Allbinos Canon 12x36 IS III Review (1 Viewer)

[John A Roberts]

Arek is continuing his exploration of 12x optics, with his latest review being the Canon 12x36 IS III,
at: Canon 12x36 IS III - binoculars review - AllBinos.com

Canon 12x36 IS III, along with an internal view of the 10x30 IS II sibling:




Over the last year and a half Arek’s reviewed 13 (!) conventional 12x50's - along with the IS Fujinon 14x40 TS-X -
all of which can be found at: AllBinos.com - binocular review, binoculars reviews, binoculars specification - AllBinos.com


John


p.s. And Arek's review of the Swarovski NL 12x42 can be found at: Swarovski NL Pure 12x42 W B - binoculars review - AllBinos.com

 

[Ted Y.]

Excellent news.
I am using a Canon 12x36 IS III and I am interested in 12x binoculars performance.
I appreciate thew 12x reviews, especially for the transmission graphs.

 

[Canip]

especially for the transmission graphs.

…. which, unfortunately, you cannot always trust (remember the Allbinos graph for the Docter Nobilem 8x56 which reaches 100%, hardly possible🤔)

 

[Ted Y.]

Answer to Canip (#3)

Indeed, it is about the level of trust in Allbinos.
For me, it is high enough.

First, errare humanum est. 100% can be in the error margin (but I do not know). Even so, I think such result requires a recalibration and a new measurement. But what I know?
Second, no one proved the perseverare part.
Also, innocent untill proven guilty.
Also, in one or two cases I corroborated the info from that site (not the measurements) with review from people I trust, like you. It was no contradiction (with a grain of salt).
Not a good argument: it is about hope that the results are good (with a grain of salt). Why? Because it is rare an author to publish transmission graphs. I know two cases, only two.

The transmission graphs are important to select candidate binoculars. Sure, nothing is better than personal tests.

 

[Hermann]

Interesting review, well worth reading. I personally don't really agree with everything he writes but still.

Now I would like to see a real field test of how much detail he can see though the Canon and some of the other 12x binoculars, handheld of course ...

Hermann

 

[Ted Y.]

Tests of 12 12x binoculars by AllBinos.com - binocular review, binoculars reviews, binoculars specification - AllBinos.com
The links are on the first page.

 

[yarrellii]

I had hoped for Allbinos to review IS binoculars for quite a while, but I simply thought they were not interested (although they have a bias towards astronomy, more than birds). So it's really great to see they've reviewed two Canons, hopefully they review more IS in the future, to have a knowledge base about this kind of device, which doesn't feature so prominently on regular reviews.

I've found a couple of things puzzling. On one hand, this:
We managed to assess its efficiency up to a point because the 12x magnification is for me so undemanding that I can observe things holding the binoculars in my hand without any problems. Still stabilization evidently helps a lot and if you don't have a firm grip you'll certainly appreciate it.
I'm surprised by this coming from people who have reviewed hundreds of binoculars. I mean, even at 8x an IS shows more detail than non-IS. So at 12x the difference is nothing short of staggering, even if you have the steady pulse of an Egyptian mummy.

On the other hand, I'm surprised by the score in the CA department: Low in the centre, a bit higher than medium on the edge.
I've had my fair share of binoculars over the last years, and probably this Canon is among the worst for CA in bright conditions (especially considering the price). I can see a difference if used in a forest/green environment with cloudy/overcast/"northern" weather, but after using the 12x36 IS III intensively for two years by the Mediterranean, CA is one of the biggest problems of the device, it gets really annoying. I would not say that CA is "low in the center". In a 1-10 scale, I would never rate CA on these above 5. I find this surprising, because I usually concur with Allbinos experiences and opinions (I've checked it over and over again with dozens of binoculars), but in this case I simply disagree.

As I said, really pleased that they reviewed IS binoculars, let's hope they can get their hands on some of the new Opticron or Kite new IS binoculars
Thank you Allbinos!

 

[Hermann]

I've found a couple of things puzzling. On one hand, this:
We managed to assess its efficiency up to a point because the 12x magnification is for me so undemanding that I can observe things holding the binoculars in my hand without any problems. Still stabilization evidently helps a lot and if you don't have a firm grip you'll certainly appreciate it.
I'm surprised by this coming from people who have reviewed hundreds of binoculars. I mean, even at 8x an IS shows more detail than non-IS. So at 12x the difference is nothing short of staggering, even if you have the steady pulse of an Egyptian mummy.

That's the first point I noted as well. That statement in the review is IMO utter nonsense.

On the other hand, I'm surprised by the score in the CA department: Low in the centre, a bit higher than medium on the edge.
I've had my fair share of binoculars over the last years, and probably this Canon is among the worst for CA in bright conditions (especially considering the price). I can see a difference if used in a forest/green environment with cloudy/overcast/"northern" weather, but after using the 12x36 IS III intensively for two years by the Mediterranean, CA is one of the biggest problems of the device, it gets really annoying. I would not say that CA is "low in the center". In a 1-10 scale, I would never rate CA on these above 5.

Agreed. That's the second point I noted as well. No matter how hard you try to get everything set just right with the 12x36, CA is always quite obvious. The 10x30 is a bit better IMO.

I find this surprising, because I usually concur with Allbinos experiences and opinions (I've checked it over and over again with dozens of binoculars), but in this case I simply disagree.

Well, actually, I'm not surprised. There's are occasionally howlers in the reviews.

As I said, really pleased that they reviewed IS binoculars, let's hope they can get their hands on some of the new Opticron or Kite new IS binoculars

Yep. We need more reviews, especially of the new generation of IS binoculars. I'd actually be more than happy to read reviews of the Kites and especially the Sig Sauers by experienced and reputable members here.

Hermann

 

[Ted Y.]

I would not say that CA is "low in the center". In a 1-10 scale, I would never rate CA on these above 5.

It depends what other binoculars you knew.
And how sensible you are to CA.
I use Canon 12x36 IS and if the background is not the sky, I cannot see CA in center (or I do not want to see it and I do not know this).
When some sky is in the background, yep, some CA.
When the background is the sky ... a little more.

 

[Paultricounty]

I’ve tried all the Canons except the 18x50. The best for CA is the 10x42L, it’s actually bar far optically better than all the others. The CA in the 12 was intolerable to me. The other standout imo is the 10x32 and I kept those and the 42’s. You know what surprises me, I read some say that Leica’s have to much CA for them , then they go to an IS that has more CA and it’s better than rainbows after a rain when the sun comes out.

 

[Hermann]

I’ve tried all the Canons except the 18x50. The best for CA is the 10x42L, it’s actually bar far optically better than all the others.

Yep. The 10x42L is a heck of a lot better than the others. But then it's also heavy compared to the 10x30, the 10x32 and the 12x36.

The CA in the 12 was intolerable to me. The other standout imo is the 10x32 and I kept those and the 42’s.

I wonder if you tried the 8x20 IS. That's a pair I use quite a lot; it sort of lives in my backpack when I'm in town and so on. Optically it's pretty good - and it doesn't have any CA I can sie. But then I'm not that susceptible to CA myself.

Hermann

 

[Paultricounty]

Yep. The 10x42L is a heck of a lot better than the others. But then it's also heavy compared to the 10x30, the 10x32 and the 12x36.

I wonder if you tried the 8x20 IS. That's a pair I use quite a lot; it sort of lives in my backpack when I'm in town and so on. Optically it's pretty good - and it doesn't have any CA I can sie. But then I'm not that susceptible to CA myself.

Hermann

No Hermann I have not tried any of the IS below 10x. I’m pretty stable with non IS in 8x and 7x. I feel I give up to much of image quality with IS in general, I’m quite spoiled with all the so called alpha bins and I admit it. I don’t even enjoy some of my upper mid-grade as much as I used to. I’m also more of a nature observer than a true birder, got a lot learn in that area. I know a lot of people love those small IS bins, so I’m not knocking them, same with the larger Canon and Fuji’s. They’re fine binoculars and technology and I have a lot of fun with them under the stars , but most of my observing is terrestrial so I don’t get along with them well.

Paul