Daud
sage
Reged: 08/05/06
Posts: 250
Loc: AZ, Scottsdale
|
|
Is the better optics in the L(uxury) version so much better?
Would I be better with the more light gathering capacity of the 50mm model ?
Both are heavy and different only by couple oz. 
--------------------
WO ZS110 | Meade SN-6 | Johnsonian 16" goto | Celestron Regal 8x42 | Canon 15x50IS
|
Rich N
Post Laureate
Reged: 09/22/04
Posts: 5303
Loc: San Francisco Bay Area, Calif...
|
|
I can hold a 10x binocular steady enough without IS for useful observing sessions. I can't hold a 15x binocular steady enough to get much from the image, at least not at night.
I find the Canon 15x50IS gives me something I simply can't get without a tripod.
Rich
|
DJB
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 02/23/05
Posts: 1259
|
|
Hi Daud,
I have the Canon 10x30 IS (lightweight) and the 15x50 IS (heavier). I do not have the Canon 10x42 IS.
Probably, I grab the 10x30 IS 80% of the time just because of the weight differential. I have a bad back, and this means a lot to me. Trust this may help a bit.
Best regards,
Dave.
|
KennyJ
Reged: 04/27/03
Posts: 10082
Loc: Lancashire UK
|
|
I had a similarly difficult choice to make a few weeks ago .
I couldn't decide between a Canon 10 x 42 IS , another ten Zeiss astro adaptors , or a new wooden decking for our caravan .
I opted for the latter -- although neither will prove to have been a good choice if the weather doesn't improve before I commit hare - kiri out of pure frustration !
Kenny
--------------------
Two eyes and a preference to use both
Zeiss 7 x 42 BGAT
Captain's Helmsman 7 x 50
Nikon 10 x 42 Superior E
Swift Audubon Kestrel 10 x 50
Helios 15 x 70 Observation
Strathspey 20 x 90
Televue 76 APO
Zeiss 85 Diascope
Helios 102 f5 refractor
Various eyepieces barlows tripods mounts etc.
Panasonic Lumix DMC - TZ5 digital camera
|
hallelujah
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 07/14/06
Posts: 1639
Loc: Colorado Rocky Mt. High
|
|
Do you want waterproofing? Only the 10x42 L IS is WP/WaterProof.
According to Canon literature "the L-series lenses are on a level above the rest."(containing two Ultra-low Dispersion (UD) elements on each side.)
--------------------
Pentax 12x50mm PCF WP II FMC/WP/FP
Pentax 16x60mm PCF WP FMC/WP/FP
Pentax 20x60mm PCF WP II FMC/WP/FP
Orion 12x63mm Mini Giant FMC/JAPAN
Orion 15x70mm Little Giant II FMC/JAPAN
Orion 16x80mm Giant FMC/JAPAN
Orion 20x70mm Little Giant II FMC/JAPAN
Orion 30x80mm MEGAView FMC/JAPAN
Barska 30x80mm X-Trail LW FC
Burgess Optical Series II 20x90mm FMC/WP/FP
Handel's Messiah**Hallelujah! For the LORD God Omnipotent Reigneth
|
Wes James
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 04/12/06
Posts: 2423
|
|
Hi, Daud-
Well, I have both of these bino's... I started off with the 10x42L's 2 years ago, thinking- with the "L" premium glass, they'd be their best/premium viewing. And I love them. Then, about a year ago, I had the opportunity to compare them side-by-side with a friend's 15x50's at our club's astro site- and was surprised that- side-by-side, I actually preferred the view through the 15x. I was rather disappointed to discover that! A month or two later, I again had the opportunity to compare the two again, and once again- 15x was my preferrence. I just got a pair of them, finally, and will keep both. Again, the 10x are listed as waterproof, the 15x water resistant... to me the weight difference is nil in use. The 10x cones in a nice soft case, the 15x- a cloth bag. BTW, my main use of them is astronomical, though this week I did sit in my office in our new ATC facility/control tower here at Mayport- and with the 15x- watched them tearing the cab off the old tower- about 100 yds away.. removing the big glass windows one at a time. They only dropped one! (I missed seeing that!) From 5 stories up! Was an enjoyable way to watch the job- and real close up!
--------------------
Wes
Atlantic Beach, FL
Some bino’s from Miyauchi 5x32 Binon's up through Garrett 20x110 Signature's,
Some telescopes from a Stellarvue 80mm NHNG up through a couple of 8” reflectors…
And a wonderful 4.25" Delmarva Shiefspiegler!
Some good friends, made here on C/N.
Oh- several cats and a wonderful wife!
Anyone want a cat???? :-O
"When your work speaks for itself- Don't Interrupt" -Gamble Rogers
|
Joe Ogiba
Post Laureate
Reged: 02/14/02
Posts: 3340
Loc: NJ USA
|
|
I have both and like the 10x42L better for all around use because they have a much wider FOV and track planes like a NASA Shuttle tracking camera because it's easy to stay within it's correction angle of +/- 0.8° compared to the 15x50's tighter correction angle of ±0.7°. Also the 10x42L close focus is about 8ft compared to the 15x50's 20ft.
BTW my Canon 8x25 IS show more fine detail than my 7x42 Zeiss FL's because even at 7x the image is not rock solid steady like the 8x IS .
--------------------
Pentax PF-80ED
Meade 102ED APO
Orion EON 72
120ST
Apex 127
C6 XLT
CR150
C9.25
XT10
Zeiss 7x42 FL
Canon 10x42L IS WP
15x50 IS
12x36 IS II
Garrett Optical 28x110 HD-WP Signature Series
Oberwerk BT-80 45
Apogee RA-88-SA
Denk II Power x Switch binoviewer w/13mm Ethos, 20mm Pentax XW's, 20mm Widescan III's.
|
danm
sage
Reged: 04/27/08
Posts: 231
Loc: Northern California
|
|
I'd love a pair, but I only like using binos without my glasses, and I have a -9 correction. These jobbies only go to +-3, and I doubt they could be adjusted (objective recessed) for a higher prescription.
--------------------
TV Ethos 13mm
Oberwerk Ultra 15x70
Celestron C6 f/10 & AT Voyager Alt/Az mount
8" f/6.3 Newtonian (Dad's ATM) & AT66 red tube
12.5" f/4.1 Telekit (Dad's ATM Mirror)
|
Daud
sage
Reged: 08/05/06
Posts: 250
Loc: AZ, Scottsdale
|
|
Thanks for the replies, inclined for the 15x50 but yearning after the 6.5deg field of the 10x42.
Where I am coming from: on a recent star party, a gentleman borrowed me SARD 6x42 WWII military binos, it was a WOW feeling scanning Sagittarius. This gave me a reconsideration whether my budget stable of binos may need some improvement: Whitetails 10x50 (a no name Pentax), and a wide angle but with unsharp periphery Minolta Acitva 8x40 WW.FP.
I have -6.5D/-7D eyes and can focus both binos without glasses (I prefer) on terrestrial targets but at infinity, on one eye the focus knob is lacking.
I spent hours on this board reading about choices.
Mias Minon ? With my max. 5mm pupil not the best choice plus the problems with differential field sharpness..
Some of the top line 42 class binos ? From researching, only Zeiss Victory FL seemed to have enough "overdrive on infinity focusing" to enable me to focus w/o glasses. With still not sharp-to-the edge on any of these premium binos I searched further. There should be some new Swarowski model ulimately sharp across the field but the $2000 price tag was too much.
Then I was reading positives about Canon IS line, how sharp are they and what additional enjoyment they offer and now am leaning that way.
Not sure about using them w/o glasses, possibly should look in town for an opportunity to try them, but would accept wearing glasses for the IS benefit.
Or, is there a high quality sharp widefield ~5mm exit pupil bino I overlooked and which has a large focusing reserve over infinity ?
David
--------------------
WO ZS110 | Meade SN-6 | Johnsonian 16" goto | Celestron Regal 8x42 | Canon 15x50IS
|
Daud
sage
Reged: 08/05/06
Posts: 250
Loc: AZ, Scottsdale
|
|
Quote:
I'd love a pair, but I only like using binos without my glasses, and I have a -9 correction. These jobbies only go to +-3, and I doubt they could be adjusted (objective recessed) for a higher prescription.
The +-3D may refer to the difference between eyes not to the "focusing over infinity"
--------------------
WO ZS110 | Meade SN-6 | Johnsonian 16" goto | Celestron Regal 8x42 | Canon 15x50IS
|
rookie
sage
Reged: 01/14/06
Posts: 318
Loc: St. Petersburg, FL
|
|
Stop the agony! All you have to do is decide which one you prefer just a little bit more and get that one. Always, in the back of your mind, though, you need to keep the door open to get the other one too since they are both wonderful but uniquely different!
Just keep telling yourself you are making a "modest investment" and compare your list of binoculars with others in the forum. Relatively speaking, you have a long way to go to catch up with others!
So there you go, shopping wisdom from a woman. 
I have a feeling, Kenny's choices have as much to do about a woman in the house!
--------------------
Shirley
Celestron CPC 800XLT
G0 BT80~45degree; Fujinon 16x70 FMT-SX
Celestron Ultima 9x63 & Regal LX 10x42
|
Rich N
Post Laureate
Reged: 09/22/04
Posts: 5303
Loc: San Francisco Bay Area, Calif...
|
|
Nikon has two fine binoculars that are well worth considering, the 10x42 Premier SE and the 12x50 Premier SE. They have bright, sharp, high contrast fields of view. They are two of the most comfortable porro prism binoculars you can find. They have plenty of eye relief to observe with your glasses on.
No, they don't have 5mm exit pupils but they are really outstanding binoculars for astronomy and they are under $1000.
|
KennyJ
Reged: 04/27/03
Posts: 10082
Loc: Lancashire UK
|
|
Shirley ,
What clinched my decision was that the decking was guaranteed waterproof for 10 years :-)
Like Rich , I also have a special , almost mystical kind of fondness for the Nikon 10 x 42SE .
In fact , I almost like it as much as my Zeiss 7 x 42 :-)
I must admit never having tried a Canon 10 x 42 , but in spite of it's image stabilisation , and it's extra 0.5 degree TFOV , I can't imagine one being THAT much better than my 10 x 42 SE , which is certainly the less bulky of the two .
However , if exclusively for astro use , I honestly think I would go for the 15 x 50 Canon , rather than the 10x .
No one can deny there is a considerable difference in what can be seen at 15x over 10x .
Kenny
--------------------
Two eyes and a preference to use both
Zeiss 7 x 42 BGAT
Captain's Helmsman 7 x 50
Nikon 10 x 42 Superior E
Swift Audubon Kestrel 10 x 50
Helios 15 x 70 Observation
Strathspey 20 x 90
Televue 76 APO
Zeiss 85 Diascope
Helios 102 f5 refractor
Various eyepieces barlows tripods mounts etc.
Panasonic Lumix DMC - TZ5 digital camera
|
Daud
sage
Reged: 08/05/06
Posts: 250
Loc: AZ, Scottsdale
|
|
Quote:
I'd love a pair, but I only like using binos without my glasses, and I have a -9 correction. These jobbies only go to +-3, and I doubt they could be adjusted (objective recessed) for a higher prescription.
I tested both in the shop today and watching the remote Camelback peak, I could focus without glasses even with my -7D, so I would encourage you to test them for yourself.
I am still undecided (price) and am considering closeout Celestron Regal 8x42 LX ($260).
--------------------
WO ZS110 | Meade SN-6 | Johnsonian 16" goto | Celestron Regal 8x42 | Canon 15x50IS
|
electronicsguy
newbie
Reged: 04/01/08
Posts: 2
|
|
I have tested the Canon IS 10x42 WP's in the marine field and found the IS capabilities less than satisfactory when compared to other similar products. Not sure if this would prove to be an issue for your use. You can see my IS binos reviews at: IS Binocular Reviews
--------------------
Al
25' Contender
20' Seacraft
16' Actioncraft
|
Joe Ogiba
Post Laureate
Reged: 02/14/02
Posts: 3340
Loc: NJ USA
|
|
Quote:
I have tested the Canon IS 10x42 WP's in the marine field and found the IS capabilities less than satisfactory when compared to other similar products. Not sure if this would prove to be an issue for your use. You can see my IS binos reviews at: IS Binocular Reviews
There are no other IS binoculars with the specs (8ft close focus, 65° AFOV etc ) of the Canon 10x42L's and the same goes for the 15x50's. If the other IS brands were so great why doesn't anyone here buy them ?
--------------------
Pentax PF-80ED
Meade 102ED APO
Orion EON 72
120ST
Apex 127
C6 XLT
CR150
C9.25
XT10
Zeiss 7x42 FL
Canon 10x42L IS WP
15x50 IS
12x36 IS II
Garrett Optical 28x110 HD-WP Signature Series
Oberwerk BT-80 45
Apogee RA-88-SA
Denk II Power x Switch binoviewer w/13mm Ethos, 20mm Pentax XW's, 20mm Widescan III's.
|
EdZ
Professor EdZ
Reged: 02/15/02
Posts: 12516
Loc: Cumberland, R I , USA42N71.4W
|
|
In addition to Al's reviews (linked above), visit this older thread for links and mentions of quite a few other reviews. Some agree and some differ on their opinions of what works best for different situations. In general, many agree that readers should put the least emphasis on the review by Wired magazine. Also, there is mention that marine tesing and astronomical testing perhaps lean towards different requirements. At any rate, it's all great info, and thanks to the reviewers, it is available to us.
Review of Four Image-Stabilized Binoculars
edz
--------------------
Teach a kid something today. The feeling you'll get is one of life's greatest rewards.
member#21
|
Joe Ogiba
Post Laureate
Reged: 02/14/02
Posts: 3340
Loc: NJ USA
|
|
Quote:
Rubberized housing flimsy and poorly constructed. No carrying case included. What vibration reduction? Britney Spears is more stable.
Like I said in that thread that is the most clueless review of the 10x42L's I have ever seen.
--------------------
Pentax PF-80ED
Meade 102ED APO
Orion EON 72
120ST
Apex 127
C6 XLT
CR150
C9.25
XT10
Zeiss 7x42 FL
Canon 10x42L IS WP
15x50 IS
12x36 IS II
Garrett Optical 28x110 HD-WP Signature Series
Oberwerk BT-80 45
Apogee RA-88-SA
Denk II Power x Switch binoviewer w/13mm Ethos, 20mm Pentax XW's, 20mm Widescan III's.
|
EdZ
Professor EdZ
Reged: 02/15/02
Posts: 12516
Loc: Cumberland, R I , USA42N71.4W
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Rubberized housing flimsy and poorly constructed. No carrying case included. What vibration reduction? Britney Spears is more stable.
Like I said in that thread that is the most clueless review of the 10x42L's I have ever seen.
Most everyone agrees. But there are links and mention of much better reviews in that thread, so gravitate towards those.
edz
--------------------
Teach a kid something today. The feeling you'll get is one of life's greatest rewards.
member#21
|
Wes James
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 04/12/06
Posts: 2423
|
|
I also looked at those reviews, and agree that reviews must be taken with a grain of salt sometimes. When you have a lot of favorable reviews and positive personal experiences related- and one bad review, it is easy to seperate "the wheat from the chaff". I agree- and also came to the conclusion that what makes IS good for marine and astro uses may be two different sets of requirements/conditions. A rolling deck in choppy water is a different platform than standing on land/sitting in a chair. The Nikons, IIRC, even had a switch to compensate for different kinds of sea conditions. I have also found it interesting/noted that for astro use, I have not read of any reports of Fuji/Nikon/other brands utilized - yet almost universal satisfaction of the Canon IS lines. An additional factor to consider- is the people who don't like the Canon's- might not like the Fuji's/Nikons either!
Wes
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
[Re: 