Canon 12x36 III vs 10x42 L IS Review (1 Viewer)

I had a chance to compare these for 3 days under various conditions and these are my somewhat subjective findings given the 12x36 III are half the price. Both were made this year and new in box when tested.

Build quality: the 12x feel somewhat lightweight at just over 600g. The 10x24 L are hefty at almost twice that. The 10x42 are waterproof to JIS level 7 which means they can be submerged. Looking at the skimpy seal on the battery door of the 12x36 take care, I would call them shower proof.

Glass quality: Canon make no claims for ultra low dispersion types on the 12x and this is clearly true. They suffer from on-axis CA which was a surprise given good porros are generally free of it in the central field. I'm prone to CA but usually can reduce it with careful eye placement but with these no, possibly due to the small 3mm exit pupil.
The 10x42 L have one ULD objective element and one ULD element of the field flattener doublet. This works really well, I can see no CA at all in the central field and a small amount off-axis.
Both binoculars have decent ridged baffle tubes and very good multi-coatings. You can peer into the binoculars with a torch without undue glare.

Design: Win for the the 10x42. It accepts 52mm front filters and pinch lens caps and the objectives are protected with a front optical flats. The 12x doesn't even come with front lens covers !
Both focus wheels operate smoothly with no play but the 12x is to small if you wear gloves.
The IS button needs to be constantly pressed down on the 12x. With the 10x you can tap it quickly for constant on 5 mins.
A minor point, the 10x are black rubber the 12x a sort of nondescript grey...
The 12x can easily be used and focused one handed.

Resolution: I've got some targets in my garden stretching out to infinity. On a tripod with IS off both outperform the Nikon Monarch 7 8x42 and 8x32. About 4.4-4.7 arc seconds.

Edge performance: slightly disappointing in the 12x. CA increases and spherical aberrations and astignatism start to creep in at the outer edges. This throws the edge focus out. With the 10x it's crisp right to the edges. Both have field flatteners to correct field curvature. With the 10x the flat plane of focus is for all intents are purposes perfect. Focus on the edge and the centre is sharp too.
I used to have a Nikon 7x50 SP (called Prostar in the US) and the Canon 10x is better.

Rectilinear Distortion: classic pincushion more noticeable in the 10x. Telegraph poles at the edge of frame bow in. A design choice to avoid rolling ball/globe effect and aid static target recognition. Pre-WWII binoculars and classic designs like the Nikon 18x70 with no pincushion become very busy when you pan blurring finer details.

Eyecups: Simple soft rubber on the 12x. Narrow so good for deep eye sockets, you can really push them close into the eyes. (I don't wear glasses and have an IPD of 60mm.) Good for narrow IPD. No lock on the dioptre which moves with the eyecup, it will need to be taped up.
Click stops on the 10x eyecups but for me only slight extension was workable due to vignetting. Someone with an IPD bellow 60mm could struggle with the large diameter cups and limited nose space. Dioptre locks but again not particularly secure. For a company that has a stellar reputation for ergonomics it's baffling Canon are behind other makes when it comes to extending eyecups.

IS. Win for the 10x. Takes perhaps 1/2 a second to reach critical focus. The 12x also uses VAP but perhaps because it has less light to work with is noticeably slower at perhaps a second in the worse case. No click sound on the 12x, it's completely silent like magic...
Battery life much longer on the 12x

Colour: noticeably more saturation, sparkle and contrast in the 10x.
At this time of year deer come into my garden at dusk to eat the fallen apples. The 12x are not good twilight binoculars. My 2015 Leica 10x42 ,despite not being the brightest, are much better. The 10x seem to have the edge on the Leica optically everywhere apart from colour fidelity and veiling glare. The Canon 10x are touch to yellow for my taste the 12x a bit cooler.

Evolution: The early 10x42 had an undersize field stop. Canon also better shielded the circuit boards later with black covers. I didn't see an artefacts or jitter with the 10x. Perhaps just a hint of jitter on the 12x due to lighter construction. The electronics have definitely improved on these but not perfect.

Conclusion: With the 12x I was left with the feeling of a £300 binocular with a bit of a claustrophobic FOV with the addition of field flatteners and useful IS. With the 10x binoculars a nicely expansive 6.5 degree FOV, close to alpha optics with IS thrown in for free...

Size comparison vintage Canon 8x30, Trinovid 10x42 and Canon 12x36 Mk.III
The Leica weigh 200g more than the Canons

Thanks for the review, maico.

You have a large garden.

The black covers for the circuit boards, what do they do? Protect from moisture or are they in the light train or possible flare sources?

Binastro said:

Thanks for the review, maico.

You have a large garden.

The black covers for the circuit boards, what do they do? Protect from moisture or are they in the light train or possible flare sources?

Click to expand...

I read some early posts on the 10x42 that said the edges of the circuit boards were visibly frayed. On the current models the boards are covered up. In general, the interior is tidy with no bright bits exposed and that includes the metal rails that are dulled.

Hi Maico,

Nice review. How do you determine the manufacture date from the serial number for the 12x36 III's ?

Doug......

By any chance did you compare resolution of the two Canons with the IS activated? I have the gen2 12x36 and love them, but have always wanted to try the 10x42L. I do most of my hiking above 10k' so I am very weight conscious. But I generally carry a pair of 6x25 Bushnell elites and my Canon's, so the 10x42's would be replacing two pair.

doug el10x32 said:

Hi Maico,

Nice review. How do you determine the manufacture date from the serial number for the 12x36 III's ?

Doug......

Click to expand...

Canon lens date codes also work for binoculars. So in my photo the first 2 digits are 57 which is September 2017 and the last digits the sequential number, so it's the 171 st unit made that month.

These codes tied up exactly with the date and serial number sticker on the box

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Canon-Lenses/Canon-Lens-Aging.aspx

The 10x42 IS was serial no. 51000091 hence March 2017

Hookem3119 said:

By any chance did you compare resolution of the two Canons with the IS activated? I have the gen2 12x36 and love them, but have always wanted to try the 10x42L. I do most of my hiking above 10k' so I am very weight conscious. But I generally carry a pair of 6x25 Bushnell elites and my Canon's, so the 10x42's would be replacing two pair.

Click to expand...

Yes, on a tripod. With the IS on it does seem to fractionally reduce resolution but hand held with IS on resolution is much better than anything you can get non-supported at 10 x magnification.

Thanks for the reply, but I was a little vague with my question. Does the 10x offer more resolution than the 12x when handheld using IS for each?

Hi Maico,

Thank you for the info on Canon products. Just dated my IS binos and interestingly, i purchased them all within two to four months of actual production. So no old stock here.

Doug.....

Hookem3119 said:

Thanks for the reply, but I was a little vague with my question. Does the 10x offer more resolution than the 12x when handheld using IS for each?

Click to expand...

I would say the central image they appear similar but the 12x quality falls noticeably towards the edges whereas the 10x doesn't.

Have to agree with Maico. But, for astronomy I prefer the 12x36 III's due to the slightly darker sky and magnification, especially on double stars. I also prefer the view of star fields, especially the Pleiades etc. For nature etc, although the 10x42's have a slightly wider field of view I still prefer the increased detail at the slightly higher power of the 12x36's. They are also lighter in weight that might be important for you. I actually sold my 10x42's so that I could acquire the latest version of the 12x36 III's and I have no regrets at all.

Doug......

I am going to keep the ones I have. There is some image fall off in the outer 25%, but I was only going to purchase the 10x if they offered more detail due to the better glass. I am very happy with my 12's. I am on my second pair. I also had the gen 1 version. The IS II is much better. I haven't handled the IS III yet. For wider FOV, I carry my tiny Custom Compacts. The combination is still pretty light and handles all situations well.

Thanks for the review Maico. Good information there. I'm trying to figure out if I want to buy a Canon IS bin and, if so, which one.

Cheers

Hi Kevin,
Buy one of each, they are all good if carefully selected

Hi Kevin,

As Binastro suggests, are you able to try both ?

Over the years, I have enjoyed using the Canon IS range. In the end, I found that I was using my 12x36's far more often than my 10x42L's. Last year when Canon updated the 12x36's to the 'III' version, I traded my 10x42L's for a pair. After a year of use, I have no regrets at all. I gave my 12x36 II's to my brother and he is really enjoying them.

Binoculars are such a personal item when it comes to how you feel about the various optical differences, fit and feel etc and also, what you expect and need.

If you can compare the two side by side, I would recommend that if possible.

Cheers,

Doug....

The two that interest me the most are the 12x36 III and the 10x42L. Maybe the 15x50.

The first for it's 12x magnification, smaller form, and 3mm EP, the latter I consider the minimum I'll accept.

The 10x42L for it's promise of better optics and waterproofness.

I don't know where I could go and A-B these two. I'm a pretty fussy guy and the things I've read about the 12x36 are a bit off-putting, and the 10x42 doesn't have quite the horsepower I would be looking for in an IS bin.

A 14x42/50L would be right in my wheelhouse.

I've, generally, never cozied up to the kitchen appliance (read: toaster) ergonomics of these things but I'm getting older and I'm not good for much hand held viewing, especially at higher mag. So, I'm considering one of these.

It would be nice to be freed of a tripod!

Cheers

Kevin, I would not recommend buying them without trying them first. I've had 8x25, 10x30, 10x42L, 12x36II and 15x50. All deliver a 'better' view of the bird than hand-held binos. It's a personal thing, though, and the 10x42 and 15x50 were just too uncomfortable to carry and use, although the latter were great when seawatching (for a 'break' from a scope). The 8x25 are plasticky and 'jumpy'. The 10x30 are cute, but I think my favourite were the 12x36II. These were light and had enough reach to make it worth carrying a non-waterproof, not terribly ergonomic bino. At less than 12x, the advantages of IS are marginal, if you can hold a regular 8-10x bino reasonably steady. Eventually the hassle of batteries, and the milliseconds lost in the 'thought process' of getting on the bird, focussing and then pressing the IS button, made the whole thing too complex for me. Not great for getting onto a warbler flitting in a bush, for example. And all have fairly narrow FOV. Added to that, the Canon aftersales service was dismal at best, and the warranty is worthless.

Hello ,
I currently have the model 12x36II IS and in my opinion it is a good bird bino, I think it has good optical quality but not too ergonomically, especially it is very powerful, but only for dry days without rain, the other day I could compare them with a Leica 8x42, from a friend, and saving the difference of the magnification and aperture, the image of the Leica was better, that if well stabilized, with 12x the IS comes well ...
I had a 10x30 IS old, and in my opinion it was not bad, manajable and small, in this aspect better than the model 12X36II, I have also been able to use sometimes the small 8x25, and indeed it is all plastic, I was afraid to give some small hit ... by pressing the button
that jump gave the image, exaggerated!
Finally, if you allow me, I had an 18X50 for 2 years, but in my humble opinion it was too heavy and had too many artifacts in the image when pressing the button, it was very powerful and I also used it for astronomical observation ... this one had something of magic see the huge full moon floating above the horizon
my two cents
Thanks
Waci

Sancho said:

Kevin, I would not recommend buying them without trying them first. I've had 8x25, 10x30, 10x42L, 12x36II and 15x50. All deliver a 'better' view of the bird than hand-held binos. It's a personal thing, though, and the 10x42 and 15x50 were just too uncomfortable to carry and use, although the latter were great when seawatching (for a 'break' from a scope). The 8x25 are plasticky and 'jumpy'. The 10x30 are cute, but I think my favourite were the 12x36II. These were light and had enough reach to make it worth carrying a non-waterproof, not terribly ergonomic bino. At less than 12x, the advantages of IS are marginal, if you can hold a regular 8-10x bino reasonably steady. Eventually the hassle of batteries, and the milliseconds lost in the 'thought process' of getting on the bird, focussing and then pressing the IS button, made the whole thing too complex for me. Not great for getting onto a warbler flitting in a bush, for example. And all have fairly narrow FOV. Added to that, the Canon aftersales service was dismal at best, and the warranty is worthless.

Click to expand...

Whoooh!!! Sancho,
Shh, Just between the two of us. Please can you restrain your language when talking about Canon is binos.
We Canon users are a sensitive bunch and the constant critism of our beloveds is wearing thin. Your reference to "cute, plasticky and jumpy" is just to much - such descriptions could lead to Canons being listed in the Childrens section (if there is one).
I know you will comply, because if you don't, I'll get your Bushnell 7x26 Elites out of the cupboard and give them a good kicking and put them in the celler for a month.
Kindest regards, of course,
Stan