Canon Image Stabilized (IS) Binoculars (1 Viewer)

Please excuse me if I'm asking something that has been discussed before...you see I'm rather puzzeled as I've gone through the archives and can't seem to find an answer to my question. I used to shoot birds, casually I admit, but it was something I really enjoyed. I quite about the time I graduated to 8 pound lenses and 8 pound tripods...hated that! I now shoot people using Canons Image Stabilized lenses...usually a 300 f4L IS. OK finally here comes the question (thank goodness you say)...having become a rather rabid convert of IS I was about to purchase a set of Canon 15x50 IS Binoculars as a gift for a friend. She is a HARDCORE birder who is disabled to the point that she can not carry a scope/tripod. I thought I could get some opinions on the IS binoculars from this sites users...but is not to be! Does no one use them? If thats the case is it because they are no good? Thanks for your help...jim

Hi Jim, and welcolme to BF. I did mention my Canon binoculars some time ago, when someone asked a general question about binoculars.

I have a pair of Canon 15 x 45 IS 4.5º UD, which doesn't mean a lot to me! I use them mainly for looking at the birds in my garden - sounds a bit daft to spend all that money just for garden birds, but an old uncle had sent me a surprise cheque, suggesting I should treat myself to something special - so I did! I agonised for ages between the 12 X and the 15 X, standing in the street in Guildford. After going away to do some shopping and thinking (yes - I can actually do these at the same time), I finally went for the 15 X. I do find them rather heavy - I've just had them on my kitchen scales, which are accurate enough for working out the postage due on packages. They weigh 1.11kg, ( 2lb 7½oz). I STILL wonder if I should have gone for the smaller ones - but I am certainly very impressed with mine.

Hope this helps - PM me if you want to ask anything else.

I used to shoot birds, casually I admit

Click to expand...

Hi P645n (Jim) and welcome to the Bird Forums, with a talent like that perhaps you could work for the RSPB

Seriously though, I did see reports somewhere on the forum (might like to do a search) that one user couldn't see yellow markings very well with the Canon's until he picked up his other bins then the markings really stood out. Just thought you would like to check this out if you want to go the Canon route.
What are yours like Elizabeth? can you compare with any other bins?

Dave G said:

Hi P645n (Jim) and welcome to the Bird Forums, with a talent like that perhaps you could work for the RSPB

Seriously though, I did see reports somewhere on the forum (might like to do a search) that one user couldn't see yellow markings very well with the Canon's until he picked up his other bins then the markings really stood out. Just thought you would like to check this out if you want to go the Canon route.
What are yours like Elizabeth? can you compare with any other bins?

Click to expand...

I'm a very amateurish sort of birdwatcher, and certainly have not noticed anything. We have 3 other pairs so I'll start having a look around with them. We're hoping to join the Pagham "do" a week tomorrow, so I'll give my eyes a good workout then.

Hello Jim,

As it's your first post, on behalf of Admin and the rest of the Moderators I'd like to welcome you to Bird Forum :t:

I can't help on the advice myself as I have never used IS binoculars, though some people swear by them. I hope that the membership can be of assistance to you. My first thoughts are from what Elizabeth says they may be a it on the heavy side. I know for my day to day birding when wandering several miles, I much prefer my 8x30's for the lighter weight as opposed to carrying a more powerful model.

See you around.

Welcome to Birdforum.net Jim,

I have used the Canon I.S. binos (15x50 IS) and was disappointed by their optical performance against binos costing a similar amount... I do know the I.S. system is important to some people and it's obvious that a large part of the cost is taken up with this feature incorperated.

I must admit that I felt a little bit seasick when using them, felt as if you were on a boat with a gentle swell underneath. The shape/weight of them was also off-putting to me after a while.

Each to their own, and like anything in this price range....try as hard as you can to test & compare with other binos before parting with your cash.

Jim - as Andy says, the IS is important to some people, and it certainly is to me. I'm just about OK with 8 X, but I wouldn't like to try anything more without something to rest them against. I certainly haven't felt seasick, but that's one of the problems I don't have, and I've already mentioned my uncertainties about the weight. Do let us know what you finally get.

It has to be said that I was using the 15x Canons, so it's not really fair to complain about the weight and to some extent, the optical quality as I have had little to compare it with at those magnifications.

Canon IS

I have 10x30 Canon IS and find them excellent in windy conditions and for flying birds. In those particular circumstances I find they out-perform my Swaro 8.5x EL's. In calm conditions the Swaro has a large lead in terms of definition and sharpness. The Canons weigh only 600g, They are porroprisms and not waterproof. They consume normal batteries quite quickly. I now use Ni-MH rechargeable batteries which cuts costs and they last longer than throw away batteries.

I would like to thank all for both their warm welcome and the information they've been kind enough to provide...Some comments on your posts: I never imagined there would be an weight issue but I can see (that true to nature) I was looking at forest, not trees...I guess that extra pound of weight is a major consideration. The seasickness post is puzzling as I'm a rabid IS camera lens user who found himself bouncing around on a salmon trawler off the west coast of Canada this summer. IS lenses were made for those conditions! And the optics blocking parts of the color spectrum is very disturbing...I'm still trying to figure out how that works as physics ain't my strong suit. (I’m guessing this must be due to the introduction of a contrasting color/hue--maybe violet--although that would then effect all colors...excuse me I'm thinking out loud here…).Anyhow, once again thanks to all, please keep your suggestions coming...and since suggestions are being requested; could anyone recommend a premium 8 or 10 power birding binoc for my friend. She presently uses an old pair of Leitz but she tends to hang out in the rain for hours as she studies little birds...she hasn't been affected by this behavior but her binoc's are fogged right up.

p645n said:

The seasickness post is puzzling as I'm a rabid IS camera lens user who found himself bouncing around on a salmon trawler off the west coast of Canada this summer. IS lenses were made for those conditions!

Click to expand...

I have heard of a couple of other people having had this problem, others seem fine. Maybe there is a difference between having both eyes viewing through the stabilised binos as against just one looking into an slr's viewfinder.

In fairness, the effect when using the I.S. binos was mild... just an odd experience.

No doubt you'll get a few suggestions on the binoculars so I thought I'd get in first. I have the Leica 8x32BA's or BN's as they are now. They are a nice weight to carry around, nicely fit in the hands and of course have top quality optics.

One thing though, there are so many differing designs in binoculars nowadays that choosing the style to suit the user is very much a personal thing. Whilst the Swarovski EL's are loved by many, personally I do not like the shape. IMHO there are half a dozen top brands with comparable optics and it's more down to personal taste when choosing between them. Having said that if I was given a pair of EL's as a gift, I doubt I'd turn them down - I just wouldn't buy them myself

Jim,

I second Ian's welcome. I have used the 8X when I was on a boat, have never used on land. I would agree with what Andy said. They are great for certain conditions. If I regularly went on pelagic trips, then I would want them. However, for a regular use bino, they are too expensive and the optical quality is good, but not as good as others similarly priced IMHO. Another thing to consider, and I do not know if this is true for all the Canon IS binos, but it was for the one I used, is will her disability prevent her from holding down the IS button? It can become tiring rather quickly if the person has hand problems.

I have also used IS lenses on Canon cameras and found them to be excellent (from the first 70-300, to my present 28-135 and 100-400 zooms).

So I was also interested in Canon's IS binoculars. Up to now I've been using Opticron BGA 7 x 36s as being a reasonable hand-held magnification, supplemented by an Opticron HR66 scope with a 28x HDF eyepiece (which is impossible to use handheld of course).

But when I saw the new Canon 12x36 IS II bins I decided to buy them as a replacement for the Opticron bins (which my wife kept borrowing anyway). They've now arrived and seem excellent. As would be expected, the image is not quite as bright as my 7 x 36s but the colours seem just as accurate. The image also seems just as good when the Image Stabilizer is working as when it isn't (apart from the "shake" if handheld). (Some reviewers of the early models felt they image was degraded when the lenses were in their resting state, but I can see no evidence of this with mine.) The only problem seems to be a closest focus of 6 metres while the Opticrons can focus down to 2 metres!

Wonder what the battery life will be like? But the image stabilisation is terrific and allows easy handholding at 12x magnification. (I've also bought a 18x to 54x zoom eyepiece for the scope now - an expensive month!)

CJJE

We have a pair of the now discontinued 15x45s here. They are definitely on the heavy side, but the IS works very well, and they are great for pulling in warblers up in the treetops. Warblers that can not be identified in my 7x42s generally can be in the 15x45s. (If folks are ever considering a used pair of the 15x42s, keep in mind that the minimum interpupillary distance is a bit large for some folks.)

We bought my father-in-law a pair of the 10x30s, so I've gotten to use these, and I think they are very nice. For me, 10 power is too much magnification to hand hold, and the IS feature is wonderful on 10x30s. These can also be purchased for a quite reasonable price, and, for the money, I think they are excellent.

Personally, I think I'd like the 12x36 IS, with a little extra magnification and a reasonable weight. They do cost quite a bit more than the 10x30s, unfortunately.

Clear skies, Alan

I have been using the 15x50 for over three years now. The Canon IS unfortunately is not a binocular which can be summed up quickly. First of all, the IS mechanism is such that unless the binocular was more or less perfectly collimated, there will be significant unsharpness and chromatic aberration either with the stabilizer off, with it on, or both. Production tolerances do not seem to be tight enough in this respect, so you'll see some people calling them soft, others calling them sharp as anything, and whatever you want in between. They all tell the truth, I believe. Also, with the stabilization engaged, the image quality varies according to how still you hold them (less movement and shake - better resolution). In addition, at least the 15-18x models are very critical for correct interpupillary distance setting and diopter adjustment. They are also not as bright as Swaro, Zeiss or Leica premiums. Having said all this, no conventional birding binocular, irrespective of price, shows you nearly as much detail hand held or even tripod mounted, and the difference is not subtle. I own a pair of superb Nikon SE 10x42's, which has mostly gathered dust since I bought the Canons. Hand held, the Canons show one-and-a-half times smaller details than the Nikon does tripod mounted, and if the Nikon is hand held also, the difference is about 1.7 fold. They also show more in low light, all the way down to near darkness, than do traditional binoculars. This is both because higher magnification in fact helps more than a large exit pupil, and because the image stabilization helps so much when your eyes are struggling to subtle differences in shades of dark grey. The big Canons are heavy, but the 12x36 and smaller are pretty standard size for bins. With the exception of the new 8x25 IS, they work very well with NiMh recharceables, and with one fully charged extra pair in my pocket I have never run out of steam during a day of birding. If Canon were to design a model specifically for birders, 10 or 12x42-50, fully waterproof and with decent, twistable eyecups, they would create some real following. The key would be to have a binocular which would be nearly the equal of other top birding models when used without the IS, and for this they would need the lower magnification/wider exit pupil a 10x42 would give.

A very interesting post. I wonder if IS might also be useful in spotting scopes, not so much to make them hand holdable, but to allow the use of lighter tripods and to eliminate wind vibration. Perhaps the IS unit could be designed so that it's prism (like the Barlow lens in a Questar) could be switched out of the optical path completely when not needed, for uncompronised image quality.

kabsetz said:

I have been using the 15x50 for over three years now. [snip] They are also not as bright as Swaro, Zeiss or Leica premiums. Having said all this, no conventional birding binocular, irrespective of price, shows you nearly as much detail hand held or even tripod mounted, and the difference is not subtle. I own a pair of superb Nikon SE 10x42's, which has mostly gathered dust since I bought the Canons. Hand held, the Canons show one-and-a-half times smaller details than the Nikon does tripod mounted, and if the Nikon is hand held also, the difference is about 1.7 fold. They also show more in low light, all the way down to near darkness, than do traditional binoculars.

Click to expand...

This is interesting. I tried two different 12x36's when they came out, and I didn't like them much. My main complaint was that the stabilizer seemed to lose its lockfor a spilt second every five seconds or so, with the result that the image went fuzzy. A friend of mine who also tried them didn't notice the effect at all, I found it extremely distracting. Maybe that was a problem only the early models had.

What I'm interested in is how well the Canon IS stand up to rough use in the field and how reliable they are. What's your experience?

And how good are the optice compared to modern binoculars without a stabilizer? Alright, having used a friends pair of Zeiss 20x60S for some time in the field I know how much more one can see with a pair of stabilized binoculars, but birding isn't (at least not to me, anyway) only about seeing as much detail as possible. It's also about aethestics, and the better the optics of binoculars are, the better the birds actually "look".

Hermann

henry link said:

A very interesting post. I wonder if IS might also be useful in spotting scopes, not so much to make them hand holdable, but to allow the use of lighter tripods and to eliminate wind vibration. Perhaps the IS unit could be designed so that it's prism (like the Barlow lens in a Questar) could be switched out of the optical path completely when not needed, for uncompronised image quality.

Click to expand...

The Nikon equivalent of IS is the recently introduced VR and they now have 3 or more VR lenses. However VR should not be activated when the lens is tripod mounted otherwise the result is a soft image. Early Canon IS lenses were the same. However, I heard it said that later versions of Canon's IS allowed the lens to be tripod mounted with IS turned on, and that this could compensate for a flimsy tripod and/or flimsy ground e.g. when shooting from a board walk in a nature reserve.

Presumably Canon's IS binoculars do not allow tripod mounting? (What would be the point?)

Interestingly Zeiss also have a 20x60 image stabilised binocular that IIRC does not require batteries.

I have 10x30 IS. I bought them because I could not use 10's, not being steady enough, either due to my age, or maybe alcohol related reasons B

Actually, I am virtually teetotal apart from the daily glass or two of red.

I find IS to be superb in very windy conditions, when conventional bins are virtually unusable and for flying birds e.g. raptors.

I have never experienced the effect described by Hermann.

Clive