Canon 10x42 IS L for astro?

[Dunkster]

Anyone jumped in with both feet and tried these out? I've read the Sky@Night review last month and they rated the 15x50 ever so slightly higher... but didn't mention anything about relative views, what you might see with the 50 vs 42.

Any thoughts?

[bish]

Doubt there would be hardly any difference. Not read the review but suspect the L lost out due to price. I think these things are best for bird watchers who have plenty of money.

[Alma]

The mag difference means the 10x42 have 2 degrees more true field of view, but for me the 4 degrees of the 15x50 is enough for stargazing - it's really a matter of preference.

The other key difference is the L designation of the 10x42 which means it uses the same glass as Canon's professional grade camera lenses and means there should be negligible c.a. hence the red ring (and the price difference!). There's a small amount of c.a. in the 15x50's but it's very well controlled and only shows as a slight yellow fringing in extreme lighting situations.

I recently bought the 15x50's and can highly recommend them for astro use. I have Fujinon 16x70's also and trust me the Canons give them a damn good run for their money.

Cheers.

Alan

[Alma]

Doubt there would be hardly any difference. Not read the review but suspect the L lost out due to price. I think these things are best for bird watchers who have plenty of money.

Performance approaching the best 70mm bins with no need for tripods or parallelogram mounts? Sorry, but you're just plain wrong .... IS is brilliant for astronomy, although I take your point about the money - these things are a serious investment but the fact that you can be outside stargazing in a second or two with absolutely no set up makes them a very worthwhile expenditure. Mine get used a lot.

[BinocularSky]

Mine get used a lot.

...and that, as they say, is what counts. Any instrument that is used a lot is, by definition, more useful than one that is not used as much. As with most things, it comes down to personal taste.

[Stu]

I love my 15x50is binos, use then alot for quick sessions and have had some great views of the conjunction. Galilean moons very clearly seen with them.

Although I have an eq mount plus large mak, my most used scope is a WO66 on giro mount, so quick to set up and use.

I did wonder how the 42is L would perform with the better optics but I think the extra mag and light grasp of the 15x50is probably makes them better for astro.

Stu

[Dunkster]

Thanks for all your input folks, sounds like the 15x50is is the way to go

But then there's the 18x50is ... too much magnification / too narrow FOV?

[Stu]

I had the same dilemma but think the 15x50is are probably best. They have a larger exit pupil so brighter images, and as you say a wider field of view. I doubt x18 would show you any detail on planets anyway and the stabilisation would have to work that bit harder. I would stick with the x15.

Make sure you check around online for a good price, they vary a surprising amount. I went for a reputable supplier with good reviews and nearly the lowest price if I remember correctly.

Stu

[bish]

Performance approaching the best 70mm bins with no need for tripods or parallelogram mounts? Sorry, but you're just plain wrong .... IS is brilliant for astronomy, although I take your point about the money - these things are a serious investment but the fact that you can be outside stargazing in a second or two with absolutely no set up makes them a very worthwhile expenditure. Mine get used a lot.

Nothing in my statement is plain wrong, it's all just a matter of perspective and opinion. My 10x50's get used on most nights I go out too.

[Doug]

I would agree with Alan and Stu the Canon 15x50 IS are great yes they are a lots of money even with hundreds of pounds off but being that they are not used on a tripod

and at 15x50 you see a hole lots more whe you switch them on

when I am studying clusters like M44 I use my Opticron 15x80 on a tripod but when I go out or holidays they are perfect,check out Amazon

clear skies

[E621Keith]

Not sure if you will be interested, but there is a pair of Fujinon 14x40 on fleabay atm.

FUJINON TS1440 TECHNO-STABI | eBay

A pair of Nikon branded version of this binocular was sold for just under £400 last week.

Here is a review I found for this binocular

Astromart Reviews - Starwatching in the Sahara with the Nikon Stabileyes 14X40

[BinocularSky]

Not sure if you will be interested, but there is a pair of Fujinon 14x40 on fleabay atm.

FUJINON TS1440 TECHNO-STABI | eBay

IIRC, S&T included this in their review of IS binos some years back; it came out less favourably than the Canons for astro use.

[Doug]

I also see a review on youtube for the 10x42 V 15x50 give it a look

[Mr Bond]

The amazing thing about all of the IS Canons I've used is that the edge to edge clarity is the best I've seen, even on "cheapies" like the 10x30.

I had 10x42, 15x50, and 10x30 IS bins, all good but you DO loose some clarity with the IS switched on.

It is a moving prism, and the very slight but continuous movement can look like slight decollimation or coma.

Try before you buy to see if it bothers you.

I kept the 10x30 IS as it's so handy and cheap, but sold the others as I preferred the hand held, wobbly, but crystal clear Swarovski 8.5x42.

The red line does indeed indicate fancy glass on the 10x42. When NOT using the IS system, I think these are among the most impressive bins I have EVER looked through, and that list is long.

BUT, they're heavy, slightly awkward in use, expensive and battery operated (you know the drill).

Incedentally, there are filter threads for UV filters on the objectives (58mm). You could have fun with coloured filters on various targets.

blumming good bins, despite any of my issues with them. Enjoy!!

[Dunkster]

Thanks for all the feedback, I plumped for the 15x50is and have been blessed with some clear skies while travelling and I'm really pleased so far

[Bruce MacDonald]

I'd love to have a pair of the 15x50s. I have a pair of 10x30s and I use them all the time, even though the IS circuit has broken. Very good for nova patrolling, observing variables, and deep sky work.

[gliderpilot]

I love my 15x50, wonderful optics and the benefits of image stabilisation. They always go on observing trips, business meetings and on holidays with me and avoid the need for a tripod.

Bruce, you are more than welcome to have a butchers when we are next observing. I wouldn't mind a go with the 10x30s if you don't mind - it'd be good to compare them side by side in the field.

I can't comment on the 10x42L simply because I have not used them but they sound good.

Mark

[Doug]

Hi Dunkster

You must have had the Canon IS 15x50 for a good few weks now , How do you find them ?

Doug

[Dunkster]

So far, so good... actually, great. Although the weather has been less than cooperative overall, I have been able to get a little quality time in (but less than I might like!). I feel they're a good balance in several respects....

• They're not especially light, but I don't find them overly heavy. My frame of reference are a pair of Celestron Skymaster 15x70.... practically unusable without a decent tripod. The Canons are just about right for kicking back under the sky. And stashing in the car... although they're not small enough to fit in the glove box of my car, the cargo net on the back of the seat works well.
  
• I like the feel of them in hand, they're solid and overall easy to use, but I find the auto de-stabilise after 5 minutes to be a minor niggle - only somewhat mitigated by the button being conveniently located.
  
• Getting them merged is easy enough - easier than any other bins I've used if I think about it - but wish there was a mechanism to lock them in position. The rubber eyecups protrude just a little too far, but it's not a biggie for me.
  
• The FOV is nice and wide, at least coming from my scope that maxes out at about 1 degree, and I've even started to learn to star hop with them (steady... I'll be after a Dob next )
  
• I'm not an optical expert, so I'll not attempt to pass judgement there, but the views are very pleasing. From my recent travels, excellent views of both Orion (nebula, especially) and the Pleiades provided a useful benchmark of what I can expect with more time (although I appreciate that both of those are classic "Wow!" objects)
  
• For a long-term travel sickness sufferer, I'm relieved that I don't feel nauseous using them! If anything, I find them more disconcerting to use with the stabilisation off, but I feel the same way about my Skymasters and my inability to keep them steady.
  

Needless to say, I haven't used the Skymasters once since I've had the Canons. It is early days yet, but I look forward to using them a lot. With the limited clear skies we've had recently I've had the scope out, but only because I've had the (rare) element of time. As we head into the long summer days, I hope to get out into the country more and these will be must-take kit

[Bruce MacDonald]

The Techno-Stabi had a good review from the late, much-missed Neil Bone in Astronomy Now, about 12 years ago IIRC. I think the review is still available online, on the Monk Optics website...wait a mo, here it is:

http://monkoptics.co.uk/Astronomy/technostabi-review.html

The main downside of these glasses is their astronomical retail price.

[Doug]

Hi Dunkster

have been away the last 3 weeks, thanks for the repley,like you I take them in my car, when I got my pair I purchased rechargeable batteries and want a surpise to find that the battries last me for about 4 nights viewing, my night viewing are very long when the nights are clear, they are "Energizer recharge 2000mAh they are well worth the money from Argos Just in case you are still using plan batteries

I was unable to use my bins at night on this holiday as I was on a cruise to Russia it did not get dark there until 00:45 and was cloudy but looking at other ships and land marks ect was fantastic was able to read the name of the ships very far way

clear skies

[Saleratus]

I use the Canon 10x42 L bins for astronomy, but wouldn't recommend them as your only astronomical device if you don't have a telescope. However, I love the image clarity and wide FOV in them, and they get used a lot for all sorts of things.

[Stuka]

I wouldn't strongly recommend them for Astronomy either... as neither would I recommend the bigger 15x or 18x 50s

Not because they're bad binos.... they're actually very nice, but they do exhibit a behaviour that excludes them from use in my view.

They all suffer from a regular but tiny defocussing, or shimmy if you will.  It's very slight, and most people don't seem to notice it at all, but I've seen it on my 15x & 18x50s (now sold) and most recently the newer design 10x42Ls when I tested them at IAS last weekend.

 

I even managed to the get the Canon salesman to see it once I showed him the best way to check.... which is to look at something where a steady image outline is easy to monitor, such as reading words on a white sign in the distance. Just look at a single point and then the image will shift, or maybe go very slightly fuzzy every few seconds..... but only by a tiny amount. It's hard to explain, but once you've seen it, then you'll see it easily again.

 

I couldn't cope with it whilst looking at the stars and moon.... and hence sold my two Canon IS already (about a year ago), and was thinking the 10x42L with improved optics would remedy this.... but alas not.

 

I'd be interested to know if anyone else has noticed this? The Salesman said he'd heard of it before, but had always assumed people were talking about the more obvious full image shift as the optics compensate for movement.

[Stu]

I have seen this effect, and actually the view is slightly clearer with the binos mounted and the stabilisation off, but for me they are still way better than hand held binos so it's not a problem. I love my 15x50is for astro and daytime use

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ollypenrice]

I really do think the question of IS versus even better glass for a similar cost is a tough one. I have done a back to back between the Canons and my Leica 8x42s on three occasions. The Leicas are optically better. I don't think there is any doubt about that. The stars were smaller and showed slightly better colour and Jupiter was rounder and cleaner as a disk as compared with the Canon L bns. But, but, that stability is very nice. Yes, tough call and personal preference rules in the end. The prism shimmy I had not noticed but perhaps it lay behind my slight prefence for the crispness of the Leicas. I'll need to try again some time!

I suppose one other thing concerns longevity. I bought my Leicas second hand when they were 11 years old (though hardly used.) Do we have much information on the lifespan of the Canons? How well will the IS work after ten years, etc? I'm not knocking them, just asking.

Olly