Canon IS question

[TBRHussaR]

Hi Guys, I was wondering - do these Binos break down at some point, and what is the life expectancy of them? Ive seen some used ones on eBay but theyre not cheap !!!

 

Many thanks

A

[Shimrod]

On 11/07/2022 at 20:36, TBRHussaR said:

Hi Guys, I was wondering - do these Binos break down at some point, and what is the life expectancy of them? Ive seen some used ones on eBay but theyre not cheap !!!

 

Many thanks

A

I'd assume the binoculars use the same IS system that is found in Canon lenses. While it is something that may fail one day (a mix of mechanical and electronic components), I have some Canon lenses that are 15 years old and none of those with IS have failed so far.

[Space Hopper]

My Canon 15x50's are my oldest astro purchase.

I brought them for the 2004 Venus transit. Now 18 yrs old and have never missed a beat.

I've not hammered them though, they are well looked after, and only get intermittent use.

I've not had an issue with the rubberised outer becoming degraded either.

I also have a pair of 2014   10x30's that i actually prefer in a way. Much lighter with great optics. 

I mainly use them for terrestrial stuff like nature, birds and to cricket matches.

I can recommend them, although like alot of things, they are crazy expensive now.

[DaveL59]

7 hours ago, Shimrod said:

I'd assume the binoculars use the same IS system that is found in Canon lenses. While it is something that may fail one day (a mix of mechanical and electronic components), I have some Canon lenses that are 15 years old and none of those with IS have failed so far.

I believe they use some sort of fluid lens/prism to achieve the stabilisation

Canon Stabilized 15x45 oil leak . How and what oil raplace ? - Binoculars - Cloudy Nights

The other thing to check is the battery door and compartment

[catburglar]

I had a pair of 10x30’s for over 15 years and no problems with the stabilisation…They were always kept clean and in their case when not in use, but the rubber coating did develop a bit of stickiness…I chose to replace them without a second thought- they’re great for terrestrial uses and very handy for a bit of astro- much better than their 10x30 spec would suggest…I could easily see as much with them as with a pair of handheld 10x50’s without stabilisation.

[BinocularSky]

On 13/07/2022 at 11:53, Shimrod said:

I'd assume the binoculars use the same IS system that is found in Canon lenses. While it is something that may fail one day (a mix of mechanical and electronic components), I have some Canon lenses that are 15 years old and none of those with IS have failed so far.

 

16 hours ago, DaveL59 said:

I believe they use some sort of fluid lens/prism to achieve the stabilisation

Canon Stabilized 15x45 oil leak . How and what oil raplace ? - Binoculars - Cloudy Nights

The other thing to check is the battery door and compartment

Canon uses different IS systems. The earliest ones used a vari-angle prism, and the cheaper (relatively!) ones still use this.  The premium ones like the new 14x32 do use the same stabilisation system that they use in their top-end camera lenses.

[PeterW]

Mine must be 15yrs at least, don’t get so much use as they did. I keep them in a pelicans room for protection. The coating has gone sticky in places, but I’ve stripped off those areas by scrubbing with isopropyl alcohol wipes. They do give lovely stable views day or night.

 

peter

[Astrobits]

I have a pair of the 10 x 30's  that I used during the 1999 Leonid meteor watch so they are at least 23 years old and still going. I had a problem with leakey batteries which damaged the terminals but I managed to clean them up and they have been going fine since. I also have a pair of the 15 x 50's which are over 20 years old now and are my main goto bins. Never had a problem with them.

Nigel

[TBRHussaR]

Thanks guys!! I’ll get a 15x50 

[JeremyS]

Has anyone else experience of the latest 32 mm Canon IS bino models for astronomy?

Roger Vine’s excellent review of the 14x 32 model identified some issues and said the 12 x 36 IS mark III might be better (and cheaper): http://scopeviews.co.uk/Canon14x32.htm

Going with the latest 32mm range, any thoughts about whether the 12x or 14x might be preferable?

 

 

[Alma]

I’ve had my 15x50’s for about 14 years now and everything still works fine.  Don’t use them much for the terrestrial stuff but for casual stargazing they’re brilliant.

[Second Time Around]

On 03/08/2022 at 13:48, JeremyS said:

Has anyone else experience of the latest 32 mm Canon IS bino models for astronomy?

Roger Vine’s excellent review of the 14x 32 model identified some issues and said the 12 x 36 IS mark III might be better (and cheaper): http://scopeviews.co.uk/Canon14x32.htm

Going with the latest 32mm range, any thoughts about whether the 12x or 14x might be preferable?

 

 

I see that Jeremy has already bought the 12x36s, but for the benefit of other readers in the future I'd add the following:

My own choice was the 12x36s. At 660gms they're hugely lighter than the 10x42's at 1110gms.

Despite my hands not working properly I don't find holding down the IS button a problem - it just falls naturally under a finger.

The main disadvantage is the long minimum focusing distance of 20 feet.  However, for me this isn't a problem as most of my birding etc is over water or open country, and for astronomy of course it's immaterial. Having said that, I may get some ultra-close focusing Pentax Papilo 6.5x21s for dragonflies etc.

I find that 12x magnification is the perfect compromise for my needs. I was tempted to try Canon's new 12x32, but unlike in the US where the price went much lower soon after release, here in the UK they're very much more expensive than the 12x36s that cost me £630.  

Moreover, the 12x36s take a dewshield, the 32mm ones don't because of their shape.

The FOV is a flat 5 degrees but I can see all of it wearing my glasses because there's sufficient eye relief.  I haven't tried the 10x42s, but it may well be that I wouldn't be able to see the wider FOV anyway.  This is because claimed eye relief of many binoculars on the market is often less than the useable eye relief.  

Cloudy Nights member Pinac has done field tests on lots of binoculars including measurements of actual vs claimed eye relief.  Go to his excellent website at https://www.binocular.ch/ 

Here are his results:

8x20 - claimed 13.5mm - measured 13mm

10x30 II - claimed 14mm - measured 15.5mm

12x36 III - claimed 14mm - measured 15.5mm

10x42 - claimed 16mm - measured 12mm

10x32 - claimed 14.5mm - measured 13.5mm

12x32 - claimed 14.5mm - measured 12.5mm

14x32 - claimed 14.5mm - measured 13.5mm

Edited August 14, 2022 by Second Time Around
Corrected link

[PeterW]

The papillo fill the “close up” niche and are  my “don’t have the space the carry a proper pair of binoculars” too. 
 

peter