Best filters for Canon 18x50 binocular

[McAllan]

Hi everyone

Guess a lot of you like me also have "a thing" or two with high quality optics - binoculars (and monoculars for that matter).
Already has some high quality optics like Swarovski EL 10x42 (anniversary), Swarovski Habicht 10x40w (wonderful "classic porro" housing), Swarovski Pocket 8x20 and a Kite Mono ED 10x42 (quite unknown outside Europe but scary good optics for the price) + various other lower considered but quite decent ones.

I've finally taken the plunge and ordered a Canon 18x50 IS (stabilized) - to supplement collection - should have it tomorrow if carrier allows (sold my telescope - didn't use it because of the hassle and slow setup).
It should apparently come only with covers for eyepieces but have a 58mm thread at objective end compatible with standard camera lens filter mounts. So to avoid the cap hassle and protect the lenses I'm planning mounting some filters - but which ones?
Wondering which filters are the best to get considering a couple of factors. Best optic quality, best durability (although they'll probably never see so rough use unless accidentally) and best for my eyes in no significant order.

So here goes. For durability and optic quality something tells me Hoya Protector HD should be amongst the best.
However they're a tad pricey (and I need two!). There's UV filters that are cheaper. Figure they might be better to the eyes since they filter some of the damaging UV light out. Here Tiffen seems to be a good choice.

Or perhaps a polaroid to darken the sky. Of course the cons are we have two eyes and so two filiters to rotate properly and they take a little light. Perhaps they should be seems as addons to the UV/protections filter only.

Any comments will be greatly appreciated! Thanks! lovecpf

 

[McAllan]

Hmm... Hasn't my thread moved? :thinking:
Oh well might better belong here

Anyway. Received the binocular today. Sort of mixed impressions. While the stabilizer indeed does a great job keeping the image still and even provide a smooth panning I'm not that impressed with the optics. It's best with stabilizer off (OK, I knew that from reviews) but no matter on or off it seemed like the optics has a small astigmatism. Focus can't be as good as I like it to and the blur can switch 90 degree - not plain and smooth blur as you'd normally expect - that is it has an astigmatism and I have not then that effect is reproduceable. Now I wonder if that model is just like that or has been "slightly" damaged in transportation. Even a (dirt cheap) NOS russian 20x50 draw tube telescope from the 1994 is better (although less FOV). That wasn't what I had expected. Perhaps I'm spoiled by the Swaros but such performance I didn't expect.
Also I wasn't quite satisfied with the eyepiece comfort. But could live with it if other factors were acceptable.

So fortunately I didn't manage to buy or order some filters just to have the hassle returning them also. That binocular is going back as soon as the holiday is over.

So now I have to rethink my strategy. Can be I end up buying it again in a store. Costs a little more but less chance of it being damaged and I can try the exact one I'll be buying. But that depends on if it's just a defect of that exact one I received or a general fault.

I had been thinking of adding the 10x42 IS to my collection too but as I've learned trying before buying is essential (But hey where I live you can "always" return an item bought online where as you can't take it for granted when bought in physical store)

One thing beside IS the 18x50 seems to get right though is the flat field - objects near edge is not very much out of focus if same distance as objects in center. That my Swaros can't beat that - but at least a great part of their centers are razor sharp.

 

[Patriot]

Hmm... Hasn't my thread moved? :thinking:
Oh well might better belong here

Anyway. Received the binocular today. Sort of mixed impressions. While the stabilizer indeed does a great job keeping the image still and even provide a smooth panning I'm not that impressed with the optics. It's best with stabilizer off (OK, I knew that from reviews) but no matter on or off it seemed like the optics has a small astigmatism. Focus can't be as good as I like it to and the blur can switch 90 degree - not plain and smooth blur as you'd normally expect - that is it has an astigmatism and I have not then that effect is reproduceable. Now I wonder if that model is just like that or has been "slightly" damaged in transportation. Even a (dirt cheap) NOS russian 20x50 draw tube telescope from the 1994 is better (although less FOV). That wasn't what I had expected. Perhaps I'm spoiled by the Swaros but such performance I didn't expect.
Also I wasn't quite satisfied with the eyepiece comfort. But could live with it if other factors were acceptable.

So fortunately I didn't manage to buy or order some filters just to have the hassle returning them also. That binocular is going back as soon as the holiday is over.

So now I have to rethink my strategy. Can be I end up buying it again in a store. Costs a little more but less chance of it being damaged and I can try the exact one I'll be buying. But that depends on if it's just a defect of that exact one I received or a general fault.

I had been thinking of adding the 10x42 IS to my collection too but as I've learned trying before buying is essential (But hey where I live you can "always" return an item bought online where as you can't take it for granted when bought in physical store)

One thing beside IS the 18x50 seems to get right though is the flat field - objects near edge is not very much out of focus if same distance as objects in center. That my Swaros can't beat that - but at least a great part of their centers are razor sharp.

Before I read your second post I was going to recommend that you don't use any filters as the 18x50 already struggles optically. Canon simply can't produce an IS bin at the price they're selling it for, which still posses the optical attributes of Swarovski, Leica, Zeiss and Nikon EDG. They have to cut corners somewhere and unfortunately that cut happens in the optical system. The 10x42's are a bit better but compared to your EL's you'll be very disappointed, especially if you use the EL's from a tripod already.

With that stated, there are some applications where tripod use is useless, like on a boat, or impractical for various reasons. IS bins have some practical uses but for normal terrestrial viewing you'd be much better off with a 15x56 SLC, or even the Minox equivalent, in conjunction with a tripod/monopod. If you're trying to see a license plate of a car 200 yards in front of you from the passenger seat while traveling down the road, keep the 18x50's, as nothing will accomplish that task better. In this scenario you sacrifice some image quality for sheer task capability. The same would hold true if you wanted to view other boats on the water from a cruise ship. Yes, you sacrifice optical "perfection" but gain capability as no other arrangement will transmit visual information to the eye in such ordered comprehension. This idea could best be summarized by the phrase, 'sometimes you don't need to see something perfectly, you just need to see it.'