I had a chance to compare these for 3 days under various conditions and these are my somewhat subjective findings given the 12x36 III are half the price. Both were made this year and new in box when tested.
Build quality: the 12x feel somewhat lightweight at just over 600g. The 10x24 L are hefty at almost twice that. The 10x42 are waterproof to JIS level 7 which means they can be submerged. Looking at the skimpy seal on the battery door of the 12x36 take care, I would call them shower proof.
Glass quality: Canon make no claims for ultra low dispersion types on the 12x and this is clearly true. They suffer from on-axis CA which was a surprise given good porros are generally free of it in the central field. I'm prone to CA but usually can reduce it with careful eye placement but with these no, possibly due to the small 3mm exit pupil.
The 10x42 L have one ULD objective element and one ULD element of the field flattener doublet. This works really well, I can see no CA at all in the central field and a small amount off-axis.
Both binoculars have decent ridged baffle tubes and very good multi-coatings. You can peer into the binoculars with a torch without undue glare.
Design: Win for the the 10x42. It accepts 52mm front filters and pinch lens caps and the objectives are protected with a front optical flats. The 12x doesn't even come with front lens covers !
Both focus wheels operate smoothly with no play but the 12x is to small if you wear gloves.
The IS button needs to be constantly pressed down on the 12x. With the 10x you can tap it quickly for constant on 5 mins.
A minor point, the 10x are black rubber the 12x a sort of nondescript grey...
The 12x can easily be used and focused one handed.
Resolution: I've got some targets in my garden stretching out to infinity. On a tripod with IS off both outperform the Nikon Monarch 7 8x42 and 8x32. About 4.4-4.7 arc seconds.
Edge performance: slightly disappointing in the 12x. CA increases and spherical aberrations and astignatism start to creep in at the outer edges. This throws the edge focus out. With the 10x it's crisp right to the edges. Both have field flatteners to correct field curvature. With the 10x the flat plane of focus is for all intents are purposes perfect. Focus on the edge and the centre is sharp too.
I used to have a Nikon 7x50 SP (called Prostar in the US) and the Canon 10x is better.
Rectilinear Distortion: classic pincushion more noticeable in the 10x. Telegraph poles at the edge of frame bow in. A design choice to avoid rolling ball/globe effect and aid static target recognition. Pre-WWII binoculars and classic designs like the Nikon 18x70 with no pincushion become very busy when you pan blurring finer details.
Eyecups: Simple soft rubber on the 12x. Narrow so good for deep eye sockets, you can really push them close into the eyes. (I don't wear glasses and have an IPD of 60mm.) Good for narrow IPD. No lock on the dioptre which moves with the eyecup, it will need to be taped up.
Click stops on the 10x eyecups but for me only slight extension was workable due to vignetting. Someone with an IPD bellow 60mm could struggle with the large diameter cups and limited nose space. Dioptre locks but again not particularly secure. For a company that has a stellar reputation for ergonomics it's baffling Canon are behind other makes when it comes to extending eyecups.
IS. Win for the 10x. Takes perhaps 1/2 a second to reach critical focus. The 12x also uses VAP but perhaps because it has less light to work with is noticeably slower at perhaps a second in the worse case. No click sound on the 12x, it's completely silent like magic...
Battery life much longer on the 12x
Colour: noticeably more saturation, sparkle and contrast in the 10x.
At this time of year deer come into my garden at dusk to eat the fallen apples. The 12x are not good twilight binoculars. My 2015 Leica 10x42 ,despite not being the brightest, are much better. The 10x seem to have the edge on the Leica optically everywhere apart from colour fidelity and veiling glare. The Canon 10x are touch to yellow for my taste the 12x a bit cooler.
Evolution: The early 10x42 had an undersize field stop. Canon also better shielded the circuit boards later with black covers. I didn't see an artefacts or jitter with the 10x. Perhaps just a hint of jitter on the 12x due to lighter construction. The electronics have definitely improved on these but not perfect.
Conclusion: With the 12x I was left with the feeling of a £300 binocular with a bit of a claustrophobic FOV with the addition of field flatteners and useful IS. With the 10x binoculars a nicely expansive 6.5 degree FOV, close to alpha optics with IS thrown in for free...
Build quality: the 12x feel somewhat lightweight at just over 600g. The 10x24 L are hefty at almost twice that. The 10x42 are waterproof to JIS level 7 which means they can be submerged. Looking at the skimpy seal on the battery door of the 12x36 take care, I would call them shower proof.
Glass quality: Canon make no claims for ultra low dispersion types on the 12x and this is clearly true. They suffer from on-axis CA which was a surprise given good porros are generally free of it in the central field. I'm prone to CA but usually can reduce it with careful eye placement but with these no, possibly due to the small 3mm exit pupil.
The 10x42 L have one ULD objective element and one ULD element of the field flattener doublet. This works really well, I can see no CA at all in the central field and a small amount off-axis.
Both binoculars have decent ridged baffle tubes and very good multi-coatings. You can peer into the binoculars with a torch without undue glare.
Design: Win for the the 10x42. It accepts 52mm front filters and pinch lens caps and the objectives are protected with a front optical flats. The 12x doesn't even come with front lens covers !
Both focus wheels operate smoothly with no play but the 12x is to small if you wear gloves.
The IS button needs to be constantly pressed down on the 12x. With the 10x you can tap it quickly for constant on 5 mins.
A minor point, the 10x are black rubber the 12x a sort of nondescript grey...
The 12x can easily be used and focused one handed.
Resolution: I've got some targets in my garden stretching out to infinity. On a tripod with IS off both outperform the Nikon Monarch 7 8x42 and 8x32. About 4.4-4.7 arc seconds.
Edge performance: slightly disappointing in the 12x. CA increases and spherical aberrations and astignatism start to creep in at the outer edges. This throws the edge focus out. With the 10x it's crisp right to the edges. Both have field flatteners to correct field curvature. With the 10x the flat plane of focus is for all intents are purposes perfect. Focus on the edge and the centre is sharp too.
I used to have a Nikon 7x50 SP (called Prostar in the US) and the Canon 10x is better.
Rectilinear Distortion: classic pincushion more noticeable in the 10x. Telegraph poles at the edge of frame bow in. A design choice to avoid rolling ball/globe effect and aid static target recognition. Pre-WWII binoculars and classic designs like the Nikon 18x70 with no pincushion become very busy when you pan blurring finer details.
Eyecups: Simple soft rubber on the 12x. Narrow so good for deep eye sockets, you can really push them close into the eyes. (I don't wear glasses and have an IPD of 60mm.) Good for narrow IPD. No lock on the dioptre which moves with the eyecup, it will need to be taped up.
Click stops on the 10x eyecups but for me only slight extension was workable due to vignetting. Someone with an IPD bellow 60mm could struggle with the large diameter cups and limited nose space. Dioptre locks but again not particularly secure. For a company that has a stellar reputation for ergonomics it's baffling Canon are behind other makes when it comes to extending eyecups.
IS. Win for the 10x. Takes perhaps 1/2 a second to reach critical focus. The 12x also uses VAP but perhaps because it has less light to work with is noticeably slower at perhaps a second in the worse case. No click sound on the 12x, it's completely silent like magic...
Battery life much longer on the 12x
Colour: noticeably more saturation, sparkle and contrast in the 10x.
At this time of year deer come into my garden at dusk to eat the fallen apples. The 12x are not good twilight binoculars. My 2015 Leica 10x42 ,despite not being the brightest, are much better. The 10x seem to have the edge on the Leica optically everywhere apart from colour fidelity and veiling glare. The Canon 10x are touch to yellow for my taste the 12x a bit cooler.
Evolution: The early 10x42 had an undersize field stop. Canon also better shielded the circuit boards later with black covers. I didn't see an artefacts or jitter with the 10x. Perhaps just a hint of jitter on the 12x due to lighter construction. The electronics have definitely improved on these but not perfect.
Conclusion: With the 12x I was left with the feeling of a £300 binocular with a bit of a claustrophobic FOV with the addition of field flatteners and useful IS. With the 10x binoculars a nicely expansive 6.5 degree FOV, close to alpha optics with IS thrown in for free...
Last edited: