Super Dave
Well-known member
How is the image quality of the 8x25? I totally missed this one.
-
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.
New Canon 8x20 and 10x20 IS Binoculars (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter dipped
- Start date
Hi Dave,
I have had three Canon 8x25 IS.
One is a lemon, which I should have returned but didn't.
The other two were good and went to family members.
The front optical windows fell out on both these but were replaced by Canon. One had a complete service.
The glue for the optical window has very little to grasp on the thin front cell.
Optically they are good but not outstanding.
However, when the IS button is pressed they outresolve any non IS competitor.
The batteries may be hard to find abroad and expensive, so keep spares.
There was a complete change in the IS from variprisms to moving lens. But both IS worked well.
I think that the 8x25IS is the lower tier of the Canon quality wise but it still can provide outstanding views.
They have been retired from cricket duties to be replaced by the Nikon EX 10x25, which is reported to have been very good at Leeds last week on its first outing.
No reason for the change. Just decided to have a change.
So the Canon 8x25 IS is good, but check that you get a good one and don't lose an optical window if it falls out.
Regards,
B.
I have had three Canon 8x25 IS.
One is a lemon, which I should have returned but didn't.
The other two were good and went to family members.
The front optical windows fell out on both these but were replaced by Canon. One had a complete service.
The glue for the optical window has very little to grasp on the thin front cell.
Optically they are good but not outstanding.
However, when the IS button is pressed they outresolve any non IS competitor.
The batteries may be hard to find abroad and expensive, so keep spares.
There was a complete change in the IS from variprisms to moving lens. But both IS worked well.
I think that the 8x25IS is the lower tier of the Canon quality wise but it still can provide outstanding views.
They have been retired from cricket duties to be replaced by the Nikon EX 10x25, which is reported to have been very good at Leeds last week on its first outing.
No reason for the change. Just decided to have a change.
So the Canon 8x25 IS is good, but check that you get a good one and don't lose an optical window if it falls out.
Regards,
B.
You're asking a lot.
Henry posted a cutaway of the glass some time ago and what impressed me was how tightly packed everything was. The oculars are big because the lenses are big.
Could smaller lenses work? Maybe Henry or Binastro or Surveyor could explain the tradeoff, I cannot, but suspect the Canon guys did the best they could.
I honestly don't see how they could also widen the FoV, at 6.5* it is pretty decent, not even the Zeiss SF does better.
Agree the objective covers provided are worthless. I used the threaded fittings to attach 52mm lens hoods, they protect and shield, for under $10 each.
https://www.amazon.com/Fotasy-Nikko...2mm+lens+hood&qid=1569105976&s=gateway&sr=8-5
Agree with you 100% on the idea of smaller batteries, better button placement and a more sensible case. Also would love a lower weight, but don't care about the appearance. Form follows function for Canon and that is as it should be.
That trick would work for the 32mm since it has the two different IS modes and buttons, but these new 20mm models look to only have one button. I don't see it as a big deal since it's not like the image goes dark, it just starts to shake a little. Besides, the shakes probably wouldn't be too dramatic on a small 8x or 10x.
Super Dave
Well-known member
Thank you for the excellent review Binastro. Were they made in Japan or China. Thanks
Last edited:
Hi Dave,
The only 8x25 IS I have here is the 'lemon', but I'll see again what the problem was.
On a quick look it seems reasonable.
It is made in Japan.
The serial number gives the date.
479000xx.
I can't be bothered to look it up, but a few years ago?
The 10x30 Mk2.
Serial number.
37100xxx.
At least both batteries still work.
Regards,
B.
The only 8x25 IS I have here is the 'lemon', but I'll see again what the problem was.
On a quick look it seems reasonable.
It is made in Japan.
The serial number gives the date.
479000xx.
I can't be bothered to look it up, but a few years ago?
The 10x30 Mk2.
Serial number.
37100xxx.
At least both batteries still work.
Regards,
B.
I tried to test the 8x25 IS, but it is completely cloudy and I have no test objects.
It is also night time.
I do notice some drifting of the stabilizer. Maybe this was the problem.
I need to test it properly during the day and on the Moon.
I do notice that the binocular has very good resistance to flare/glare from the street light.
Not the best but very good.
So maybe the stabilizer has settled down.
Also I need to star test etc.
B.
It is also night time.
I do notice some drifting of the stabilizer. Maybe this was the problem.
I need to test it properly during the day and on the Moon.
I do notice that the binocular has very good resistance to flare/glare from the street light.
Not the best but very good.
So maybe the stabilizer has settled down.
Also I need to star test etc.
B.
O.K.
7/8 cloud now.
The Canon 8x25 IS is optically fine looking at brightish and faint stars.
The problem is the stabilizer is a bit tiring to use.
Initially there is a big jump in the image.
It settles down after a few seconds, but is not as good as on the other two 8x25s.
It may be better than when I first tested it as it has been horizontal the whole time.
The 10x30 IS Mk2 clearly gives a brighter image than the 8x25 IS at night.
There is a quick initial movement with the 10x30 IS Mk2, but it quickly becomes tripod steady.
I only had a distant aircraft lights, but it followed the aircraft rock steady. Stars had vanished by this time behind cloud.
B.
7/8 cloud now.
The Canon 8x25 IS is optically fine looking at brightish and faint stars.
The problem is the stabilizer is a bit tiring to use.
Initially there is a big jump in the image.
It settles down after a few seconds, but is not as good as on the other two 8x25s.
It may be better than when I first tested it as it has been horizontal the whole time.
The 10x30 IS Mk2 clearly gives a brighter image than the 8x25 IS at night.
There is a quick initial movement with the 10x30 IS Mk2, but it quickly becomes tripod steady.
I only had a distant aircraft lights, but it followed the aircraft rock steady. Stars had vanished by this time behind cloud.
B.
