Join for FREE
It only takes a minute!
Zeiss - Always on the lookout for something special – Shop now

Welcome to BirdForum.
BirdForum is the net's largest birding community, dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE! You are most welcome to register for an account, which allows you to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Canon's new 14x32 IS

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old Monday 27th November 2017, 23:14   #1
Super Dave
Registered User
 
Super Dave's Avatar

 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Kaneohe, HI
Posts: 153
Canon's new 14x32 IS

Hi everyone,

I've owned the 15x50's for 7 years and for the most part have been very happy with them. I just sold my 14x40 Fujinons and was thinking about ordering a second pair of the 15x50's to keep in a second location. The Fujinon's stabilization was great but they took too long to get warmed up and in viewing mode (about 8 to 10 seconds). That was too long to spot a plane or boat cruising by.

The Canon tech guy I spoke to today said the new ones are brighter compared to the older ones due to their construction (he compared it to a SLR lens...but I'm not a camera guy). The 14x32 has a narrower FOV than the 15x50 and I've got to think it won't be as bright. It's a lot lighter and the image stabilization sounds a little better. The weight isn't an issue for me. A great view is what I'm after. On paper, the 15x50 still looks like the winner.

What do you folks think?

Has anyone had a chance to view the new 14x32 model? I'd like to know how it compares to the 15x50.

Thanks,
Dave
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	Canon and Fujinon copy.jpg
Views:	485
Size:	174.2 KB
ID:	647490  
Super Dave is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 4th December 2017, 22:23   #2
maico
Registered User

 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Somerset UK
Posts: 286
An exit pupil of only 2.28mm and no ultra low dispersion glass to help transmission rates sounds like a horribly dim view...?

A post here shows the size next to the 10x42 L IS https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/5...2#entry8197486

Last edited by maico : Monday 4th December 2017 at 22:37.
maico is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 4th December 2017, 22:56   #3
Super Dave
Registered User
 
Super Dave's Avatar

 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Kaneohe, HI
Posts: 153
Thanks for your reply and link. I agree with you that it's can't touch the 50mm objective in brightness.
Super Dave is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 5th December 2017, 18:06   #4
AlanFrench
Registered User

 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Scotia, NY
Posts: 433
Quote:
Originally Posted by maico View Post
An exit pupil of only 2.28mm and no ultra low dispersion glass to help transmission rates sounds like a horribly dim view...?

A post here shows the size next to the 10x42 L IS https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/5...2#entry8197486
Exactly what does low dispersion glass have to do with light transmissions? Most modern optical glasses have high transmissions across the visual spectrum.

Thanks, and clear skies, Alan
AlanFrench is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 5th December 2017, 20:26   #5
Binastro
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: S.England
Posts: 4,457
In good daylight it is plenty bright enough.

If Canon made a 25x50 IS I would get one.
Binastro is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 5th December 2017, 20:31   #6
Super Dave
Registered User
 
Super Dave's Avatar

 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Kaneohe, HI
Posts: 153
Hi Binastro,

Quote:
In good daylight it is plenty bright enough.
Have you hand the new 14x32 IS? I'd like to get more info on it. I have not found anyone who has handled one including Canon tech support in the US.

Thanks,
DF
Super Dave is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 5th December 2017, 21:19   #7
Binastro
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: S.England
Posts: 4,457
No Dave.
I was thinking of getting one until I found out the price.

The 10x30 IS MkII, which I have, has superb IS, at least this sample, and I have used the18x50 IS for over 15 years.

I really want a 25x or 30x IS binocular. I am pretty sure Canon are up to the job now, but maybe few people would buy a high powered binocular with a field of 2.3 to 2.8 degrees. The eyepieces would need to be clever to give reasonable eye relief at least for non glasses wearers.

For astronomy and aircraft spotting 25x or 30x would be ideal.
Binastro is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 5th December 2017, 22:30   #8
james holdsworth
Consulting Biologist
 
james holdsworth's Avatar

 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: ontario
Posts: 3,282
Quote:
Originally Posted by Binastro View Post
No Dave.
I was thinking of getting one until I found out the price.

The 10x30 IS MkII, which I have, has superb IS, at least this sample, and I have used the18x50 IS for over 15 years.

I really want a 25x or 30x IS binocular. I am pretty sure Canon are up to the job now, but maybe few people would buy a high powered binocular with a field of 2.3 to 2.8 degrees. The eyepieces would need to be clever to give reasonable eye relief at least for non glasses wearers.

For astronomy and aircraft spotting 25x or 30x would be ideal.

I agree and something like this would go a long way to replacing a spotting scope in the field - something that would appeal to many birders tremendously. Most birders are loathe to take a scope travelling but a high powered IS bin would be ideal.

I would use a 25 or 30x IS bin for lake / seawatches as well as shorebirds and raptors - far more comfortable to view with both eyes and far more flexible for spotting and tracking flying birds.
__________________
''serenity now....insanity later.'' - Lloyd Brawn

Last edited by james holdsworth : Tuesday 5th December 2017 at 22:32.
james holdsworth is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 6th December 2017, 08:17   #9
Troubador
Moderator
 
Troubador's Avatar

 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 9,170
Quote:
Originally Posted by james holdsworth View Post

Most birders are loathe to take a scope travelling but a high powered IS bin would be ideal.
Don't you have Twitchers in Canada? Over here in the UK at rare bird hot spots you can see hordes of twitchers who have travelled by road, rail, air and sea to get a rare bird tick and many take their scopes.

See the pic below of a 'twitch' on the Isles of Scilly in the Channel Islands between the UK and France, where literally hundreds went by ship or helicopter to see a Black-billed Cuckoo.
Lee
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	Black-billed Cuckoo 2.jpg
Views:	609
Size:	141.4 KB
ID:	648067  
Troubador is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 6th December 2017, 08:50   #10
kabsetz
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Finland
Posts: 1,495
Lee,

Lovely photo. Was that in the eighties? Quite a number of draw-tube scopes there, almost no angled scopes.

Kimmo
kabsetz is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 6th December 2017, 09:17   #11
Troubador
Moderator
 
Troubador's Avatar

 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 9,170
Quote:
Originally Posted by kabsetz View Post
Lee,

Lovely photo. Was that in the eighties? Quite a number of draw-tube scopes there, almost no angled scopes.

Kimmo
Kimmo
Not my photo but yes I have checked and it was 1980s, well spotted!

This one is right up to date...

Lee
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	birdwatchers-or-twitchers-line-up-on-sea-wall-in-devon-looking-for-bcmad7.jpg
Views:	495
Size:	84.8 KB
ID:	648069  
Troubador is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 6th December 2017, 14:23   #12
Binastro
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: S.England
Posts: 4,457
Unbelievable photos Lee.

I think that I have just been able to hear some sound with the IS binoculars right up against my ear, but I'll check. I think less sound means less energy consumption.

My cricket correspondent didn't take either of his 8x25 IS to follow the barmy army.
He took the waterproof 6x18, which means he didn't have to search for camera type batteries.

The hotel room prices of £400 at Adelaide meant he stayed in Melbourne.
First day 35C 83% humidity, next day 13C and torrential rain.
A local cricket match had 500 spectators in a stadium that takes 110,000.

He had a close encounter with a spider in his hotel room climbing up the wall, which meant fear. He managed to wrap it in a towel and deal with it.
The hotel receptionist asked if the spider had white eyes. He said it may have had white eyes but he wasn't sure.
They do have antidote and they don't kill that many people.

What with crocodiles, great whites and snakes in Perth, I prefer to stay here. It was suggested he tried surfing in Perth. He said what about the sharks? 'Oh don't worry about them'.

Australians are apparently very friendly everywhere, buses, trams etc.

The only thing I regret is that I never saw the southern sky.

I really would like a 25x50 IS or perhaps lightweight 30x56 Canon IS.
Binastro is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 6th December 2017, 14:31   #13
james holdsworth
Consulting Biologist
 
james holdsworth's Avatar

 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: ontario
Posts: 3,282
Quote:
Originally Posted by Troubador View Post
Don't you have Twitchers in Canada? Over here in the UK at rare bird hot spots you can see hordes of twitchers who have travelled by road, rail, air and sea to get a rare bird tick and many take their scopes.

See the pic below of a 'twitch' on the Isles of Scilly in the Channel Islands between the UK and France, where literally hundreds went by ship or helicopter to see a Black-billed Cuckoo.
Lee
Of course we do - the point is, would you prefer to take a single bin on a plane rather than a very inconveniently bulky scope and tripod? Same goes with being in the field - would you prefer to view with two eyes and be able to scan and pan freely without the limitations of a tripod head? Would you prefer to keep your hands free rather than having to pick up and carry your scope throughout the day?

An Ontario birder has long used a Zeiss 20x60S as a scope replacement. I can tell you he gets on birds far faster than the rest that are on their scopes.
__________________
''serenity now....insanity later.'' - Lloyd Brawn

Last edited by james holdsworth : Wednesday 6th December 2017 at 14:36.
james holdsworth is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 6th December 2017, 14:55   #14
The-Wanderer
Registered User
 
The-Wanderer's Avatar

 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 595
IMHO, this thread has been hijacked.
The-Wanderer is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 31st January 2018, 17:34   #15
LeucisticCrow
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: northwest Oregon
Posts: 2
Chromatic aberration comments from Canon

I have the new Canon 14X32 IS binoculars and they are great in many respects, particularly the near focus distance of about 6-8 feet instead of 18-20 feet as is the case for Canon's 12X36 IS model. And the IS stays on for 5 minutes without holding down the button. But these binoculars display purple fringing (chromatic aberration - CA) when the focus is even minutely off. With a very minor turn of the focus dial, the metallic green head of a male Mallard will turn purple. I can imagine all sorts of quirks this could trigger. The green gloss of a Greater Scaup might change to a purple gloss more commonly seen in a Lesser Scaup. And the CA is noticeable on twigs and wires and the edges of almost everything. But when in perfect focus, no CA is seen.

I sent the binoculars to the Canon Factory Service Center and they returned them promptly with this note: "Your product has been examined and it was found that the product performed according to specifications. The optical assembly was inspected. Product functions were confirmed. Note: The color fringing will disappear when optical axis parallelism and focus are correct (object in good focus). This is normal."

Well, to me, this is not normal. I have used all sorts of other binoculars including Nikon's best, Leicas, Swarovski, Zeiss, and even the Canon 10X30IS, and none of them show purple fringing.

So I called Canon, and was told my concern would be forwarded to an engineer. I got this reply: "I consulted one of our engineers regarding your inquiry. He advised since the Canon Factory Service Center determined the binoculars are working within specifications, the chromatic aberration would be considered normal operation."

Again, I disagree that CA is normal. All that said, these are wonderful binoculars but certainly quirky.
LeucisticCrow is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 31st January 2018, 17:50   #16
Kevin Conville
yardbirder
BF Supporter 2019
 
Kevin Conville's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: State of Chaos
Posts: 2,131
Thanks Crow for some useful information and an answer that responds to the OP's question.

Though my brow was raised already by the small exit pupil of the 14x32s, after reading your report I will steer clear.
__________________
my bird pics

Scott's Miracle Grow KILLING Birds, for Years!
read this: http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=226714
Kevin Conville is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2018 2019 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Wednesday 31st January 2018, 18:43   #17
Binastro
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: S.England
Posts: 4,457
CA is normal.
It depends how much.
It also depends partly on the objectives used.

It will be interesting to hear other reports. Whether there is variation between samples.

But clearly for bird watching most people require as little CA as possible.

I dislike my early Nikon 8x42 HG because it has excessive CA off axis and arcs of ghosting, partly due to shiny black internal paint I think.

They delayed import of these Nikons into the U.S.A. saying there were minor tweaks, but I suspect that they were not so minor.
Binastro is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 31st January 2018, 20:29   #18
LeucisticCrow
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: northwest Oregon
Posts: 2
I should have said the CA in other binoculars was minimal to the extent of not being problematic instead of saying it didn't occur.
LeucisticCrow is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 23rd February 2018, 22:43   #19
AlanFrench
Registered User

 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Scotia, NY
Posts: 433
My Canon 12x36 IIs are my main birding binocular. When I first had them I sometimes noticed some distracting CA. It turned out it was a problem when I had the IPD set incorrectly. My wife noticed the same thing, and getting the IPD right cured the problem.

Clear skies, Alan
AlanFrench is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 10th September 2018, 06:54   #20
Wolf Beam
Registered User

 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Sweden
Posts: 85
Hi, everyone

I recently compared the 14x32s with my 15x50s. Got a good impression in bright daylight. Could actually discern more detail with the 14x32s. So I'm thinking of buying a pair.
However, I'm a bit worried about the small exit pupil and how good the binos are in winter/dark cloudy days/twilight. Is the brightness decent?

Anyone who has tried them out in more demanding situations?

Cheers
Wolf
Wolf Beam is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 10th September 2018, 19:37   #21
Canip
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Nordschweiz
Posts: 508
I haven‘t, but I did test the 12x32 and found its brightness okay in broad daylight but unsatisfactory under more demanding lighting situations (dawn, dusk, woods with thick foilage, etc). Even under overcast skies, the brightness wasn‘t impressive at all.

Sharpness and contrast are fine in the 12x32, and the IS works very well indeed. But for my needs, the exit pupil (2.7mm) is smaller than what I like, and that‘s even more true for the 14x32 (2.3mm). So I am staying away from it.

For me, the 10x32 with its 3.2mm EP is the most versatile of the three new Canon IS models.

fwiw Canip
Canip is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 29th October 2018, 11:02   #22
Wolf Beam
Registered User

 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Sweden
Posts: 85
Rocket in my pocket

I found a good deal on the 14x32 and bought a pair.
Now I own these and a 15x50. I will sell one of them soon :-)

Findings so far after some comparison

Case. The 14x case is a bit too bulky and lacks a compartment för spare batteries. I will find another case.

Size. The 14x fits in some of my coat and jacket pockets which is really nice. Reduced bulk was a main reason to buy them. Great! Much easier to just bring them along than the 15x.

Brightness. I was a bit worried but this is not an issue. The 14x work perfectly fine even on cloudy October days in Sweden. At dusk a bit less bright than the 15x but much better than expected.

Detail. I can discern the same amount of detail with the 14x as my 15x. Good.

Eye relief. I can see full picture also with glasses, but no big margin. Ok, but not great. 15x a little bit better.

Color cast. The 15x has a yellow cast, which can be seen in snowy landscapes. The 14x is much more neutral. Good.

IS. Pretty much the same, 14x and 15x. However the second option “Powered IS” really makes a difference while on a boat. While standing on ground I do not detect any use for Powered IS button.

IS buttons. I much prefer the bigger button on my 15x. The two buttons on the 14x are too small. But hopefully I will get used to them.

Close focus, 2m of the 14x vs 5m on the 15x. Big difference and the second reason for me to buy the 14x. Great for butterflies and dragonflies. However, at close range you will have to close one eye due to double vision.

Chromatic aberration. The 15x is better. Some but not too much CA on the 14x (in some occations only). It is mainly seen just before the object snaps into focus. As soon as you get focus it disappear (mostly).

I like both of them but due to bulky size and 5m close focus I will sell my 15x50s.

Cheers
Wolf
Wolf Beam is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 29th October 2018, 14:07   #23
Binastro
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: S.England
Posts: 4,457
Wolf, thanks for the report.

Much appreciated.
Binastro is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 29th October 2018, 15:13   #24
Stanbo
Registered User

 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 210
Wolf

Thanks for the review, particularly against the 15x50.

Have you tried adjusting the IPD for close work. I found this worked for the Nikon 8x32 SE porro.

Stan
Stanbo is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 19th December 2018, 20:36   #25
Peter Audrain
Consummate Indoorsman
 
Peter Audrain's Avatar

 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Hopewell, New Jersey
Posts: 147
If you have owned or used one or more of the new Canon 10x32, 12x32, and 14x32 IS models—which one do you think is the best compromise for birding? I can't get all three, but I do think I might like to get one.

I am motivated by the wish to be able to do at least some shorebirding and seawatching without lugging a scope. All three models seem to have very small exit pupils by the standards of ordinary optics.

Thanks for your thoughts.
Peter Audrain is offline  
Reply With Quote
Advertisement
Reply


Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

{googleads}

Fatbirder's Top 1000 Birding Websites

Help support BirdForum

Page generated in 0.24619603 seconds with 40 queries
All times are GMT. The time now is 13:22.