A must have toy on lake front property Image stabilized binoculars

[Pricestavern]

One other thing to keep in mind is that the image stabilization mechanism adds extra weight to the binoculars. This may be fine in short bursts but if you are holding them for any length of time, you will feel it in your wrists and shoulders. They are bulkier, too.

[mswlogo]

Originally Posted by Pricestavern

One other thing to keep in mind is that the image stabilization mechanism adds extra weight to the binoculars. This may be fine in short bursts but if you are holding them for any length of time, you will feel it in your wrists and shoulders. They are bulkier, too.

I have both. But I always go for the IS ones now.

I love when people have negative comments on something they have obviously zero experience with.

There are probably 20 parameters that make a good binocular, weight is one. Canon also makes some very lightweight IS ones as well but they made other trade offs that take away from what you actually see.

Here is a typical review taken from B&H Photo.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ...P.html/reviews

This is not my review below but I very much agree with it. When you look out on the water it feels like you just jumped in someone else's boat and going along for the ride. Or feel like your right next to that loon. They are worth every penny and pound. You can get a "good look" with steady hands on 8x-12x. But you will NOT get this look. When you look up at the sky at night with IS off. You see nothing. Turn on IS and suddenly things pop out of no where. Because the light wasn't persisted in the same spot long enough to see it when hand held. Pretty relaxing lying back in the hammock looking straight up at night. Easier than a tripod.

I own or have glassed with most of the Alpha offerings in the binocular world marketplace. Currently, I have several high end porros and top end roofs that offer superb FOV's with accurate color, detailed resolution, visual stereopsis and great build quality. They bring visual enjoyment of the world when I venture on bird or wildlife excursions. I use 7X to 12X optics (depending on venue) and prided myself on hand holding a steady image when using 10X to 12X binos. My past positive experiences using the Canon DSLR IS L-Glass lenses always intrigued me and spiked my interest to try the Canon IS offerings in binoculars. After reading great reviews all over the net, I ordered the 10x42L IS WP from B&H to begin my comparative evaluations. I already understood the possible issues and positive features that the 10x42L was known for. Things like their bulkiness, heft, slow focus speed, lack of high-end ergonomics, quirky accessories and a short, non-transferable warranty period turn many off to the concept of these great optics. However IMHO, any of these possible turnoffs melted away as soon as I engaged their Image Stabilization Prowess...AMAZING! I typically don't use any type of stabilization assist (mono, bi or tri pods) with binoculars and while Hand Holding the 10x42L with image stabilization Engaged (convenient), I can view a Superb, Sharp and detailed point of interest as if I had my top end alpha pair on a tri-pod (inconvenient)!! The 10X42L possess excellent optics (very close to my 10x50 SV's) and with their IS feature turned on, the marked increase in Details, Resolution and Clarity of FOV makes even my glassing steady hands Obsolete. Great Optics, Solid Build, Quality accessories, Quick and Very effective IS function and as a Porro II design, wonderful 3D viewing. Battery life using fresh Lithium's is superb (15 hrs of continuous IS use & charge still at 1.74V)! These unconventional binos now have a permanent place in my excursion outdoor back pack!

[Pricestavern]

Originally Posted by mswlogo

I have both. But I always go for the IS ones now.

I love when people have negative comments on something they have obviously zero experience with.

There are probably 20 parameters that make a good binocular, weight is one.

Not sure how what I said can be construed as a 'negative' comment. It is simply a consideration. The IS device adds weight. It is something, amongst the '20 parameters' that must be considered. Nothing 'obvious' here about my experience, so keep that bit to yourself, please.

[ApS]

I've since learned the $85 Celestron Skymaster binoculars are made in the USA.

(San Francisco, but close enough).

________________________________________

A different neighbor demonstrated his IS binoculars at night. He pointed at the "Seven Sisters" (The Pleiades), a seven-star cluster.

He directed me to focus there, and press the stabilize button. It was impressive to see more than 30 stars suddenly appear within the cluster. It's hard to forget that moment when viewing the "Seven Sisters" today with the naked eye.

"Seven Sisters" in Japanese—as reflected on every hood ornament with that name is "Subaru".

[mswlogo]

Originally Posted by ApS

I've since learned the $85 Celestron Skymaster binoculars are made in the USA.

(San Francisco, but close enough).

I considered the Skymaster Pro's (and may still) and even those are made in China.

They are made by a company called United Optics.

You wouldn't be able to make the Box they came in, in San Fransisco

Here is a link from the "Way Back" machine listing them on United Optics web site

https://web.archive.org/web/20120219...A1_Series.html

[FlyingScot]

Got a pair--they are AWESOME! Went with the 18X, as I already have a pair of 10X (compact non-IS). Definitely heavy and bulky as others have mentioned, but I'm looking a mile away and amazed at the things that are not even specks to the naked eye.

Thanks, msw!

[mswlogo]

Originally Posted by Pricestavern

Not sure how what I said can be construed as a 'negative' comment. It is simply a consideration. The IS device adds weight. It is something, amongst the '20 parameters' that must be considered. Nothing 'obvious' here about my experience, so keep that bit to yourself, please.

Don’t forget to also “consider”

Better optics adds weight.
Better build adds weight.
Waterproofing adds weight.
Larger objective adds more weight.

It’s obvious you have no experience because you are focusing on one aspect when you have to look at the whole thing.

Canon makes some nice 32mm IS in 10x,12x,14x that have nominally a small amount of weighted add for IS.

Here is a good example, which I’m sure you won’t bother to read comparing them to a very high end Binocular (Swarovski). And how they all agreed the Canon was a better experience.

https://www.birdforum.net/threads/ca...-10x56.355635/

Lot’s of folks carry monopods or tripods to get the most out of their glass. So for hiking the IS makes your pack weight LESS and more versatile.
There are heavier and lighter IS binocs. These are the sweet spot. You generally don’t need 42mm for day time viewing. 42mm and up kicks in on night skies.