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 Wednesday 26th December 2018, 18:46   #26
fazalmajid
Registered User
 
fazalmajid's Avatar

 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 329
Quote:
Originally Posted by Binastro View Post
No Dave.
I really want a 25x or 30x IS binocular. I am pretty sure Canon are up to the job now
I doubt it. The longest stabilized lens they have is the 800mm f/5.6L IS (16x equivalent), which costs $13,000.
fazalmajid is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 26th December 2018, 20:41   #27
Binastro
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: S.England
Posts: 4,457
I don't think that one can equate stabilisation of a lens with a binocular.

Firstly, the diagonal of a 35mm frame is 43mm not 50mm.
Secondly, the 16x of an 800mm lens is notional.
And what is considered sharp on a photograph is quite different to the visual image in a binocular or telescope.

How sharp is sharp?
What size photo are we assuming?
How much movement can one tolerate visually.

I have used the Canon 18x50 IS for about 17 years or so, and 25x or possibly 30x is almost certainly achievable now.
But the tolerances regarding collimation and optical figure may make it uneconomical.
Also the eyepiece focal length would be small and eye relief a problem. If eye relief is extended then the AFOV would be less, and real FOV considerably less.
I don't think I'd have a problem, not wearing glasses with binoculars, but many would.
Using the Canon 1.75x front converter on the 18x50 IS gave 32x and was steady, although the image was awful.

The Zeiss 20x60S is wondrously sharp and is older than the Canon IS.
Maybe Canon made a special stabilised lens longer than 800mm, but I cannot remember the specs.

Last edited by Binastro : Thursday 27th December 2018 at 15:09.
Binastro is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 30th December 2018, 01:04   #28
BinoBoy
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL
Posts: 477
Sale prices

B&H Photo has the new Canon IS bins on sale temporarily. I'm not sure how long these prices will be good.

The 10x32 is $700

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ...tabilized.html

The 12x32 is $724

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ...tabilized.html

The 14x42 are $850

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ...tabilized.html
BinoBoy is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 30th December 2018, 09:58   #29
Binastro
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: S.England
Posts: 4,457
Much more sensible prices, BinoBoy.

I suspect that Canon realise the list prices mean that the traditional Canon IS binocular uses will not buy them, and they have not really attracted many new users.

It would not surprise me if there are more discounted prices for the 32mm Canon IS binoculars.

Canon are sharp business people.
The Canon lenses have lower prices than the Sony lenses for digital cameras. About 2/3 the Sony price.

Canon IS binoculars have been lower price than Nikon or Fujinon stabilised binoculars.
Binastro is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 30th December 2018, 13:14   #30
BinoBoy
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL
Posts: 477
Amazon has matched B&H's prices for the 10x and 12x. They lowered the price of the 12x by $100 overnight. They don't carry the 14x. I'm hoping the new prices become permanent. The 12x32s are now just $25 more than the 12x36 III.

I had a moment of weaken last night after posting. I ordered a pair of the 12x32s even though I already have the 12x36 II. My 12x36 have the dreaded melting armor problem and are pretty much unusable until I manage to clean them. I asked a guy on ebay who refurbs binoculars about it and he says that the consensus is to use 70% rubbing alcohol. So, I'm going to try that.

My 12x32s should be here Friday, so I'll be able to compare the two.
BinoBoy is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 1st January 2019, 23:07   #31
jimscarff
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Berkeley, CA, USA
Posts: 43
I ordered the 10x32 IS binos about two weeks ago when B&H offered them on a "Flash Sale" for $899. As noted above, B&H now is selling them for $699. I returned my 10x32 IS binos last week because they had a bad vertical collimation problem. I already have a pair of the 10x30 IS II binos, and could not see the 10x32 replacing the 10x30s. The 10x32 binos are 120g heavier which is quite noticeable and significantly bulkier which made them much hard to fit into a pocket. Plus the eyecaps are uncomfortable and horrible as many have noted.
jimscarff is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 3rd January 2019, 16:15   #32
Super Dave
Registered User
 
Super Dave's Avatar

 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Kaneohe, HI
Posts: 153
Thanks for the heads up Bino Boy. I just placed an order for the 14x32. I appreciate for the tip.
Dave
Super Dave is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 6th January 2019, 03:03   #33
BinoBoy
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL
Posts: 477
My 12x32s came late yesterday afternoon. I got in a half hour or so with them at dusk and quite a bit of time with them today. Overall, I love them. They are a big improvement over my elderly 12x36 II.

I wear glasses so the eyecups are not a problem. The small exit pupil is not an issue. I can't tell the difference between the 12x32 and 12x36 in that regard.

The IS works beautifully. There is no jerking when engaging or disengaging it. I haven't noticed any "artifacts". I even found a use for the Powered IS that land lubbers can take advantage of. If the wind is blowing hard enough to buffet your bins a bit, turning on the Powered IS will filter out the buffeting. I was't in gale force winds today, but it was blowing hard enough that it did affect the binoculars a bit.

I hate the IS buttons. They are too small and hard to find by feel. I thought I had come up with a solution while playing with them in my living room last night. Activating them with my little finger worked well. It takes very little force to press the button and my little finger is near the button. However, I tried it out in the field today and I had too much trouble finding the button with my little finger. I've settled on activating the IS and verifying that the LED has come on while raising them to my eyes. I tried the IS panning while following boats and flying birds and it works fine.

I don't like the battery compartment either. The cover is just a rubber plate that press fits onto the bottom of the bins. It doesn't latch in any way but it is tethered. I wonder how well it will hold up over extended use. It also prevents them from having a tripod socket.

I am a little puzzled about the exit pupil. You would never guess it is that small. There must be some advantage to making it small. Fujinon used to make their Stabileyes in 12x32 and 14x40. Their latest model is a 12x28. I actually had a chance to buy one of them at a good price on Amazon Warehouse Deals a couple of months ago but I couldn't convince myself that 12x28 bins could be any good. But, if Canon and Fuji are both going this route, it must work OK.

I went with the 12x32s in part because I was worried that the exit pupils on the 14x32s would just be too small. Now, I think it might not be a problem. At any rate, I was impressed enough with the 12x32s that I ordered the 14x32s. My plan is to compare them and then send one back.

They deliver a surprisingly good view. I highly recommend them. No one but Amazon has matched their prices. I'm beginning to think that the price isn't going to stay this low. It may just be a one time bulk buy. I'd say get one while the price is reasonable.

Last edited by BinoBoy : Sunday 6th January 2019 at 03:05. Reason: Corrected typos.
BinoBoy is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 6th January 2019, 06:50   #34
Canip
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Nordschweiz
Posts: 508
Quote:
Originally Posted by BinoBoy View Post
.....
.....
.....
.....
..... Fujinon used to make their Stabileyes in 12x32 and 14x40. Their latest model is a 12x28. I actually had a chance to buy one of them at a good price on Amazon Warehouse Deals a couple of months ago but I couldn't convince myself that 12x28 bins could be any good. But, if Canon and Fuji are both going this route, it must work OK.
....
....
Thank you for your review. I agree that despite the small exit pupils (which for my taste are too small for many lighting situations) the Canon deliver good optical performance and the IS works well.

I find the Canon optics and the IS clearly better than those of the new Fujinon, which I found disappointing
(see
https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/6...non/?p=8989417).

What speaks for the Fuji is its size, weight and shape of the body.

Canip
Canip is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 10th January 2019, 05:55   #35
Super Dave
Registered User
 
Super Dave's Avatar

 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Kaneohe, HI
Posts: 153
The new 14x32 arrived and I've spent a little time with it looking out over the bay. It's AWESOME and a big improvement over the 15X. I waited on buying one because I thought it would be hard to improve on the 15x50.

The size and weight difference is huge. I was surprised how small it is. It's something you could take on a hike and such without being too cumbersome.

The image stabilization is better and thus the image is better than with my 15X.

The button locations are a little less obvious...and there's two. But, either one works for stabilization and my finger always falls on one. I don't see that as an issue since I'll press it once and it's stabilized for 5 minutes.

It's a little less bright at dusk but it's minor.

For my optics money it was $900 well spent. Now after having one, I would pay the full price if I had too. It's a keeper.
Dave

Dave
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_2548.jpg
Views:	73
Size:	275.0 KB
ID:	684271  Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_2551.jpg
Views:	140
Size:	214.3 KB
ID:	684272  
Super Dave is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 10th January 2019, 15:29   #36
Peter Audrain
Consummate Indoorsman
 
Peter Audrain's Avatar

 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Hopewell, New Jersey
Posts: 147
I'd love to read a review by someone comparing back and forth between the new 12x and 14x models. All of this seems exciting, though. They sound pretty great, and prices are plunging.
Peter Audrain is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 11th January 2019, 01:00   #37
18000bph
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Audrain View Post
I'd love to read a review by someone comparing back and forth between the new 12x and 14x models. All of this seems exciting, though. They sound pretty great, and prices are plunging.
I was thinking the same thing. I like the idea of the 14x but am skeptical of CA control and the small exit pupil. I'm tempted to order a 12x and a 14x and return the loser.
18000bph is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 11th January 2019, 21:33   #38
18000bph
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 78
I attempted to order the 12x42 from B&H but was denied the opportunity to complete the automated online purchase due to the Shabbat. I'll see if I still have the same impulse in 25 hours!

Interestingly, the 12x is not eligible for free shipping while the 10x and 14x are. "Due to this item's characteristics, it is not eligible for free Shipping."

As tempting as the 14x is, I can't get over the thought of under 2.3mm exit pupils. I was experimenting with 10x25 Ultravids today and I just can't imagine any smaller working out ok.
18000bph is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 12th January 2019, 06:57   #39
Super Dave
Registered User
 
Super Dave's Avatar

 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Kaneohe, HI
Posts: 153
The 14 power is awesome regardless of the specs. I had to pay an additional shipping fee to Hawaii and taxes so in the end I think it was another $70. But, like I said, I'd pay full price after using them. Get both and keep whichever you like. I've had the Fujinon 14x40 and Canon 15x50 for many years...these are the best by far.
Dave
Super Dave is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 12th January 2019, 23:14   #40
18000bph
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 78
Lots of bad influences around here. I placed an order for the 14x. I'll post my thoughts as a first time IS user when they arrive.

Super Dave and BinoBoy's impressions pushed me toward the 14x. I was originally thinking 12x would be safer, but I am not looking for these to be a jack of all trades. They will mostly be used for long distance shoreline viewing in mid day lighting. Hopefully, the small exit pupil won't be an issue and the CA that some reviews complain about won't be a deal breaker since I won't be adjusting focus often.
18000bph is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 13th January 2019, 19:33   #41
BinoBoy
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL
Posts: 477
The more I use the 12x32s, the more impressed I am with them. I went birding in a local wetland shortly after sunrise on a cloudy day. The light was flat and grey and fairly dim. The 12x32s performed just fine. They obviously aren't the best low light bins around but they were not a problem.

I took them on an Audubon field trip. We saw a light colored blob on a powerline so far away that you couldn't identify it as a bird with the naked eye. Even at 12x, the bird was very small but I could clearly see enough detail to identify it as a Kestral. I was really impressed by how much detail I could see in such a tiny image. The IS makes a huge difference in situations like this.

I have the 14x32s now also. I looked at a distant sign with difference sizes of text on it that I use for setting diopters. I could see the smallest text more clearly with the 14x than with the 12x but the difference wasn't huge. I used the 14's for looking at boats, pelicans and osprey in flight both at high altitude and fairly low and waders pretty close up. They worked great for all of them.

I rationalized buying the 14x32 with the idea that I would compare them to the 12x32 and return one. I have definitely decide to keep the 12x32. The question now is whether to return the 14x32 or keep them both. The bird on the powerline has convinced me that the 12's are adequate for the tasks that I wanted them for. I just need to decide if the 14's are enough different to justify the expense of having both. I am leaving in the morning on a two day birding trip and I'll be taking both. Hopefully, I'll have enough opportunities to make a decision.

I see the 12x32 as the best solution if you want to take just one binocular on an outing when you expect most birds to be at a distance. The 14x32 would be good for a two bin solution where you are going to wear an 8x or 10x around your neck and carry the 14x in a shoulder or waist bag as a spotting scope substitute. You could, of course, do that with the 12x32 as well.

I originally decided on the 12x32 because I was hoping that Canon would come out with another series that has 50 or 56mm objectives. The three bins in the current series are physically identical except for the optics. I assume that they did this to minimize the cost of designing and manufacturing them. It would be great if they did the same with 50/56mm bins with 12x, 15x and 20x. If so, I'd like to have the 12x32 and either 15x50/56 or 20x50/56 with the AFOV of the current 15x50. There is no telling if they will do this though. So maybe I should keep the 14x32. I can always sell something else. Or maybe just eat one meal a day for a few months.
BinoBoy is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 14th January 2019, 01:18   #42
Peter Audrain
Consummate Indoorsman
 
Peter Audrain's Avatar

 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Hopewell, New Jersey
Posts: 147
So glad to hear from someone who is trying out both the 12- and 14-power Canons!

What are your thoughts about ease of view with the 12x32's vs. the 14x32's? I think many armchair Canon IS fanciers would like as much power as they think they can get away with, and it sounds as if the IS has no hiccups at 14-power. But is the overall ease of 'getting into the view' (something I associate mainly with exit pupil size, as well as apparent field of view) meaningfully different between the two flavors?
Peter Audrain is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 15th January 2019, 23:43   #43
18000bph
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 78
Prices have dropped even more for the 10x and 12x.

10x: $650
12x: $700 (plus shipping)
14x: $850
18000bph is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 17th January 2019, 00:09   #44
BinoBoy
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL
Posts: 477
I just got back from two days birding with the 12x32 and 14x32. Overall, I'd say that they isn't really much noticeable difference between the two except the magnification. Don't hesitate to go for the 14x if the extra magnification appeals to you.

This trip changed my view of these two bins. I started out thinking that I would use them mainly when I needed high power for long range birds. Now I think they should be my primary bins. They do a great job with distant birds but they also give spectacular views of close in birds too. I'm really surprised at how good the optical quality is. Some of this may be the novelty of getting such close up views of warblers and other small birds. If you did a side by side comparison with an alpha 8x, I'm sure the alphas would win. Still, the IS adds a unique look to the image. You can see so much detail with a rock steady view.

Their only real shortcoming is that if you are looking at a small bird that is flitting around, you may have a hard time tracking it.

Some early reviewers noticed CA that appears just before the image is in focus. I had not noticed this in all the times I've used them. This didn't surprise me because I've always been blissfully oblivious to CA. I've never noticed it in any binocular. But, yesterday afternoon, I did see it in the 12x. I was focusing on a flock of Black-bellied Whistling-Ducks on the horizon with white sky behind them. The CA appeared as a green halo around each duck. This really doesn't bother me since it happened when they were out of focus and just for a split second. I haven't seen it with either one in any other situation.

I think Canon is doing a terrible job of promoting these bins. Most people who know anything about binoculars at all would be skeptical about binoculars with such small exit pupils. They need to get the word out about the big improvements in the IS functionality and reliability and about the great image quality.

I would strongly recommend getting a pair while they are on sale. I'm still up in the air about whether the 12x or 14x are best. We were birding in wetlands and in the woods around the wetlands. The 14x are probably the best in wetlands. The 12x might have the edge in the woods because you have a better chance of tracking small active birds. I'm keeping both. I'm not sure if I have a rational reason for keeping both at this point but I haven't used them in very many different situations yet. If I decide that I don't need both, I can always sell one later.

Last edited by BinoBoy : Thursday 17th January 2019 at 00:15.
BinoBoy is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 17th January 2019, 01:29   #45
18000bph
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 78
I just got my 14x tonight. So far, I've only used them in the dark. I'm hoping to get a chance to use them in daylight tomorrow.

This was my first dealing with B&H and I am a little disappointed in the service. They sent me an open box. I don't really care much about the open box, but very little care was put into repackaging. The box was beat up, contents disheveled, miscellaneous torn packaging fragments throughout the box, and the batteries were opened and installed during shipping (thankfully didn't leak). Worst of all, the eye cups and objectives are badly smudged. I'm going to have to address that before testing them tomorrow.

Anyways... early thoughts on the binoculars:

The eye cups are as bad as everyone says--they must be folded back. That's not too much of an issue for me as I usually have to have the eye cups close to all the way in anyway.

The 2.3mm EP isn't an issue at all. It's strange how the EP really doesn't feel much smaller than a 8x32 in the dark.

This is my first experience with IS and it's a game changer. The IS 14x is noticeably steadier than I could hold the 8x used for comparison. The Normal IS is good enough to get the job done on a stationary target and the Powered IS is even better. These are going to get some use as long as everything else checks out.

Image quality seems very pleasing but I'll have to wait for daylight to make a judgement. I was able to get some impressively immersive views of a 3/4 moon. Views are surprisingly bright enough for dimly lit nighttime subjects. There is some strong CA as expected, but it's tolerable. Perfect IDP, pupil alignment, and focus makes it go away. Unfortunately, perfect pupil alignment is challenging due to the horrid eye cups.

I found them to be feel well balanced and lightweight. The shape of the housing fits my hands well and despite other reviews I thought the position of the buttons was intuitive even for a first time user.

The armor, battery cover, strap lugs, branding, etc all look like they belong on a $120 Celestron product. The eye cups and diopter adjuster look like they belong on a $35 Celestron product. The focus wheel also looks super cheap, but has a great feel--smooth with just enough feedback.

Thank you to the bad actors that pushed me toward the 14x... definitely the way to go with these IMO. For those on the fence about the small EP (like I was): you have nothing to fear.
18000bph is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 21st January 2019, 17:40   #46
henry link
Registered User

 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: north carolina
Posts: 4,385
The current low B&H price on the 10x32 IS finally got the best of me. I’ve been evaluating a pair for a few days now and plan to start a new review thread with resolution measurements, star tests etc. sometime in the next week. For now I have a few early impressions.

The doublet field flattener provides corrections of field curvature and off-axis astigmatism that are truly state of the art, in the same class with the Swarovski EL SV, but combined with a nicely chosen amount of straightforward pincushion distortion that should eliminate any globe effect when panning.

On the down side, chromatic aberrations, both longitudinal and latitudinal, are very high. Lateral color is the worst I’ve seen in any binocular.

I was able to adapt my Zeiss Tripler to the (horrible) eyecup to make a surprisingly stable 30x IS telescope, good enough for me to actually see, hand held, the resolution limit of the 32mm objective lens on the USAF 1951 resolution target. That's about twice as good as I can do hand holding the binocular at 10x.

More to come.

Henry

Last edited by henry link : Monday 21st January 2019 at 18:17.
henry link is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 21st January 2019, 19:55   #47
james holdsworth
Consulting Biologist
 
james holdsworth's Avatar

 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: ontario
Posts: 3,282
really looking forward to that!
__________________
''serenity now....insanity later.'' - Lloyd Brawn
james holdsworth is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 21st January 2019, 20:53   #48
Canip
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Nordschweiz
Posts: 508
Quote:
Originally Posted by henry link View Post
.....
.....
.....
On the down side, chromatic aberrations, both longitudinal and latitudinal, are very high. Lateral color is the worst Ive seen in any binocular.
.....
.....
Henry,

Looking forward to your review after further testing.

Your initial experience is interesting. I had also seen a bit of chromatic aberration in the 10x32, even on axis, but never worst Ive seen...

https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/5...nos/?p=8197476

Canip
Canip is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 21st January 2019, 22:06   #49
Binastro
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: S.England
Posts: 4,457
Henry,
Interesting indeed.

Would a 25x50 or 30x56 Canon IS binocular be possible?
I think it would, but might cost too much to make, align etc.

Have you looked through a Canon 10x42 IS?
Binastro is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 21st January 2019, 23:31   #50
Super Dave
Registered User
 
Super Dave's Avatar

 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Kaneohe, HI
Posts: 153
Last night I handed my wife the 14x32's to look at the eclipse. She held it to her eyes with one hand for a while not even thinking about the weight. That never would have happened with he 15x50. She like them a lot.

Bravo Canon!
Super Dave 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 0.25874805 seconds with 38 queries
All times are GMT. The time now is 13:44.