Just bought some canon 8x20 is.. wow (1 Viewer)

[Gaz1969uk]

Along with my recently purchased Zeiss Conquest 8x42 hdx I yesterday received some canon image stabilised 8x20 is binoculars.
I chose these as I found some post on here that gave them a very favourable review apart from the build.

I also wanted some compact bins but really wanted to try the IS ones.

These really do shine, there is less fringing than the Leica 8x32HD I had, saying that I've yet to see any!

The field is very flat, and as sharp as the Trinovids.
Even the glare and reflections are better than the Trinovids, equal to my conquest.

The image stabilizer though, wow, how can one live without it.

It really is like looking at a beautiful steady photo!

The detail I can see compared to any of my binoculars, even the conquest, is astounding, just being so still you can observe minor details that without you can only dream of.

Yes the build ain't the best, plastic case, but optically they are stunning.

I know there will be people who just hate anything but alphas, but if you did try some I'm sure you'd be converted, and want to have a pair along side you best bins.

Sounds silly but I do prefer using these to the conquest.

Cheers Gary.

 

[Stobbo]

What model are they please?

 

[Gaz1969uk]

What model are they please?

Canon 8x20 IS.

 

[Hermann]

I agree with everything you said about the Canon 8x20. I got one immediately after they came out, and my pair lives permanently in my backpack when I'm out in town. I can confirm your observation that they invariably show more detail than a conventional ("muggle") binocular handheld, even if the conventional binocular, e.g. the Nikon 8x32 SE, is optically somewhat better. If you put the binoculars on a tripod things are different obviously.

Some caveats:

• I find the 2.5mm exit pupil a bit small for regular birding. It works OK but I prefer exit pupils of ~4mm or more.
• The FOV is definitely a bit on the small side. It "feels" narrow, and interestingly it feels even narrower than the Habicht 7x42 to me. Makes no sense, but that's the way it is.
• Glasses wearers need to try how well it works with their glasses. They work with mine but only just.
• Build quality isn't brilliant. It's OK but no more than that. However, I've had no problems with mine whatsoever.

BTW, if you ever have the chance to try out a Canon 10x42 IS do it. Heavy, unwieldy, brick like shape. But it's an incredibly effective tool in the field. And the build quality is excellent.

Hermann

 

[Gaz1969uk]

I agree with everything you said about the Canon 8x20. I got one immediately after they came out, and my pair lives permanently in my backpack when I'm out in town. I can confirm your observation that they invariably show more detail than a conventional ("muggle") binocular handheld, even if the conventional binocular, e.g. the Nikon 8x32 SE, is optically somewhat better. If you put the binoculars on a tripod things are different obviously.

Some caveats:

• I find the 2.5mm exit pupil a bit small for regular birding. It works OK but I prefer exit pupils of ~4mm or more.
• The FOV is definitely a bit on the small side. It "feels" narrow, and interestingly it feels even narrower than the Habicht 7x42 to me. Makes no sense, but that's the way it is.
• Glasses wearers need to try how well it works with their glasses. They work with mine but only just.
• Build quality isn't brilliant. It's OK but no more than that. However, I've had no problems with mine whatsoever.

BTW, if you ever have the chance to try out a Canon 10x42 IS do it. Heavy, unwieldy, brick like shape. But it's an incredibly effective tool in the field. And the build quality is excellent.

Hermann

I agree with everything you said about the Canon 8x20. I got one immediately after they came out, and my pair lives permanently in my backpack when I'm out in town. I can confirm your observation that they invariably show more detail than a conventional ("muggle") binocular handheld, even if the conventional binocular, e.g. the Nikon 8x32 SE, is optically somewhat better. If you put the binoculars on a tripod things are different obviously.

Some caveats:

• I find the 2.5mm exit pupil a bit small for regular birding. It works OK but I prefer exit pupils of ~4mm or more.
• The FOV is definitely a bit on the small side. It "feels" narrow, and interestingly it feels even narrower than the Habicht 7x42 to me. Makes no sense, but that's the way it is.
• Glasses wearers need to try how well it works with their glasses. They work with mine but only just.
• Build quality isn't brilliant. It's OK but no more than that. However, I've had no problems with mine whatsoever.

BTW, if you ever have the chance to try out a Canon 10x42 IS do it. Heavy, unwieldy, brick like shape. But it's an incredibly effective tool in the field. And the build quality is excellent.

Hermann

Thanks, I've always fancied the larger ones, but isn't the "L" the best one or just the ones you mentioned?

One thing for sure and sounds stupid, but I haven't picked my conquest up since having these.

Also great for aircraft at distance..if you enjoy aviation too which I do.
I am thinking of getting for 10x30is II for the price..

Thanks Gary

 

[Hermann]

I meant the 10x42 L IS.

Hermann

 

[Gaz1969uk]

I meant the 10x42 L IS.

Hermann

Thanks I thought so...👍

 

[PatR]

Thanks, I've always fancied the larger ones, but isn't the "L" the best one or just the ones you mentioned?

One thing for sure and sounds stupid, but I haven't picked my conquest up since having these.

Also great for aircraft at distance..if you enjoy aviation too which I do.
I am thinking of getting for 10x30is II for the price..

Thanks Gary

Get the 10x30 ii if you can Gary, my wife has them and they are superb and the x30 is so much brighter than the x20.

I tried the 12x36 iii yesterday and they too are superb but the difference in magnification didn't warrant the extra spend. Yet.

The Canon's reinforce my views on the Nikon 12x25's which were to put it politely, pants.

 

[Gaz1969uk]

Get the 10x30 iii if you can Gary, my wife has them and they are superb and the x30 is so much brighter than the x20.

I tried the 12x36 iii yesterday and they too are superb but the difference in magnification didn't warrant the extra spend. Yet.

The Canon's reinforce my views on the Nikon 12x25's which were to put it politely, pants.

Pat . Thanks , didn't know there was III? Think there's a 10x32 III.. I'll take a look. Yes the 12x36 are a leap up in price I get thatnfor little extra . Thanks Gary

 

[PatR]

Pat . Thanks , didn't know there was III? Think there's a 10x32 III.. I'll take a look. Yes the 12x36 are a leap up in price I get thatnfor little extra . Thanks Gary

Mea Culpa, it is the 10x30 ii!

 

[Gaz1969uk]

Mea Culpa, it is the 10x30 ii!

That's the ones, I think I may treat myself.. have to compared to the 8x20 for sharpness, ghosting , flare etc ? Are they as good?
Thanks Gary

 

[PatR]

That's the ones, I think I may treat myself.. have to compared to the 8x20 for sharpness, ghosting , flare etc ? Are they as good?
Thanks Gary

No idea I am afraid as the 8x20's were not on the radar then but I am sure that they are excellent, as @Hermann has alluded. But what I can say is that the 8x30 ii (!) are very impressive and my wife, who does have a shaky hand, absolutely loves them.

They are not water resistant so care must be taken but saying that we have been up the Mach Loop with them several times, which is not the most temperate of places, and they have survived using a bit of common sense.

You mentioned plane spotting, the little Canon's were superb at following an F35 with incredible detail....... and they don't hang about.

 

[Gaz1969uk]

No idea I am afraid as the 8x20's were not on the radar then but I am sure that they are excellent, as @Hermann has alluded. But what I can say is that the 8x30 ii (!) are very impressive and my wife, who does have a shaky hand, absolutely loves them.

They are not water resistant so care must be taken but saying that we have been up the Mach Loop with them several times, which is not the most temperate of places, and they have survived using a bit of common sense.

You mentioned plane spotting, the little Canon's were superb at following an F35 with incredible detail....... and they don't hang about.

Thanks Pat.
Mach loop superb place, I live under the Lichfield corridor and have many f15s f35s and more over flying the house daily in the week. I can now try them out more as watching those too.
Appreciate the advice in regards protecting them from weather etc. all taken onboard.
Very tempted to hit the button now. Lol
Gaz 👍

 

[Gaz1969uk]

Ordered 10x30is II also.. only keeping one of them so I'll test tomorrow and weekend, the others can go back. 😁👍

 

[Dennis Mau]

That's the ones, I think I may treat myself.. have to compared to the 8x20 for sharpness, ghosting , flare etc ? Are they as good?
Thanks Gary

No, the Canon 8x20 IS are better optically than the Canon 10x30 IS II and IS system being the newer lens shift system is better also.

 

[Dennis Mau]

Pat . Thanks , didn't know there was III? Think there's a 10x32 III.. I'll take a look. Yes the 12x36 are a leap up in price I get thatnfor little extra . Thanks Gary

Be careful of the eyecups on the Canon 10x32 IS III. I didn't care for them at all!

 

[Dennis Mau]

Ordered 10x30is II also.. only keeping one of them so I'll test tomorrow and weekend, the others can go back. 😁👍

The trouble with the Canon 10x30 IS II and the 12x36 IS III is they have low transmission especially for a porro and poor contrast giving them a dull lifeless view especially compared to a regular binocular. I compared the Nikon 10x25 S to the Canon 10x30 IS II back to back and the Nikon had much better contrast and pop, although the Canon had a slightly bigger FOV. As Herman says above, the Canon 8x20 IS is very good optically and is actually better than either the Canon 10x30 IS II or Canon 12x36 IS III when it comes to contrast and the IS system being the newer lens shift system performs better also. I find the Canon 10x30 IS II to have a dull, lifeless view with its low transmission, and that is a big reason I don't use IS binoculars much anymore.

"You get also a bit too narrow field of view, a bit too short eye relief distance, and a bit too low transmission for the Porro II system; a bit too truncated exit pupils, and a bit too short warranty period. All it makes the Canon 10x30 IS II an undoubtedly very good but hardly outstanding pair of binoculars."

"You can praise quite flat shape that guarantees you very good color rendering, but it is slightly worrying that at no point the binoculars reach 90% or higher. Why are we so demanding in this area? Firstly, you deal here with the Porro II system, in which the prisms operate on the principle of total internal reflection. To put it simply, there are no losses here. What's more, such a system is not divided with air, unlike some Porro I systems, so the losses can really be minimized. Add to that a 1-element objective lens and a 4-element eyepiece. Overall, in the whole binoculars you deal with just 6 optical elements, so 12 air-to-glass surfaces. The most efficient contemporary multilayer antireflection coatings lose about 0.3% on one air-to-glass surface. With 12 such surfaces, the overall loss should amount to about 3.5%. Add to that light absorption factor in glass that, with such a number of elements, shouldn't exceed 2%. As you can see, the overall losses of light should have been about 5.5%; it means that in some parts of the visible spectrum the transmission of this instrument should be able to exceed 94%. The problem is it never exceeds 90%, and it's a slip-up that shouldn't have happened to a pair of binoculars manufactured by such a renowned producer and sold at this price point."

Canon 10x30 IS II - binoculars review - AllBinos.com

The best binocular tests on the net. The comprehensive database of binoculars with their parameters and users opinions. Interesting articles and comparisons.

www.allbinos.com

Canon 12x36 IS III - binoculars review - AllBinos.com

The best binocular tests on the net. The comprehensive database of binoculars with their parameters and users opinions. Interesting articles and comparisons.

www.allbinos.com

 

[Hermann]

No, the Canon 8x20 IS are better optically than the Canon 10x30 IS II and IS system being the newer lens shift system is better also.

Well ... yes and no. The larger exit pupil of the 10x30 makes a very real difference. The stabilizer of the 8x20 is better - but just a bit. It's still quite excellent in the 10x30. For general birding the 10x30 is undoubtedly better IMO.

Hermann

 

[Dennis Mau]

Well ... yes and no. The larger exit pupil of the 10x30 makes a very real difference. The stabilizer of the 8x20 is better - but just a bit. It's still quite excellent in the 10x30. For general birding the 10x30 is undoubtedly better IMO.

Hermann

Not IMO. I prefer the bigger 346 foot FOV of the Canon 8x20 IS over the tiny 315 foot FOV of the Canon 10x30 IS III because it is much easier to find and follow birds. I like the more stable view of the Canon 8x20 IS also better than the Canon 10x30 IS III. The contrast and pop of the Canon 8x20 IS is much better than the Canon 10x30 IS II and in the daytime the smaller EP does not handicap you that much. I find the Canon 10x30 IS II to have a dull, lifeless view with its low transmission, and that is a big reason I don't use IS binoculars much anymore.

Outside of the Canon 10x42 IS-L which is a heavy beast, IS binoculars in general just don't hold a candle to a good normal 8x42 binocular like the HG 8x42 when it comes to contrast and brightness. Anymore I prefer 6x, 7x and 8x traditional binoculars for birding because of their bigger FOV, better DOF and better brightness. I think any good regular 8x42 binocular is ideal for birding. I have the Kowa YF 8x30 and 6x30 porros, and they are both better than the Canon's optically, although they don't have IS for $100 each.

 

[Gaz1969uk]

No, the Canon 8x20 IS are better optically than the Canon 10x30 IS II and IS system being the newer lens shift system is better also.

Thanks, how would you compare the 8x20 is canons compared to 8x20 leica ultravid? Just optics for optics, do you think the canons are as good?