IS stabilized vs. conventional binoculars.

[pluton]

Hello,

Anyone have compared two binoculars, one with IS stabilized like Canon o Nikon, and the other with non IS stabilized ,?

I had heard that for example a 10x30 IS Canon is best for general purpose , incluiding astro observations that a convetional 10x50 , 8x40...models.

Some maybe with a realistic opinion on this theme?

Thank you very much.

Paul

[damnut]

Hi Paul,

The IS binos are brilliant (i had my mits on a pair of 10*42). But 30mm objectives are too small for astro use. The minimum is 10*50 anything above 12* requires a bit of holding or a tripod mount. The larger IS binos are VERY expensive.

[Mr Spock]

I use the Canon 12x36 IS for bird watching. They are remarkable good for astro too. The IS makes it easy to see faint objects, though larger bins on a tripod would be better (though not as convenient). The 15 x 50s would be amazing - if you can afford them!

[ollypenrice]

Tough decision. IS gives higher mag with stability. You may or may not want higher mag, though. I don't really since I can get down to 15x with a scope. I went for 8x42 Leica second hand in the end because the glass is so good and 8x is what I wanted for FOV. It's a safe bet they will last longer, too. Optically they do out perform Canon IS on challenging tests back to back but if you want hgher mag with stability go for IS. The honest truth is that both are great but a little different. I could easily have jumped the other way.

On brightness I find nothng in it between comparable 8x42 and 10x50.

Olly

[sharkmelley]

I use the Canon 12x36 IS for bird watching. They are remarkable good for astro too. The IS makes it easy to see faint objects, though larger bins on a tripod would be better (though not as convenient). The 15 x 50s would be amazing - if you can afford them!

Totally agree.