• 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.

12x36 with glasses (1 Viewer)

jeffhosier

Well-known member
I've just sold my Canon 10x42s because they were getting too heavy for my aged arms, and I'm thinking of replacing them with some 12x36 llls. I tried some in a shop and they were great. However, I need to wear glasses all the time, including when using optics, and I was a bit concerned by how close the lenses of my glasses were to the lens of the bins, when the eyecups were rolled right down. Basically, I was worried that I'd end up damaging the lenses of the bins or my glasses.

Does anyone out there use 12x36s with glasses, and if so did the combination work OK?

Any other advice would be appreciated.


Cheers


Jeff
 
Jeff,

Over the last three years I have sometimes used close fitting flat aviator style sunglasses with my 12x36 IS III without a problem although as you say it's a close shave so I do tend to be careful to avoid glass on glass contact.

Others will probably have some good ideas for after market accessories and/or do it yourself remedies to increase the distance between objectives and spectacles and thus your margin for error.

In the meantime hope this helps and let us know how it goes for you.

Mike
 
I second Mike's opinion.

I have the 12X36 IIIs as well. I have used glasses since 7 years old. The ones I use now are prescription "aviator" style. With these and the eyecups on the bins folded, there is no contact between the glass surfaces.

You should also know that the close focus distance of these is very far, at 19.7 feet/6 meters.

They are also not weather proof, as the 10X42L is.

However, with those limitations, I highly recommend them. The stabilization is first rate, almost like they are on a tripod. And the glass is very good. And they are surprisingly light weight. I travel with them along with a compact 8X, and it makes a great combination. I keep a plastic bag for them when I travel, in case of bad weather. I have never had a problem. I have other Canon IS bins, including the 18X50s and the 10X30s, but the 12X36s are my favorite with their combination of magnification, stabilization and light weight.
 
Be very careful Jeff because it seems that your leaders are not going to do anything for you

Sorry I have no experience of wearing glasses whilst using my 12x36mk2.
But I have had a bad experience just lately with Canon not accepting that the coating on my bins is going very sticky, and I am sorely disappointed with there customer care, I therefore rejected their offer of a repair running to near £400. so buyer beware!
Kind regards
Mike
 
Sorry I have no experience of wearing glasses whilst using my 12x36mk2.
But I have had a bad experience just lately with Canon not accepting that the coating on my bins is going very sticky, and I am sorely disappointed with there customer care, I therefore rejected their offer of a repair running to near £400. so buyer beware!
Kind regards
Mike

Canon service for their IS binoculars is very different from that of Swarovski.
For one, the warranty is 1 to 3 years, versus 10 plus for Swaro.
If the IS goes wonky after the warranty expiration, the repair cost starts at a high threshold, which was about $500 for my 10x42 a couple of years back.
If the repair is more complicated, the price goes up from there.
Possibly Canon service here is deliberately unattractive, because this is a consumer item of marginal significance and with little repeat business.

Canon does have superb customer service for the professional photographers, including loaner equipment and expedited service, so they
know how to build customer loyalty, but the returns in the consumer space evidently don't justify the effort for the firm.
 
True about Canons warranty and service. I guess that I have been lucky, but I have never had an IS failure. their prices are midrange compared to the high end alphas. And their IS is excellent. You can see things with these that you would need a tripod for with other brands. I have the 10X30 IS, the 12X36 III Is, and the 18X50 IS. The best for me is the 12X36 III. It is light and the IS is extremely solid. It is not weather or waterproof, and its close focus is not close, but it is my favorite general use binocular. And I use it with glasses, no problem.
 
True about Canons warranty and service. I guess that I have been lucky, but I have never had an IS failure. their prices are midrange compared to the high end alphas. And their IS is excellent. You can see things with these that you would need a tripod for with other brands. I have the 10X30 IS, the 12X36 III Is, and the 18X50 IS. The best for me is the 12X36 III. It is light and the IS is extremely solid. It is not weather or waterproof, and its close focus is not close, but it is my favorite general use binocular. And I use it with glasses, no problem.

Canon offers their top tier 10x42IS glass for half the price of the corresponding Zeiss 10x42 SF, which is an absolute steal imho. It is a superior birding tool, but heavy and bulky, so the 12x36 III you mention sounds like an nice alternative.
Sadly Canon's attractive pricing leaves no margin for an expansive warranty service. Still, I've gotten 10 solid years of hard service out of my first 10x42IS, real value for money considering the performance. Am now on year 3 of my second one.
 
Firstly, thanks to all the people who replied to this thread which I started a few weeks ago. Much appreciated.

After I sold my Canon 10x42 IS bins (brilliant view, but way too hefty for me), I finally bought a pair of Canon 12x36 lll bins a couple of weeks ago when I spotted a nearly new pair in a UK web shop at a good price. I've taken them out on the once-a-day walk that I'm allowed, and here's some preliminary thoughts about them.

My normal bins are a 15 year old pair of Swarovski EL 8x42s. The view I get from the Canons without the IS is not far behind that from the Swarovskis, a little less bright, and of course a much narrower field of view. The Canon view is sharp, they 'snap' into focus, and the colours seem true. I was concerned that they'd have a small 'sweet spot' but to me the focus seems good across the whole field of view. But once the IS is on, it's chalk and cheese - the view through the Canons is vastly superior - you get to see so much more. And they're fine with glasses.

So far, I've not seen any of the anomalies, notably chromatic aberration, that others report: this may be because I'm not as much of a binocular purist as some on this site so I don't seek out such things. If the bad stuff is there, it's not bad enough to bother me.

The ergonomics of the IS system are pretty good for me. The IS button is positioned dead right - exactly under my middle finger. On the Canon 10x42s I was always searching for it. Personally, I quite like the fact that the button has to be held down to get IS - I prefer it to the system on the 10x42s where a press left the IS on for 5 minutes, but turned it off if you pointed the bins downward, which meant you had to find the elusive IS button pretty much every time you raised them to your eyes.

Another common problem people report is the rubber eye cups. There's no denying that they're are a bit crude, but because I always wear specs when I'm using bins, the eyecup on my bins are permanently rolled down to get maximum eye relief, so it's no big deal. Unfortunately, this does leave the exit lenses quite exposed, so I got an Opticron 37mm rainguard which is a nice snug fit over the rolled-down eyecups, and should provide a fair bit of protection.

There have been a couple of minor niggles. If you're used to standard bins, the Canon IPD adjustment is distinctly odd. Usually it's fine - it's a 'set-it-once-and-leave-it' thing. However, it's a bit of a pain when my wife, who is too idle to take her own bins with her, wants to look through mine. Usually the bird has flown off by the time she gets the bins right.

The other thing that has taken a bit of getting used to is pointing the things in the right direction - I always seem to aim too high - but I guess my aim will improve with time.

So far then, I'm delighted with them. I think they'll really come into their own when we get freed from house arrest, and I can get to to shores and lakes where the extra reach will be very useful. I'll let you know.



Jeff

By the way, for the UK people, Amazon and Dixons are doing the 12X36s for £549, a fair bit less than the optics specialists.
 
The other thing that has taken a bit of getting used to is pointing the things in the right direction - I always seem to aim too high - but I guess my aim will improve with time.

Jeff

By the way, for the UK people, Amazon and Dixons are doing the 12X36s for £549, a fair bit less than the optics specialists.

Interesting that you also aim your Canons too high, it is a perennial mistake that I still make after 13 years of using my 10x42IS almost daily.
Maybe something in the weight distribution shifts the users aim point?
 
On the aiming too high bit, I think it has to do with the design, both optical and form-wise, of these binoculars. With the porro II prisms, the optical axis of the eyepieces is 2-3 cm above the optical axis of the objectives and the center line of the main body. With normal roof-prism binoculars, they are all more or less the same. Therefore when you lift these up to your eyes and (instinctively) lift your hands up to a level where normal binoculars would be aligned with your direction of view, the Canons will point up.

To Jeff, on the IPD adjustment, I suggest putting index marks on the moving eyepiece part and the body, both for your IPD and your wife's. You can mark them on different sides even, his and hers. Just set the IPD right for one user, and then draw a straight line that extends from the body to the prism-eyepiece housing. It will be pretty exact and repeatable, and fast to set to.

Kimmo
 
Sorry I have no experience of wearing glasses whilst using my 12x36mk2.
But I have had a bad experience just lately with Canon not accepting that the coating on my bins is going very sticky, and I am sorely disappointed with there customer care, I therefore rejected their offer of a repair running to near £400. so buyer beware!
Kind regards
Mike

You along with many others over many years apparently, the most recent being Oct 2019, see https://www.amazon.com/ask/questions/Tx1B20HRIIL51CV/

Canon's customer "service" isn't any thing to write home about either, see http://www.adrianbeal.com/canon-binoculars-sticky-rubberised-coating/
Seems the typical repair bill is around £300+ / $300+, ie Canon don't want to repair them. And this after a relatively short period of use. To cap it all, they don't acknowledge there's a design problem and appear to try and blame the customer.

The customer defines value, the supplier only defines price. Having to cough up large sums of money within a relatively short time for the repair of an optical instrument that has been looked after is not value.

I was recently considering purchasing a Canon IS binocular but wouldn't touch them with a barge poll now.
 
I have had the 12x32s since February, 2019, and always wear glasses. With the eyecups folded down I simply rest the rubber lightly against my glasses. I can see the full field and neither my glasses nor the binocular's eye lens have suffered any damage. Did the same with my 12x36 IS II for about 15 years with no problems.

Clear skies, Alan
 
You along with many others over many years apparently, the most recent being Oct 2019, see https://www.amazon.com/ask/questions/Tx1B20HRIIL51CV/

Canon's customer "service" isn't any thing to write home about either, see http://www.adrianbeal.com/canon-binoculars-sticky-rubberised-coating/
Seems the typical repair bill is around £300+ / $300+, ie Canon don't want to repair them. And this after a relatively short period of use. To cap it all, they don't acknowledge there's a design problem and appear to try and blame the customer.

The customer defines value, the supplier only defines price. Having to cough up large sums of money within a relatively short time for the repair of an optical instrument that has been looked after is not value.

I was recently considering purchasing a Canon IS binocular but wouldn't touch them with a barge poll now.





I've been using my Canon 12x36 III IS almost daily since purchasing it on January 31, 2019. (I don't wear glasses.) I had to replace its 2 AA batteries one time this past November. I use it mostly in warm conditions. It weighs 23oz. It cost me $699.00 at B&H Camera. (There is a 10x30 version of it which weighs 21oz and costs $550.00.)

I'm very pleased with it. It would be perfect if it's IS Button had a lock down feature.

I think they are tougher than they are given credit for.

Alan French notes in post 15 (just above) that he used his 12x36 for 15 years and just replaced it with a Canon 12x32. And my brother has a golfing buddy
who has had a 12x36 for many years. He takes it with him in his car and keeps it under the Driver's seat. I have had occasion to use it over the years. It is a big reason why I decided to buy mine.

Bob
 
Last edited:
@Ceasar

There's no doubt that users are happy with the optical performance. But if there is a symptom of a design or manufacturing fault that the supplier refuses to acknowledge over several years, then that is a red flag and not a recommendation.

The initial poster in this DPreview thread suggests that the coating has not been properly cured. If true, then this is a quality control issue for Canon, i.e. it is not present on every item. That you have (luckily) not experienced any problems, doesn't mean there are no latent issues for others, even if they haven't realised it yet.

There is further discussion at Cloudy Nights. Not pretty.
 
Last edited:
I talked to a chemist friend of mine about the "melting." He suggested it could be that the formulation was not adequately tested, or that some batches was not quite right.

In any case, Canon has not handled the problem well. That, it seems, is a common problem with large corporations.

Clear skies, Alan
 
@ Cottonbase,

I'm hoping I will never have to contact Canon's service department too:smoke

There is a difference between my Canon 12x36 and the other ones with the problems that are mentioned above. Mine is an IS III version which I purchased at the end of January 2019. The Instruction Manual for it was printed 2015 and the date on the box it came in is 2017.

There are common sense cautions on page 3 of the manual against storing them in a hot car near a heater or under direct sunlight. Or in a laboratory or location where chemicals are present. Or in humid conditions. Nothing is unusual about these cautions and I try to comply with them.

My personal review of my 12x36 IS III discloses nothing unusual about its rubber covering. (I don't know if it is different from the covering on the older IS II versions since I have only had minimal contact with them.) It looks and feels much like the covering on an Opticron 7x42 Discovery WP PC I have which seems plenty tough to me!

I use mine nearly every day, very often looking through a Cathedral Window in my house which overlooks a large wooded area with a creek running through it and a large farm nearby. I often see Turkey Vultures and Red-tailed Hawks soaring over it along with Sharpshins along the edge. On rare occasions I have been careless and let the binocular lie in the sun for a while and so far no damage came about from it.

The ones with the problems mentioned above were IS II versions and some were used for 10 years or more.

Bob
 
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