Canon IS ---Which Set ?

[pluton]

I used a 12x36, fabulous, and 18x50, very heavy and the image shaking too ...

Best regards

paul

[waldi]

Paul,

I agree with you. That holding 18x50 without shaking is not easy task. But it's a matter of training.

For most of my travels to Africa  Canon 18x50 were my best tool. 

 

p.s Other good bino for travel with tripod small Miyauchi 20x77 which is light only 2,5 kgs, so even with small tripod it can bring lot of fun.

 

Rgds,

Waldi

 

 

[davekelley]

On 12/03/2016 at 12:48, waldi said:

I had 

10x30 - I sold them very fast becuase were to dark for me 

12x36 - quite nice binocular a huge step forward , good for nature , birds etc.

15x50 - I was in love with them untill  found nice pair of  18x50

18x50 - spite I sold them a well, it was wrong decision! IS system worked best! DS were very nice and bright I prefered them instead of Fuji 16x70. It was realy great tool for traveling they never dissapoint me. Very small CA , very sharp views! And best binocular for spotting airplanes!

Btw I am looking for some bargain to buy them again.

 

Rgds,

Waldi

I agree about the 10x30.  They get fabulous reviews but mine were quickly sold as images were lacking in brightness and contrast and I saw a blueish cast in daytime viewing.  12x36 were a massive improvement in daytime but IS wasn't great at night and seemed to fade in and out annoyingly  but that is going back to the days of the original model 12x36 that were a ompletely different design.

I am now seriously considering buying the mk3 12x36.  The price of the 10x42 is a shame.  Just too much to pay no matter how great they do sound.

[Second Time Around]

20 hours ago, davekelley said:

I agree about the 10x30.  They get fabulous reviews but mine were quickly sold as images were lacking in brightness and contrast and I saw a blueish cast in daytime viewing.  12x36 were a massive improvement in daytime but IS wasn't great at night and seemed to fade in and out annoyingly  but that is going back to the days of the original model 12x36 that were a ompletely different design.

I am now seriously considering buying the mk3 12x36.  The price of the 10x42 is a shame.  Just too much to pay no matter how great they do sound.

The last post is over 2 years after the previous one.  However I'd recommend you do try the 12x36is III.  They're supposed to have a better IS system than their predecessors - certainly I've had no problems at all with mine.   

However if you found your 10x30s lacking in brightness you might find the same with the 12x36s as the exit pupil is the same.  I don't find this myself, and the 12x36s are my dual purpose birdwatching and astronomy binoculars.  For me they're the ideal compromise between weight and performance.  Indeed, the weight difference between these and the 10x30s is mimimal (660 v 600 grams) as they share many of the same components.  

I have no problems holding the 12x36s steady whereas my limit with non-IS binoculars is 8x.  So one can see fainter objects with the 12x36s, but of course the FOV is smaller.

The only downside of the 12x36s for birdwatching is the poor short focussing ability of 6 m/20 ft.  Most of my birdwatching is in open country so for me this is no problem.  If it were then the 10x30 IS II that focuses down to 4.2m/14 ft might be a better compromise.

I did consider the new 12x32 version that has a much closer minimum focus of 2 m/6 1/2 ft but this is far more expensive in the UK.  In the States the price was put hugely down soon after launch, but it hasn't happened here.

The other problem is dewing up.  With the new 32mm series the objective is very near the far end, plus the design means that it would be very difficult if not impossible to fit a dew cap.  With the 12x36 and the 10x30 the objective is recessed quite a bit, which is important in our damp, dewy climate - especially as much of my birdwatching is near water.  Additionally the design of the 12x36 (but not the 10x30) means that a dewcap could be fitted.

For close range birdwatching and dragonfly watching I use my 8x42 Opticron Discovery that focusses as close as 1.5metres/5 feet and is one of the most compact 8x42s on the market.

[davekelley]

48 minutes ago, Second Time Around said:

The last post is over 2 years after the previous one.  However I'd recommend you do try the 12x36is III.  They're supposed to have a better IS system than their predecessors - certainly I've had no problems at all with mine.   

However if you found your 10x30s lacking in brightness you might find the same with the 12x36s as the exit pupil is the same.  I don't find this myself, and the 12x36s are my dual purpose birdwatching and astronomy binoculars.  For me they're the ideal compromise between weight and performance.  Indeed, the weight difference between these and the 10x30s is mimimal (660 v 600 grams) as they share many of the same components.  

I have no problems holding the 12x36s steady whereas my limit with non-IS binoculars is 8x.  So one can see fainter objects with the 12x36s, but of course the FOV is smaller.

The only downside of the 12x36s for birdwatching is the poor short focussing ability of 6 m/20 ft.  Most of my birdwatching is in open country so for me this is no problem.  If it were then the 10x30 IS II that focuses down to 4.2m/14 ft might be a better compromise.

I did consider the new 12x32 version that has a much closer minimum focus of 2 m/6 1/2 ft but this is far more expensive in the UK.  In the States the price was put hugely down soon after launch, but it hasn't happened here.

The other problem is dewing up.  With the new 32mm series the objective is very near the far end, plus the design means that it would be very difficult if not impossible to fit a dew cap.  With the 12x36 and the 10x30 the objective is recessed quite a bit, which is important in our damp, dewy climate - especially as much of my birdwatching is near water.  Additionally the design of the 12x36 (but not the 10x30) means that a dewcap could be fitted.

For close range birdwatching and dragonfly watching I use my 8x42 Opticron Discovery that focusses as close as 1.5metres/5 feet and is one of the most compact 8x42s on the market.

So you have not found a problem with focus drifting in and out when using the 12x36 for astronomy?  A lot of people on here have referred to it and I found it to be a major issue in mine, although they were incredible in daytime use!  Perhaps it is a qc thing.  They are available at a great price now and I'm hugely tempted.  I can't even hand hold my nikon monarch 7 8 x 30 steady enough for astronomy use.

(I didn't want to start a new thread so I used the search function on here I don't know if that's the better way or if I should always start a new thread?) 

Cheers

dave