes decisions, so many prototypes don't actually go into production.

Another strange thing is that some camera prototypes where only one exists don't end up being valuable to collectors, whereas others may become very expensive.

Prototypes are to me more interesting than actual production items.

Regards,
B.

 

[AlanFrench]

I doubt the IS binoculars are "loss leaders." It would be an awfully long time to sell a product at a loss, and what would they be enticing people to buy? There's no other line of binoculars and no telescopes. They also seem like sensible prices for an IS binocular from a company with a lot of experience with optics and image stabilization.

I did like the half-price sale on the 12x32 they had early on. That was probably a marketing move. It got me to take out my check book.

Clear skies, Alan

 

[Binastro]

I think that the Canon IS binoculars are made to show that Canon are a complete large optical company.

There is an awful lot of high quality optics in the Canon IS binoculars, with the addition of IS.

Over the long term, with tooling costs paid for there will be a profit on the Canon IS binoculars.

There are definitely disadvantages, such as weight, size etc.

But those who moan at the Canon IS binoculars for not satisfying their needs are not obliged to buy them.

There are plenty of non IS binoculars to choose from.

I use the Canon IS binoculars when I need high resolution of detail.

For most casual viewing I will pick up a simple non IS binocular.
Basically, if I cannot see something well enough with unaided eyes I pick up a standard binocular.

If I want to read a sign at a distance or look at Jupiter's moons and identify them, I will use an IS binocular.

I did use the Canon 10x30 IS as my main binocular for about three years.

If I cannot read a sign with the Canon 18x50 IS I use the Canon SX730 HS pocket camera, which resolves better.

If I still cannot read the sign I will use a telescope on a tripod or occasionally two binoculars, one behind the other.
If the telescope doesn't reveal the detail, I use a bigger telescope.
At least I did until the telescopes got too big for me to use any more.

Regards,
B.