# Canon Binoculars



## nda (Aug 18, 2013)

Has anyone every used Canon binoculars in particular the 18x50 IS? Just after an opinion on what their like?
I hear that they are around 10yrs old, has anyone heard any new upcoming models? There is hardly any info on the web about Canon binos, from most reports they are brilliant but hardly any info!


----------



## gferdinandsen (Aug 18, 2013)

I have that pair. They work just fine for my purpose. The IS, while 10 years old, is just fin for binoculars.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Aug 18, 2013)

Interesting, do these type of binoculars also have AF?


----------



## bycostello (Aug 18, 2013)

if they not changed them in 10yrs... canon must be pretty happy with thme


----------



## RAKAMRAK (Aug 18, 2013)

mrsfotografie said:


> Interesting, do these type of binoculars also have AF?



AF in binoculars!! Really? (I am not being sarcastic, I am just astonished if that is even possible)......


----------



## mrsfotografie (Aug 18, 2013)

RAKAMRAK said:


> mrsfotografie said:
> 
> 
> > Interesting, do these type of binoculars also have AF?
> ...



This made me think, and research. They do exist although they do not work in the way we would assume:

http://www.squidoo.com/autofocusbinoculars


----------



## RAKAMRAK (Aug 18, 2013)

Hey mrsfotografie, good to know. I was wondering given my understanding of how AF work (the distance of image plane from mirror equal to distance of af sensor from mirror and the split/half covered pixel thingy.) in DSLRs how it would work with binoculars. Thanks for the link. It is always good to something new.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 18, 2013)

Been looking at Canon binoculars myself, mainly for the IS feature. I'm trying to talk myself _out_ of getting the 10x42L IS WP set...very nice for $1400, but I can get the 10x30 IS set for free.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Aug 18, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Been looking at Canon binoculars myself, mainly for the IS feature. I'm trying to talk myself _out_ of getting the 10x42L IS WP set...very nice for $1400, but I can get the 10x30 IS set for free.



Talking about 'L' fever! ;D


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 18, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> Think like this, 300mm f4, or 300mm f2.8.



Right...300/2.8 for $1400, or 300/4 for $0. Also, I have a '12x150 IS spotting scope' of sorts (aka 600/4L IS II), although it's not quite as handholdable (or 17x150 and 24x150, with TCs).


----------



## Ale (Aug 18, 2013)

Sorry for somewhat off-topic reply, but I recall reading quite interesting news about binoculars and stabilization about a year ago. Luckily I found it again, you can read it here: http://www.popsci.com/gadgets/article/2012-08/worlds-steadiest-binoculars

The most interesting part is this: "Fraser Optics.......has adapted its gyroscope-based mechanical stabilization system into the Mariner, a pair of consumer binoculars that cancels vertical movements of up to 50 degrees without any delay".

I wonder when we'll see such stabilization in telephoto lenses


----------



## AlanF (Aug 18, 2013)

The Canon IS are not very popular. Serious birdies tend to go for Swarovski, the most popular, then Leica. I tested loads of pairs and found that the Hawke Frontier ED 8x43 performed as well as the Swarovski at about 20% of the price. Quite remarkable for a company whose other products were not noteworthy - they got it right for this model.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 18, 2013)

AlanF said:


> The Canon IS are not very popular. Serious *birdies* tend to go for Swarovski...



How do the birdies hold them? With their wings? 

Or is birdies : lift :: birders : elevator? On this side of the pond, a birdie is what little kids call a bird, or one under par on the golf course...

Seriously, I wonder why the Canon IS binocs aren't more popular. Audubon Society shops here often don't even carry them.


----------



## jdramirez (Aug 18, 2013)

anyone see A Big Year? it was not funny, but it was surprisingly entertaining.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 18, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > The Canon IS are not very popular. Serious *birdies* tend to go for Swarovski...
> ...



The authentic English term for a bird watcher is a twitcher, but that would stretch your vocabulary too far. Who in their right mind would want to hold a heavy pair of binoculars all day that require their batteries changing every few hours? Importantly, field of view is important, and the high magnification of the Canons is against this. If you want really high magnification, and the Canon IS is betwixt and between, you need a scope with tripod.


----------



## dswtan (Aug 18, 2013)

I thoroughly recommend IS (stabilized) Canon binoculars and I have a few to prove it:

10x42L - original purchase, good general purpose, originally for astronomy but wanted more aperture/mag
8x25 - second purchase, great for theater and stage, and lightweight walkabout
15x50 - third purchase, perfect for astronomy and wildlife, more magnification gets tough to handhold

I have tried a friend's 18x50 and they are fine -- but the key point about IS is to allow handheld steady use and there is always going to be more "jiggling" at 18x rather than 15x, even with IS, so I am extremely happy with my 15x50 for my purposes.

I don't see an optical quality difference in practice between the L 10x42 and non-L 15x50. All have crappy lens caps of various designs (or none at all). The L has a more padded case. The 8x25 takes less common CR123A batteries, whereas the other two take AAs. The 8x25 annoyingly needs you to hold the IS button down -- the other two have a time delay to hold it down for you, then releases to save the batteries. Battery life seems good on all (never been a problem for my use). 

In summary, they are an expensive indulgence but I would never go back to non-IS. If you can afford them, I recommend them to all -- especially astronomers and wildlife enthusiasts. 

PS. Look for deals on used. My 15x50s were well under 1k on eBay this year. See also BH/Adorama used. http://www.canonpricewatch.com/ tracks binoculars.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 18, 2013)

AlanF said:


> Who in their right mind would want to hold a heavy pair of binoculars all day that require their batteries changing every few hours?



Someone who wants a stabilized image? As for weight, I'm used to carrying a 1D X and 600 II, not too concerned about a few extra ounces...



dswtan said:


> I thoroughly recommend IS (stabilized) Canon binoculars and I have a few to prove it



I guess, since the 10x30's are free, I might as well get them, and if I like them, move up to the 10x42L...


----------



## AlanF (Aug 18, 2013)

The Canon 15x50 weigh 41.6 oz plus wt of batteries, and the Swarovski 10x42 29.6 oz and cost considerably more. Twitchers don't count pennies when they buy their gear. 

I use neither but use my Canon camera as a monocular. The 600mm (300mm + 2xTC) lens on the 5D is roughly 10 x magnification and you can take a photo and enlarge on the screen to give telescope-like magnification when twitching.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 11, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> I guess, since the 10x30's are free, I might as well get them, and if I like them, move up to the 10x42L...



Got the 10x30 IS binocs, so far, I quite like them...


----------

