10x42 L is WP Image Stabilized Binoculars

These provide the sharpest, clearest, highest contrast images I have ever experienced in any of the dozen binoculars and telescopes I've owned over the years. The image stabilization works great. I've completed an in-depth YouTube review of some of the problems with them, which I'll summarize here. (To find the full video review search 'canon 10x42 L IS WP binocular reviews" on YouTube and it should come up in the number one spot.) 1. One reviewer claimed these only have a 37 mm actual aperture because of an internal aperture stop. I measured the true aperture two different ways and both indicated the actual aperture is 42 MM. 2. The front lens caps are very difficult to put on and fall off easily. I solved this problem by adding screw-in lens hoods and caps. It cost $30 (52 mm Sensei lens hoods and 58 mm Sensei caps.) This also addressed the problem of the front optical element being so close to the front of the binoculars that they are easily damaged and increased contrast by reducing stray light getting into the optical train. 3. The eye relief on mine were only 13.5 mm, not the advertised 16 mm. This means eye glass wearers may have a problem. 4. The binoculars were collimated and aligned properly. I didn't have any problems merging the two images. 5. The actual magnification was 10.44X. 6. The actual field of view was 6.48 degrees. 7. The closest focus was 7.5 feet, less than the advertised 8.2 feet. At that distance and with the 10X magnification these things are almost like a binocular microscope. 8. Looking at bright stars, the image was sharp to the very edge of the field of view. Even Venus and the moon were free of color. There was no flaring or ghosting. But, I did notice a very slight astigmatism as I racked the focus in and out. However, it was less than 1/2 what I've seen in any other binocular or telescope. 9 One reviewer commented that the IS briefly shifts the focus every 2 seconds. I looked for this and think I may have detected it, but it's so minor that if it's really there, it's so small an effect that most people won't be able to see it even if they look for it. 10. Some reviews claimed the neoprene neck strap was too weak. The braided nylon straps I received would be able to hold well over 100 pounds so they should be able to handle these binoculars. 11. Some complained the IS button is hard to locate. I didn't find this to be a problem. 12. The focus is slow. Most binoculars go from closest to farthest focus by rotating the focus knob 90 degrees. These require 580 degrees, over six times as much. This is a problem if you're trying to follow a fast moving object. But, this also makes it easier to fine tune the focus to pinpoint perfection. 13. The biggest problem is one that many have mentioned and that I can confirm: The edges of the rubber eye cups for the eye pieces are so sharp that they are uncomfortable, even painful after a few minutes. 14. One reviewer mentioned the moon seemed to swim from time to time. I have not noticed this. 15. Another reviewer stated that his batteries discharged in three days even though the IS function was turned off. I have not seen this problem even though I'm using the cheap batteries included with the binoculars. Please note that what I'm reporting only applies to the binoculars I received. For example: others may not have the short eye relief problem mine have.

Second revision after 1.5 years of use and on pelagic birding trip: No longer a pain in the neck and comfortable in my hands. Now the 44 oz. (versus 24 oz. of previous binoculars) feels normal. VIEWS ARE STILL FANTASTIC. Very useful in all birding conditions (from rain forest to open seas, and especially in windy conditions). With image stabilization on, no one will have a better view through binoculars. I’d pay several hundred dollars for an image-stabilized spotting scope if someone made one—seems silly since scopes are on tripods, but I typically use mine at the windy coast where shaking is often annoying. Revised one year after purchase: I raised the rating from 4 to 5 stars since going on a birding trip in the tropics. I also gave up the binocular harness as too annoying (too many straps and too elastic) and used the binocular strap provided by Canon—hence the 44 oz pain in the neck when combined with a camera and a satchel across a shoulder. BUT WOW, when seeing so many new and rarely seen birds, I made full use of the 90-100% stability compared to no image stabilization, which provided viewing opportunities previously afforded only through the guide’s spotting scope. Yes, previously on birding trips I’d always been first in line at the spotting scope, but on this trip anything within about 100’ was just fine through the binoculars WITH THE IMAGE STABILIZATION ON. Of course this is with top quality glass and 10x (some folks used 8x, but they didn’t even bother looking at the distant birds that were well within the range I had). After about 2 weeks of constant use on the trip, the neck pain diminished and the hefty binoculars felt comfortable in my hands. Normally I only use the image stabiliation a few seconds at a time, about a total of a minute per hour of active birding, but on this trip I used it more frequently and longer since I wanted to carefully study and savor the birds, but there is still plenty of AA battery left—I assume (battery life isn’t an issue, but unfortunately I don’t know how to predict when they will give out, so I took along a spare pair of batteries). Not only were the binoculars great in the dense rainforest, but they were also outstanding on big and small boats or after hurrying to see a bird that might soon fly away. I haven’t tried them on a pelagic trip, but I expect they would be even more useful there, even though complete image stabilization would be unlikely. So if someone tells you they looked through them once and weren’t impressed (as my guide did), take it with a grain of salt. See my original review (unchanged except the rating of 4 going to 5) below: Original unchanged review: This is a long review since it’s very difficult to find much about image-stabilized binoculars for serious birding. BOTTOM LINE: because of the image stabilization, the very high optical quality, and the reasonably high magnification (10x) no birder will have a better binocular view. But there are two big considerations: 1) extra cost and 2) heavy and ergonomically challenging handling. I believe the latter issue is why these are difficult to find to try out or even to see reviewed in birding circles. But image stabilization revolutionized bird photography, and once the kinks get worked out (mainly weight and bulk) it should revolutionize birding binoculars. Binocular manufacturers have reached the point of diminishing returns on optical quality, leaving wide-open much potential for improvement using image stabilization. Many years ago I had a binocular epiphany. At a roadside pull-off in Yellowstone National Park, I saw a man using 8x compact binoculars on a tripod to view a distant grizzly bear. Overcoming my surprise over tiny binoculars on a tripod, I was amazed that the view through his little binoculars was at least as good as what I had with my larger 10x binoculars. Since then, I have been acutely aware of how much vision is improved when there is complete stability. I’ve come to realize that few birders have looked through their binoculars with complete stability (e.g., resting them on a flat surface and not touching them at all). The view is spectacular, and I’d say it’s worth a couple of extra powers of magnification and quite a bit more money. Ever since then, I’ve been wondering what it would be like to have image-stabilized binoculars, but reviews for and by serious birders are very hard to find—hence this review. There are several brands available (but very hard to find to test), but since none seem to cost less than $700 for binoculars that would otherwise go for less than $200 (based on the descriptions), I figure $500 is for the image stabilization feature. These Canon 10x42s are pretty much the only top quality ones out there (outstanding glass, waterproof [inadvertently tested and confirmed], fairly close focus, etc.). Almost every review says they’re heavy (yes, 42g vs 23g for Eagle Optics 10x42 Ranger ED binoculars—my previous standard). But they all say that the view is spectacular, especially for viewing the night sky. Another serious issue for me from the reviews was the limited warranty and high cost of repairing the image-stabilization feature. With all of this in mind, I decided to take a chance and get a pair 6 months ago and am ready to render an opinion for other serious birders. Not only are they heavy, requiring the use of a harness rather than a simple strap, but more importantly they are bulky and have a different (clumsy) feel in the hand. The housing for the two AA batteries for the image-stabilizer fills the gap between the two barrels, just where I’d like my thumbs to go. On the plus side, there’s also a screw hole to readily attach a tripod (but of all binoculars, why would you want to?). Also the objective lenses are perilously exposed in these distinctively shaped binoculars. (This is easily, but annoyingly, corrected by buying two UV filters [52mm threads] and two ¾” wide sunshades [also 52mm threads], totaling about $40. Then throw away the rubber objective covers [which, as everyone says don’t fit anyway] and the binocular case [which all birders already do]). Now to the image stabilization, which is operated by a button using the right middle finger. YES, IT WORKS, removing most of the shake, often giving glorious total image stability. The shake reduction seems comparable to that of image-stabilized DSLR cameras. WITH EXPERIENCE, FIELD USE IS GREAT. After several months of serious birding in a variety of conditions, my hands have finally adapted to the new feel and the weight. The image quality is indeed superb, and all other features besides weight and grip are fine (e.g., eye relief for eyeglasses, close focus, focusing knob, field of view). Since I only use the image stabilization feature for a few seconds at a time and for only a few times per hour of birding, I’m still way below the listed 2-8 hours of battery life (depending on AA battery type and temperature). It’s been great for 1) getting ideal looks at quality birds, 2) warblers high in trees, especially when I’m tired and have shaky arms, 3) waiting for birds to pop out from behind vegetation (here, I might keep the image-stabilizer on for up to 10-20 seconds), 4) coastal birding in strong wind (times when image-stabilizers would be useful for tripod-mounted scopes), and 5) eking out the last bit of magnification for identifying birds almost too distant for regular 10x binoculars (and definitely out of range for regular 8x). The image-stabilization is also useful for following birds in flight. Surprisingly, one-handed use is not just possible, but is actually quite good despite the size and shape of these “big boys.” So, because I knew about the value of a stable image, I took a chance. The binoculars have been rewarding. It has taken adjustment, perhaps not unlike that of bird photographers deciding to switch from an easily portable point-and-shoot high-zoom camera to a bulky 400mm DSLR camera. Anyone considering getting high-end binoculars for their optical quality should give serious consideration to the Canon 10x42 L IS WP binoculars, which give much better views. I’ll go out on a limb here and propose ratings, with 100% being views which can’t be improved upon. I’ll say the highest quality lenses (at notably higher prices) are essentially at their maximum, hence a score of 95%—put them on a tripod or immovable surface and they’re at 100%. I’ll give my Eagle Optics Rangers ED ($350, alas no longer available!) a 92 or 93%, and the Canon binoculars a 94%. With image-stabilization on, they score about 98% of a perfect image, going well beyond what non-stabilized but otherwise perfect optics can do. I would love to see the high-end binocular manufacturers shrink the image-stabilization mechanism and improve the ergonomics. Come to think of it, high quality zoom (something that’s never been achieved in birding binoculars) would be nice, too. Note: I took a double chance and bought a returned pair of binoculars (“damaged box”) at a big discount from Amazon Warehouse. The binoculars had an annoying fine tremor when the image stabilization was on, but I could still often get total image stability for a second or two at a time. After several months of living with it, I called Canon to find out if this tremor was normal. They said “No”, so I shipped them back at my expense. Since the 3-year warranty was valid, they were quickly repaired (the image stabilization mechanism was replaced) and soon shipped back at Canon’s expense. So the support was excellent. In summary, I believe these give the best overall binocular views currently possible for birding binoculars (i.e. binoculars allowing sharp and quick focusing, quick bird-finding, waterproof, etc.), but the bulk (weight and poor fit-in-the-hand) plus the extra cost force a decision on what’s most important—like the decision to go from a high-zoom point-and-shoot camera to a bulky, more costly DSLR camera.