• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Canon's new 14x32 IS (1 Viewer)

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.
 
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?
 
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:
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.
 
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:
.....
.....
.....
On the down side, chromatic aberrations, both longitudinal and latitudinal, are very high. Lateral color is the worst I’ve 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 I‘ve seen...“

https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/586499-canon-launch-3-new-is-binos/?p=8197476

Canip
 
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?
 
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!
 
Great thread, and Dave thanks for the pics, as always it gives a great perspective on the comparison of size, and of course great views.

Andy W.
 
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.

That's great. Really looking forward to your review!

Hermann
 
Henry,
Is the CA that you see more about the component introduced by the stabiliser rather than the centred binocular component itself?
I have not tried the new 32mm models but the CA varies a lot with the stabilser position in the ones that I have.
 
Hi Binastro,

I don't know whether I can determine for sure why there is so much CA, but if you examine the two diagrams below (new 32mm models vs 10x42 LS) you can see several suspects.

First there is the conspicuous absence of any mention of extra-low dispersion glass in the new designs compared to two UD elements in the diagram of the 10x42 LS. Then there is the very complex new objective design with many singlets and (if the diagram is accurate) some very wide air spaces, and finally there is the IS element constantly moving out of alignment with the optical axis of the other lenses.

I think there is a bit more lateral color when the IS is engaged, but there is still plenty when it's off. I'll try to figure out more as I go along. No, I haven't looked through a 10x42 LS.

Henry
 

Attachments

  • lens-shift_2_.jpg
    lens-shift_2_.jpg
    13.3 KB · Views: 75
  • DSC_0238.JPG
    DSC_0238.JPG
    57.1 KB · Views: 63
Last edited:
Hi Henry,
When I looked in the front of the newer type 8x25 IS (2014?), which also has a moving lens element rather than the variprism, I could see the lens rapidly moving.
But I think this moving element is near the front.

I don't know if you can see the moving element in the 10x32 IS looking into the front.

What was fascinating in perhaps the late 8x25 IS or possibly the 10x30 Mk 2, I can't remember which one, is that the image formed at the back of the binocular, looking through the front was almost totally stable when I rapidly moved the binocular.
I can't remember the frequency of the lens element shift type, perhaps around 10Hz?

The Fujinon 14x40 Stabilize? has a lovely clean image, but the stabiliser is very troubling to me giving the jitters and uncomfortable for viewing. Small AFOV.

The Zeiss 20x60S gives the best images, but is a beast. Not user friendly and very curved field, but superb central resolution.
 
Yes, I can see the IS lens rapidly moving when looking through the objective end of the 10x32, but it's not very close to the front. The entire six element objective, including the IS element, appears to move back and forth as a unit for focusing.
 
Last edited:
Hi Canip,

I'll do my best to represent the CA accurately. Imaging it as it appears on my CA target is presenting some new challenges because the lateral color is at its worst when the binocular is being handheld with the IS engaged. I haven't figured out a way to handhold the binocular and photograph through it simultaneously. Besides there is a dynamic component that will be lost in any still photo. As the target lazily swims around with the IS engaged the most vivid lateral color shifts position in response. A phone-scoped video would be best, except the image through my phone camera is way too small to show CA at all.

Using my target in sunlight I've been doing some subjective visual comparisons of CA between the Canon with the IS engaged and a tripod mounted Nikon 10x35 E II, which is optically the closest conventional binocular I have to the Canon. I would estimate the lateral color fringes at 5º off-axis to be perhaps 3-4 times wider and much more vivid through the Canon. Oddly enough the width and intensity of the color fringes in the Canon peak at around 20º off-axis and actually improve over the last 5 or so degrees (perhaps related to vignetting of the exit pupil near the field edge).

Why haven't other reviews reported this? My guess at the moment is that nobody has evaluated it systematically under controlled repeatable conditions specifically designed to show CA. I don't see it either under many lower contrast field conditions. I'm pretty certain we would all see basically the same thing if we all viewed the same target under the same lighting conditions.

Henry
 
Last edited:
I've often wondered about conflicting CA reports. Yes, I'm aware of how individual this is, but is there an aspect of binocular construction [or mis-construction / poor QA] that could cause higher than typical [for that model] CA?

Internal alignment etc?
 
Warning! This thread is more than 4 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top