Is the 15x50 IS worth it if you already have a 12x36 IS? (2 Viewers)

[yarrellii]

Well, as the title says, I'm contemplating getting a high-powered IS. I already have, and enjoy, the 12x36 ISIII, which I can use as my main birding binoculars for weeks non-stop without missing much. Only when I have a special need, like trekking, or faul weather (we don't get a lot of that where I live, but there are some rainy days, especially during the migration season), I grab an 8x32 which was for years my default bino.

So, I've read threads about people hesitating between the 12x and the 15x Canon (or the 15x and the 18x for that matter), but I think my question is a bit different. Besides using the 12x as a regular/daily binocular, I do also use the 12x on days when I don't feel like carrying a scope (or when I know using it is going to be a bit of a hassle, like when going with family or friends who might get bored waiting for the setup of the scope) but I feel like a bit more reach would help me in this regard, or when I just want to drive to a cape on my way to the school run and have quick look at the sea looking for shearwater, gannets, etc. Then, the obvious answer would be to go with the 18x, but I think that one could be a bit of a "too specialised" device, while I can see the 15x being used more often.

For those of you who have used both a 12x IS and a 15x IS (even better if you've also used the 18x IS for that matter), does it make any sense at all to get a 15x if you already have a 12x? I ca see a noticeable difference going from 8x to 12x, will the increase up to 15x be as noticeable?

Also another reason is that the 15x are weatherproof, meaning I could use them if it rains or I could use them with more confidence by the shore without having to worry that much about sea spray. I also do a bit of backyard astronomy, and love the 12x for that, and for what I read the 15x is even more impressive.

What are your thoughts about it? Thank you for any comment about your experience with the aforementioned Canon.

*As a background note, I'm thinking of buying a 2nd hand unit at a reasonable price, not a brand new one for the mrsp. I don't consider the new 14x32 because I don't think I've seen it yet 2nd hand for attracive prices, it's not weatherproof, and is "only" 14x.

 

[JOC1]

For daytime i would say no. the 15x is slightly sharper but I believe the 12x36 is much more versatile for daytime. The IS is also slightly better on the 12x because of the mag difference. (Although the 15x has the 5 minute IS feature ) and I know the 15x50 is “weatherproof” and it does seem well built…but… I wouldn’t use it in the rain or near salt water on a consistent basis. (Again not a knock on the build, it’s just personally, I wouldn’t do it.)

For night time - 15x50 makes ALL the difference. I had a 12x36III new and traded it in and got a used 15x50. The increased mag and objective lens really makes the stars pop. I compared them directly and you see much more.

While I miss some of the versatility of the 12x36, the night time views of the 15x50 is a no brainer for me.

Hope that helps!

 

[yarrellii]

@JOC1 This is great, it does help indeed! Much appreciated. This is the sort of first hand experience I'm looking for in order to get more insights.

If I may ask you, is the 15x50 your only binoculars or do you use another lower mag one as a complement? Thanks again.

 

[JOC1]

Yep, it’s the only bino I use for daytime and nighttime.

I used to have a 8x42 Vortex Viper and 15x70 Oberwerk Deluxe that split those duties. They were great but I always wanted an all-in-one bino that could do it all (and not be tied down to a tripod) So I sold them and eventually got the Canon 15x50. While it has its compromises, it definitely satisfies the all-in-one role 👍

(It’s important to note: I use these strictly for backyard use. I don’t hike or travel with them, so I can’t speak to that)

 

[has530]

If I may ask you, is the 15x50 your only binoculars or do you use another lower mag one as a complement? Thanks again.

I have the 15x50 and use it when I don't feel like carrying my scope; especially for shorebirds and waterfowl in the winter. Typically I will have them on a chest harness and then carry an 8x25 on my belt for closer in birds in the riparian habitat but this isn't absolutely necessary. I can't compare to the 12x but I will say they show a lot more than 10s. I actually don't even own a 12x but was thinking of doing a comparison of the Nikon 8-16x40s with various binoculars at different magnifications so I could do that and let you know how they compare.

 

[yarrellii]

@has530 That would be really helpful, it's very kind of you, thank you!

As a matter of fact, I went and tried the 15x50 I intended to buy. The outer paint had gone "sticky/mushy" so the owner had washed it off. I felt the 15x50 were really well made, and the IS worked well, maybe a little slower than my 12x36 ISIII, but nothing worrying or bothersome. However, the binos had been knocked out of collimation, so in the end I didn't buy them. Anyway, the prospect of a 15x50 for the usage you mention sounds very appealing to me, so I'll see if I can find a good deal on a 2nd hand 15x50 sometime.

 

[Patudo]

How concerned would you guys be about buying an IS binocular secondhand? I'm assuming any warranty on the electronics isn't transferable?

 

[yarrellii]

@Patudo This is an interesting topic. I've bought a lot of binoculars over the last 5 years or so, and the vast majority have been 2nd hand. And there's always a risk, I think it's self deceiving to think otherwise. However, you have a certain reassurance that a good brand with a proven record of honouring their warranty can have your back should something bad happen (be it a "classic company" like Zeiss or Swarovski, or a "newcomer" like Vortex, I've had excellent service from all of them, each with their own policy; the first two repairing, the latter replacing).

However, with electronic binoculars I think the gamble is highly increased, given the less than stellar reputation of Canon's repair/customer service and also their meager warranties, and the fact that some bits cannot be easily fixed by a "regular" technician.

Probably, that's the reason that, making an exception, I bought my 12x36 IS III brand new, and a year later 10x30 IS II also brand new... and thanks God I did. The 10x30 was knocked out of collimation during delivery, so I told the shop and I had another unit.
I also bought a 8x20 IS, this one 2nd hand, and it was literally like new, and it performed accordingly. I don't know about its long term reliability because I sold it due to lack of use.

With the 15x50, I've been reading here and over at CN and the general impression I've gathered is that they are pretty dependable binoculars, probably belonging to an "upper level" in terms of build quality, compared to the cheaper 10x30/12x36. Well, it's only to be expected for the increase in price and, who knows, due to the "MIJ" sticker.

But, all in all, I think it's a quite a risk, and you have to be quite sure to commit and be able to put up with an eventual failure.

What's your experience/views?

 

[exup]

For info (not that it matters at all and please don't start a 'made in xxxxx' debate) the Canon 15x50 and 18x50s are now made in Taiwan.
The x15s also don't focus past about -6.5D for those that like to not use glasses, the x18s go further ( maybe -7.5D?)

 

[Patudo]

@yarrelli - I've never bought an IS binocular, new or used, so can't offer any personal observations.

I wish some company in the PRC would make a high quality binocular body that the glass components of the 10x42 IS-L could be fitted into when/if the electronics finally give up. It's a very good binocular even without the IS switched on.

 

[yarrellii]

@exup Thanks for the info, I wasn't aware of that. As a matter of fact, I'm not particularly worried about the country of origin of binoculars. I've had good and bad experiences from different brands (from top ones to more humble ones) at different price points, so my take nowadays is that, as long as the people who produce them are paid decent wages and offered decent working conditions, I have no particular inclination. I'm sure a top quality binocular can be produced in China for +2500 $, just like the iPhone has been held in the highest of regards technically and you can praise Mackbooks for their sturdy construction.

@Patudo Now that's an interesting proposition. I don't know how feasible that would be. In fact, I guess at least the prisms should be changed, and in order to keep things similar, you should keep similar proportions (or should you? I don't know, just guessing here). But that's a very sensible idea. However, in the world of throw-away products we live in, I find it hard to believe that such a thing could ever exist (even if I find it's a brilliant idea: you could chose a composite material to keep it light, and a no-nonsense useful body, I'm sure you could adapt some things from other existing binoculars, the same way they do with parts of cars like door handles, etc.).

 

[Binastro]

I would never normally buy a secondhand IS binocular.

I bought an early used Canon 10x30 IS and it has moisture coating inside, although not fungus.
It works but I shouldn't have bought it.

I got a monstrous Russian IS which screams like a banshee as the flywheels speed up for about a minute, then it gives quite a long time of IS viewing as the gyros slow down.

The Fujinon 14x40 at £120 with a six months shop warranty I couldn't turn down.
It was covered in white and took quite a time to wash off the white stuff.
Probably used at sea as the shop is by a yachting place.
However, it works flawlessly, although heavy.
The resolution is good, and the image white and very good.
Small field.
But the image has a small amount of jitter as do some similar Nikons I think.

With Canon, I think you will find no leniency as regards warranty, and repairs are expensive.
I think the GB service centre probably can do most of the work, although it might have to go to Japan if broken.

The Bushnell 10x was bought secondhand with a shop warranty.
It had been back to the U.S. for repair with all the paperwork, but turned out to be junk as it failed again within a week.
As I almost never return stuff, I just wrote it off.

So, I for one will not buy secondhand IS binoculars, except in exceptional circumstances.

If buying a Canon 15x50 IS I suggest you buy it new.

Regards,
B.

 

[etudiant]

@yarrelli - I've never bought an IS binocular, new or used, so can't offer any personal observations.

I wish some company in the PRC would make a high quality binocular body that the glass components of the 10x42 IS-L could be fitted into when/if the electronics finally give up. It's a very good binocular even without the IS switched on.

Henry Link once posted a cutaway of the 10x42ISL which showed that the body was completely stuffed by the optics, the electronics are only a small element. So it would take a big body to hold these Canon lenses even without the IS.,
Cheaper to buy a used 10x42 ISL and keep using it even after the IS fails The glass alone is good enough to justify the price.

 

[Hermann]

I would only buy a used Canon IS if I knew the person who sold it. The Canons ARE more susceptible to damage than conventional binoculars, especially top quality conventional binoculars.

Hermann

 

[edwincjones]

I have the Canon 12x36 and a Fujinon 14x40 (not 15x50) and the added mag is well worth it,
but the size and weight are negatives.

edj

 

[yarrellii]

@edwincjones I've never used a Fujnon IS. If I may ask you: How would you describe the view and the "feel of use" compared to Canon? Thanks!

I've read the Allbinos review for both the Canon ISIII 12x36 and the Fujinon Technostabi TS-X 14x40, and while the transmission figure on the Fuji was surprisingly low (and the weight figure huge) it looked like a seriously good performer. But then, you can never 100 % trust reviews, in my opinion the CA value provided in the 12x36 ISIII review is simply wrong.

One thing I find surprising about the 15x50 is that the field of view is 4,5º, while on the Fuji 14x is only 4º and even on the 12x36 (which I consider offers a nice view and I don't feel any problem with the FOV) the FOV is 5º. So the 15x offers a 3x magnification gain while only losing 0,5º, so I reckon the AFOV must be quite impressive. What's your take on the FOV of the 14x40 Fuji?

 

[edwincjones]

@edwincjones I've never used a Fujnon IS. If I may ask you: How would you describe the view and the "feel of use" compared to Canon? Thanks!
.........What's your take on the FOV of the 14x40 Fuji?

It is hard to answer your question because I have never bonded with the 12x36 , and I like the Fujinon.
The smaller size and lighter weight makes the Canon more like a nonIS pair.
The Fujinons excel with their better IS on distant large birds.
With use I adapt to the smaller FOV of the TSX; but if I had it to do over or the Fujinons need to be replaced
I would probably go with the Canon 10x42 due to their wider FOV.

 

[exup]

One thing I find surprising about the 15x50 is that the field of view is 4,5º, while on the Fuji 14x is only 4º and even on the 12x36 (which I consider offers a nice view and I don't feel any problem with the FOV) the FOV is 5º. So the 15x offers a 3x magnification gain while only losing 0,5º, so I reckon the AFOV must be quite impressive. What's your take on the FOV of the 14x40 Fuji?

AFOV and EP ..... discussion here :

Canon IS 15x50 vs Obie 15x70 Deluxe - Binoculars - Cloudy Nights

Canon IS 15x50 vs Obie 15x70 Deluxe - posted in Binoculars: Nobody can accuse me of being an impulsive buyer. Its been now -- what -- at least 20 years since I first used a pair of Canon IS 15x50 binoculars, and immediately concluded that they would be a great addition to my binocular...

www.cloudynights.com

 

[has530]

I compared a bunch with a bunch of different magnifications today and I would say that going from 12 to 15 is much more like going from 8 to 10 than 8 to 12 (which lines up with what the math says since 10/8 and 15/12 are both 1.25). The difference is immediately noticeable but I doubt there would be all that many situations where I would be able to make an ID with the 15 and not a 12.

 

[yarrellii]

@has530 Well, that's really interesting. I never thought of looking at magnification gains as a fraction. I don't know if there's a thread here (or a theory) looking at it this way, but it's kind of intriguing and at the same time enlightening, so I'd be really happy to read more about this.

I've done a fast an simple table of most typical magnifications and their relationship with typical alternative magnifications.

8/6 = 1,33
8/7 = 1,14
10/7 = 1,4
10/8 = 1,25
12/8 = 1,5
12/10 = 1,2
14/10 = 1,4
14/12 = 1,16
15/10 = 1,5
15/12 = 1,25
16/12 = 1,33

I've always found that the jump from 8x to 10x wasn't really noticeable to have boht an 8x and a 10x. It was only when I tried 12x that I somehow "felt" that 12x was giving me what I expected to see from 10x. Which is a factor of 1,5.

If the jump from 8 to 10 and 12 to 15 is both 1,25, as a hypothesis it would be interesting to focus on larger numbers in order to get a distinctly different "perception" of magnification if you decide to have different binoculars. So, something like.
7x + 12x = 1,7
8x + 12x = 1,5
10x + 15x = 1,5

Or if you were to have three
6x + 10x +15x (which is 1,6 and 1,5)

I have to make some comparisons with the binoculars I have at home (6, 7, 7.5, 8, 8.5, 10 and 12) to see if this works for me, but on a theoretical level I find it fascinating. Thanks.