Canon 10x42IS Review
I’ve long liked Canon’s image stabilising binoculars. For
some years my go to astronomy travel binoculars have been the 12x36
ISIII model. But I’d hate you to think that means
they’re the best birding binoculars I’ve reviewed – they’re really not.
For birding the 12x36s have too much false colour and aren’t
waterproof.
But even for birding, stabilised bino’s have the potential to
just show you more. In an odd moment of believe-it-or-not
coincidence, as I was typing this, a woodpecker appeared in the tree outside my
window and promptly flew off. No matter, I grabbed the 12x36s and followed him
from tree to tree into the distance – enjoying his speckled plumage and red cap
far beyond the range of normal bino’s.
So what if you could combine those
features of the 12x36s – their super-sharp high-power view, stabilised to
resolve like no conventional bino’s – with the attributes of a conventional
birding binocular? You can, with these - Canon’s top-line 10x42s…
At A Glance
|
Magnification |
10x |
|
Objective Size |
42mm |
|
Eye Relief |
16mm claimed, ~13mm measured from the eye cup |
|
Actual Field of View |
114m/1000m, 6.5° |
|
Apparent field of view |
59.2° |
|
Close focus |
~2.5m measured |
|
Transmissivity |
~90-92%? |
|
Length |
176mm |
|
Weight |
1110g w/o batteries, ~1150g with |
Data from Me/Canon.
What’s in the Box?
The box is typical Canon – small
and nothing fancy, no Swarovski soaring raptor painting or embossed card here.
Design and Build
Canon
now has a confusingly large range of IS binoculars. As of now
(late 2022), no less than five different lines are sold here in the UK:
·
Large, high-power binoculars of semi-waterproof
design, with ED lenses: the 15x50s and the identical-looking 18x50s
·
A newer line of 32mm models featuring a different
type of I.S. derived from their camera lenses, including a 10x32, 12x32 and a
14x32
·
An
older line including 8x25, 10x30 and the 12x36s I mentioned in the intro’,
which share a similar non-waterproof design, are light weight and fairly cheap. The 12x36s are a Scope Views Best
Buy for astronomy
·
Recent small and light-weight ‘pocket’ binoculars
in 8x20 and 10x20 sizes
·
These premium 10x42s aimed at birders
These
10x42s are the top-of-the-range and have features the others don’t,
despite being one of the older models in the line-up. Even so, I should point
out here that, expensive like an Alpha bino’ these may be, but you should
regard them as an electronic consumer appliance – they will eventually wear out
and when they do repair options may be limited.
Body
Most Canon IS bino’s aren’t
waterproof. The 50mm models are sealed against rain, but not immersion. These
10x42s however are fully sealed to JIS 7 (immersion resistant to 1m).
The thin rubberised covering is common to all Canons and
though it works well for anti-slip, it isn’t very
protective, though these have armour ridges to protect the body not seen on
other models in the range. The armour isn’t too
magnetic for dust and doesn’t have a rubbery odour.
More troublingly the armour seems an integral part of the
body (unlike the armour on your Alphas, which can easily be cut off and
replaced). I haven’t had problems, but a reader wrote
to tell me that the coating degrades after some years of heavy use and Canon
can’t/won’t fix it. I’ll say it again, the price you
pay for the I.S. functionality is that these are a semi-disposable consumer
appliance.
These feel like a big chunky binocular compared with the
12x36s. At 1110g they are heavy for a 10x42 (for comparison, Zeiss’ 10x42
Victory SFs are 800g).
Focuser
Like Canon’s other models, the objectives move in and out to
focus, but like the 50mm models here they move behind plane optical windows for
sealing.
The focuser is silky smooth and ultra precise
– similar to, but even better than, the cheaper models’
like the 12x36s - and it needs to be given the super-snappy optics. Close focus
is pretty good at about 2.5m, but for a birding binocular these are slow – it
takes 2 ¼ turns to get from there to infinity.
Dioptre adjust is by a ring under the right eyepiece that you
have to snick up to adjust. It’s a system that can
work well (e.g. Nikon’s old HGs), but here the ring is
plasticky, the action vague for those ultra-snappy optics and makes a curious
rustling sound.
Optics - Prisms
These may not look like Grandad bino’s with ‘shoulders’, but as far as I know all the Canon IS models use porro prisms too (rather than the modern standard Schmidt-Pechan, a.k.a. roof, prisms). This is a good thing because porro prisms bend the light with total internal reflection
and are less lossy than roofs which need mirrors.
Optics - Objectives
That experience with the Woodpecker reminded me of a major
downside to the 12x36s – false colour. We’re not
talking off-axis fringing from the eyepieces here, but proper false colour – a
rim of green and purple around the Woodpecker’s plumage against the bright sky.
This doesn’t generally spoil the view; but I once used
them to watch Bison at Yellowstone in thick snow and then it did.
Despite the ED objective elements that have reduced false
colour in other binoculars, it’s still a problem
across the Canon IS range - even in the 50mm models that do have an ED element
in their objectives (most of the others don’t). These 10x42s are supposed to be
different and a red ring is the clue.
Photographers know what a red ring around a Canon lens means
– premium quality and cost. Their ‘L’ red-ring telephotos are the top choice
for professionals. Here that red ring means two elements of ED glass among
four elements in three groups. Along with moving-objective focusing, this
should be a recipe for supreme resistance to false colour (from the objectives
at least).
Coatings are just like those on a lot of premium optics with
a muted purple-green hue: similar to the 12x36s’ but noticeably darker (i.e. better). Canon claim special metallic coatings to
resist fogging.
Canon have fitted multiple knife-edge baffles behind the
objectives, an excellent but expensive solution to stray light. However, those
optical windows are close to the front so I’m prepared
for veiling flare, despite some thread baffles in front of them.
Optics - Eyepieces
These have complex seven element eyepieces that incorporate
doublet field flatteners and large (24mm) eye lenses.
Field of view at 6.5°
apparent (59° true) is
better than the traditional 6° found on older 10x42s, but less than
the 7°+ offered by the market leaders. But here you do need to
consider that the field edge is more usable than the competitions’ (apart from
Swarovski’s 10x42 NL Pures).
One of my least favourite things about all the other Canon IS
binoculars I’ve reviewed is eyepiece comfort. The
12x36s are the best of the rest in this respect, but not perfect. Even the most
recent models have too little eye relief to see the whole field with specs,
combined with folding eye cups that are awkward to use and have only two
positions.
Unfortunately, the eye relief here isn’t
great either (better than the 50mm models’, worse than the 12x36s), mainly
because Canon have fallen into the common trap of making the cup rims too far
from the eye lenses.
Canon claim eye relief of 16mm, but I measured about 12-13mm
from the cup rim and that’s how it feels - I can’t see
anything like the whole wide field with my specs on. Blackouts aren’t a problem, though.
A significant difference on these top-line 10x42s is ‘modern’
twist-up cups with four positions. But the action isn’t as oily smooth as the
best (i.e. Swarovski) and the most extended position
doesn’t have a click-stop. Another minor issue is that these eye cups are real
sticky magnets for every particle of dust.
Accessories
The eyepiece cap is a robust squishy rubber affair that
should be effective. I’m less thrilled with the
push-in objective caps that other Canons lack: they’re hard to get seated so
they stay in, even indoors with warm fingers.
Other Canon’s I’ve tested have a
basic thin strap and an unpadded Cordura-type zip-up
pouch: functional but no more.
This premium model gets a fancier semi-rigid case with some
padding and a leather base – it’s a quality item and
is designed to accommodate the strap so you can carry the bino’s with it on.
The strap is a bit better than the cheaper models get too,
but still isn’t as padded as many are today.
In Use – Daytime
Ergonomics and Handling
These are heavy for a 10x42 – almost double the 12x36s. I’d buy a harness for long days in the field. The chunky body with no cutouts makes these less comfy to hold than most Alpha
birding bino’s, for my smallish hand anyhow, and so the focuser doesn’t fall as naturally to finger as some.
The focuser action is perfect in terms of precision and
smoothness, with no play or difference in best focus when reversing direction.
The knob isn’t as large as a pair of Zeiss SFs’ or
Swarovski NL Pures’, but it’s usefully larger than
the 12x36s’ and so easier to find and use with gloves. But the big downside is
speed – the focuser is much slower than many birding bino’s, making it harder
to focus onto rapidly moving targets like birds in flight.
As I noted, the dioptre isn’t great
on this pair – a bit stiff, vague and graunchy, especially given the extremely
snappy optics that demand focus precision.
Though the eye cups have three twist-out positions, I found
them perfect for use without specs when fully retracted. In that position
they rest nicely on my sockets and don’t pinch my nose
the way some other Canon models’ do.
There really isn’t enough eye relief
for people like me who wear glasses to view, though – you lose too much field
of view.
Otherwise, eyepiece comfort is good with ideal eye relief for
viewing without specs and mild blackouts that only happen if you swivel
your eyes around the view, not in general use or when panning.
The View
The view is, perhaps as you would expect from the red-ring
objectives, really very good indeed: ultra-sharp, vivid, bright, wide, and very
flat. Resolution is superb, even without the IS button pressed. It’s a view that’s addictive and compelling, I just keep
wanting to pick them up and use them – always a good sign.
Colour rendition is natural and all aberrations well
controlled - you never notice them during the day.
The view only really loses out to the birding front-runners
in width (true field is the same as the 12x42 NL Pures,
for example). As a comparison point, the view is very comparable with the
previous generation of premium Swaro’s, the 10x42 EL
SVs.
Flat field?
The
field appears very well corrected right to the edge. Close inspection reveals
the very field edge is slightly degraded by a touch of field curvature along
with lateral false colour from the eyepiece, but this one of the best corrected
fields you’ll find in a 10x42.
Canon
have included some mild distortion to make panning a bit more
comfy. But in fact, the flat field globe effect means that, though these
pan very fluidly for stabilised bino’s, I did find it slightly nauseating
eventually.
Chromatic Aberration
What
minor residual false colour remains comes from the eyepieces and is at the
field edge. Mostly, those twin ED elements successfully supress false colour:
focusing through silhouetted branch or feather yields almost none and
performance on snow or bright water should be excellent. This is an area where
this model significantly outperforms the cheaper 10x30s and 12x36s.
Stray Light and Ghosting
I
struggled to get any significant ghosting or flare – no spikes or ghosts on
bright lights at night.
Image Stabilisation
The I.S.
system requires two AA batteries. Fitting them needs a coin to operate the lid
release, but it’s fiddly and you’ll probably mar the
plastic the first time you use it.
Unlike
the cheaper models, here you get the option to have it stay on after the button
is released (a quick push), or disengage when the button is released (a longer
push): it works intuitively. As usual, a green light tells you it’s on.
Unlike
some of the higher powered models, the stabilisation is
very unobtrusive. There’s no real click as it
activates, almost no noise when it’s running and just a small click when it
disengages. At this power, the FOV suffers few of the artefacts you get with
the 15x50 and 18x50s – no jazzing, no cycling of the focus point and only very,
very minor jitter in the view. Panning is very seamless too, but see the
section on field flatness.
In Use – Dusk
They penetrate dusk shadows well for a 42mm and,
surprisingly, I had no problem with veiling flare at dusk, even though those
optical windows are close to the front.
In Use – Observing the Night Sky
Others in the range have proved good for astronomy and that’s true again here. The field is extremely well
corrected, with stars distorted just very slightly towards the edge by
mild field curvature and perhaps a trace of astigmatism.
But I’m being ultra-picky - off-axis
aberrations are far lower than almost every other binocular I’ve reviewed
(including plenty that boast field flatteners). Stars remain stars to the field
stop with the Canon 10x42s. The field is better corrected than with plenty of
astronomy eyepieces.
The Moon
The 10x42IS
Moon is absolutely sharp and even the full Moon shows
no flare or spikes, no false colour from the objectives focusing through, just
a touch of rose gold on the limb that’s probably from the eyepieces.
Stabilisation
allows you to see a lot more detail of crater and maria, subtle shadings and
rays than a ‘normal’ 10x42. However, the 12x36s do offer a significantly more
engaging and explorable Moon (that jump from 10x to 12x seems subjectively more
significant than a further increase to 14x or 15x).
Planets
Mars and
Jupiter reveal no flare or spikes and the Galilean moons are picked out well,
even when close to the planet’s limb.
Deep Sky
Large
open cluster M35 resolved brighter stars with direct vision, stardust with
averted. Likewise, M38 (the Starfish Cluster) showed arms with direct vision
and its ‘arrow head’ shape. I almost got M37, M36 and M38 in one field. Views
of these clusters were among best I’ve seen through a
10x42. The Double Cluster was brilliant and populous, it’s
arc of stars leading away to another cluster - nearby Stock 2.
Galaxy M33
was very well picked out of the background, with its shape more apparent than
usual at 42mm. The Andromeda galaxy on the other side of orange Markab looked
good too, revealing its smaller companion and the dark lane that seems to cut
off the nebulosity.
Orion’s
great Nebula M42 looked bright and contrasty, with arms and central spike
clearly defined. I found the Dumbbell Nebula easily. Globular cluster M15 off Enif in Pegasus was easy to find too - a bright, fuzzy star.
Canon’s 10x42IS are among the very best 10x42s for astronomy,
due to their very well corrected field, premium optical quality and yes the stabilisation.
Canon 10x42IS vs Canon
12x36IS
The 12x36s are lighter and smaller;
they’re also half the price. So
what are the differences between the two?
· The 10x42s
have almost no false colour, the 12x36s too much
· The 10x42s
are fully waterproof, the 12x36s aren’t even properly
rain resistant
· The 10x42s
have an even better corrected field edge
· The 10x42s’
focuser is even more precise and fluid, has a chunkier wheel
· The 10x42s
are a bit better in low light
· Optical
quality – sharpness, resolution, focus snap are similarly top-drawer
· I.S.
function seems similarly effective and unobtrusive, but the stay-on capability
of the 10x42s’ button is a useful feature
· The 10x42s
are much heavier at 1110g vs 650g
For serious birding, you’d obviously choose the 10x42s. But for nature viewing
and travel I appreciate the small size and weight of the 12x36s. For astronomy
I would choose the 12x26s – despite smaller objectives the high power means
they generally show you more and cut through sky glow better.
Summary
In many ways the Canon 10x42s are
up with the very best birding binoculars: the view really is that good, just as
those red rings and Canon’s optical heritage imply. They don’t
have the false colour problems of the 12x36s and are fully waterproof too.
Combine superb optics – both in
design and fabrication quality - with unobtrusive image stabilisation and
resolution is simply on a different level from ordinary bino’s, even the very
best and that’s important to understand. For practical
birding – seeing plumage detail and making IDs – these are compelling. And they
are a fair bit cheaper than the current top Alpha models too.
However, they do have some
drawbacks to be aware of:
·
Insufficient eye relief mean they wouldn’t
be my first choice if you view with glasses
·
The focus action is excellent and close focus good,
but the focuser isn’t as fast as I’d like for birds on
the wing
·
Panning with the IS on works well, but the super
flat field generated a lot of rolling ball effect, for me at least
·
These are a lot heavier than most 10x42s at over a
kilo
·
These are an electronic appliance. Expect them to be
robust, but to have a finite life like a quality DSLR. Don’t
expect them to become an heirloom or get renewed when you wear them out
If you
need that absolute freedom from false colour and proper waterproofing, these
10x42s are your best bet in Canon’s range; but I still like the lighter,
smaller, cheaper, easier to handle 12x36s if you don’t.
Stabilisation and superb optical quality make Canon’s 10x42IS
a compelling birding binocular, even if the view isn’t
quite as wide as the current market leaders.
OR Buy Canon 10x42 IS from Wex here:
