Binoculars

[Bird]

Looks like most of the guys have bigger more powerful binoculars than my 7X20CF Travelite II Nikon that my wife bought for me 10 years ago for $80. There are times, of course, I wish they were more powerful, but I sure can't complain about the quality of the optics, and they're small and lightweight to carry around. In fact, I just keep them in the car all the time.

 

[_RaT_]

I have found that viewing all the various binocular sites that pop up when I type in binoculars at Google have pretty much done more to add to my confusion then diminish it. I have come to the conclusion that while I may want to look at birds, I also want to look at so many other things. I'm more of a generalist with binoculars. Birding binoculars are expensive, they start in the $500 range and after that, $2000 is not unheard of. For the generalist, the binoculars are cheap. They tend to be in the 7X or 8X and down in the 20mm lens. Hunters are $200 or more, astrology, thousands of dollars. What I have read is perhaps quite true, the human eye can quickly accomodate poor binoculars for a short period of time, it's when you view them for extended periods where the quality is appreciated. I have personnal experience with that. It's been great to pickup a set of binoculars to view for example women at a baseball game (little else to do at a boring baseball game) but also have a certain amount of relief when you put them down. I have used some $1500 or so Swarovski's and could have viewed them for hours with no ill affects. I am not prepared to get Swarovski's or Leitz, but at the same time, want something that does not wear me out. The various Nikon binoculars seem to be in the ball park. As much as I agree with DAP about weight, I still am searching for some 8X42 or so non porro prisms. The porros are perhaps the most brilliant, but also tend to be a bit large. I really appreciate the comments here. You guys are great! Rat...

 

[sideboiler]

You would be hard pressed to get better binoculars for the money than the Pentax 8x40 PCF WP. They are waterproof and have many useful features. I got a set of Pentax 8x40 PCF V binoculars last year but they are getting hard to find. Here is one site that has the waterproof version (WP) for $113. They have very good resolution and light gathering ability for the money. They weigh about 26 oz. They are the porro prism type which will give you sharper images in the moderate price range than the roof prism type.

http://www.hotbuyselectronics.com/pentax_8x40_pcf_wp.htm

 

[Docsknotinn]

I'd say if you want the best get Swarovski. But that wouldn't be entirely truthful. The simple fact is no one can tell you what is the best binocular for you. Every ones vision and facial structure is slightly different. Find a good dealer that will let you select two or three and take you OUTSIDE to try them. Zeiss and swarovski are my top picks. I have a Swarovksi 7x30 SLC that is a favorite. Top quality glass, light and small. $900. I also have a Swarovki EL in 8.5x42. They run around $1650 and I still take the SLC's out 75% of the time. If you are only out in full day lite then the exit pupil is far less important to you and you can stay away from the large frame 50mm lenses. If you watch for extended periods I'd stay away from anything over 10x. If you are looking for a good buy and must mail order Cabela's has Zeiss Classic 10x40's for $700. You will be hard pressed to beat that value on a top quality glass.

 

[Yankee]

"I'd say if you want the best get Swarovski. "

In some ways I think Swarovski has the best balance of build quality and optics in premium binoculars. I don't think they have the best optics, though they are darn close, and in fact have slipped somewhat over the last 10-20 years (on a relative basis, that is, in absolute terms all premium optics have improved). The body quality is the best anywhere, period. There are only a handful of brands that I'd even consider buying without evaluating individual sets, among them Leica, Zeiss, and Swarovski.

"Every ones vision and facial structure is slightly different. "

Good point. I like long eye relief, for example - not for glasses use, as I don't wear them when using binoculars, but simply because I find the viewing more comfortable. To your point about facial structure, some eyecup shapes just don't work well for me.

"... Cabela's has Zeiss Classic 10x40's for $700. You will be hard pressed to beat that value on a top quality glass. "

That IS good.

 

[Docsknotinn]

Yeah the deal they have on the Zeiss right now is impossible to beat IMO. They have a good armour body like the swaros. Hair splitting difference between Zeiss and Swaro. I never cared for leica because I don't like the feel of the non-armour coated body. The 10x40's for $700 are at least $300 less than swaros and only a few hundred more over a mid grade binoc. I know a couple of guys that have traveled the world with those and they swear by them.

 

[Yankee]

The Leica BAs and BNs are armored. I don't like non-armored binoculars either.

 

[BIGUN]

My wife recently ordered me a pair of 10-22 X 50 Nikons from Binoculars.com. I use them for bird watching in the back yard. They look good on 10X but the quality does suffer some when zoomed in all the way to 22X and I have to brace my hand to steady the image. Also at the higher power, eye placement behind the lens is very critical. Your eye must be perfectly centered or else you will not see the full image. I think if I were to do it over I would go with a straight 10X pair and pocket the difference in price.

I was surprised when the first pair was defective, showing a double image, no matter how they were adjusted. I called Binoculars.com, told them the situation, they immediately shipped out a new pair along with a prepaid shipping label to return the defective pair. The second pair was fine. I would definitely recommend them for their good service and decent prices.

Binoculars.com

 

[Docsknotinn]

Yes that is true but the Leica's have a very hard polyurethane that just feels like plastic to me. I know some folks like them but the certainly don't have the feel of the rubber armour coating like the Zeiss. In that department Zeiss is better than Swaro. Optically all three are very close depending on your eye. The water proofing on the swaros is better IMO but some claim they fog quicker than the Zeiss. I prefer the focus on the Swaro the best with Zeiss a very close second. I had a pair of Nikon 10x. Not what I would recommend if you plan on doing any extended viewing. It was the only Nikon product I was ever somewhat disapointed with. I think 7 0r 8 x 40 is the perfect glass.

 

[Yankee]

"Leica's have a very hard polyurethane that just feels like plastic to me. I know some folks like them but the certainly don't have the feel of the rubber armour coating like the Zeiss."

I'll have to compare them again sometime. I never noticed the difference.

 

[Richard]

Been reading this with some interest as

1. I'm a fan of Zeiss
2. Wifey has said in past she'd like a pair of binocs.
3. Our anniversary is in couple weeks and binocs are NOT electrical appliances!!! /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

So, for a moment, let's forget price and just look at the binocs themselves, (and stick with Zeiss)...

Would you rather have/find more useful the 10x40 or the 8x56?

We live on some acerage so seeing birds/deer/other at a distance is nice (10x40) but doing at low light is also nice (8x56)...or do I have anything backward in my logic?

so, for casual use, which might you prefer and why?

Richard

 

[Yankee]

"Would you rather have/find more useful the 10x40 or the 8x56? We live on some acerage so seeing birds/deer/other at a distance is nice (10x40) but doing at low light is also nice (8x56)...or do I have anything backward in my logic?"

Between the two I'd take the 10x40s for the use you've described. With that quality of glass, going to the 56mm objectives is overkill unless you're going to be using them primarily after dark. Really large objectives are used for marine, astronomic and such because of the extraordinarily demanding *combination* of very long distances (think miles) and low light, low contrast (grey ship on the horizon in mist or fog), or nighttime use being the norm. A deer in the back 40 doesn't compare.

You really should look at 8x40s. For reasons I've never been able to understand, the 10s are particularly popular with Zeiss buyers. The 8 power glasses are more utilitarian, IMO. For $700 at Cabelas, though, I'd be tempted.

 

[_RaT_]

Your going to have to go try them out. My preference is for the 7X or 8X. A high quality set is going to be joy to use and I find myself reaching for them just to look at anything from the pure enjoyment of using them. I'd rather have 8X in the 40mm lens or even less. At less magnification, you will find the smaller lens to be very good and the offset in weight a real bonus. I too enjoy Zeiss, but quite frankly, my opinion has been that the upper end Japanese glass are starting to equal the German/Austrian optics. Nontheless, I would certainly understand wanting Zeiss, Swarovski's, Leica. One thing that is changing is the ability to have the glass ground by machines that never existed just a few years ago. Canon, Nikon, Tamron, Sigma etc. are all producing lenses for cameras that just a few years ago were either impossible to build or so costly, few could justify the price. I'm still shooting for the 8X up to about 40mm or 42mm lenses. If the Zeiss at Cabelas were 8X instead of 10X, I'd be considering them for sure.

 

[DAP]

Yankee's advice is spot on for the most part. I would add this however, COMFORT is often overlooked.

Now unless you plan on mounting your glasses on a tripod, remember, don't discount the weight and feel of the glasses.

Those 10x sized machines trigger fatigue very quickly in my experience.

This all depends on your usage styles (kinda like tractor buying).

For my uses, primarily for wildlife viewing, I'll trade a little glass quality and magnification for weight everytime. As a Zeiss glass owner and a Nikon field scope owner, I think the 7x or 8x is the upper limit.

My 2 centavos.

 

[Richard]

Perhaps we'll regret it, but I went ahead & bought the 10x40's from Cabellas today /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

I figure she can try it if she likes it I'm done, if she doesn't like it I can trade down.

My over-riding decision was that these will more than likely not be used "that" much and when they are, it will be to see the bird in the tree/other and will be a short term hold, verses a longer term stalking.

Guess we'll see.

Perhaps she'll let me borrow them to take to a basketball game..... /forums/images/graemlins/blush.gif /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

 

[_RaT_]

They should be spectacular. Please let us know your thoughts, especially how comfortable they are to use for an extended period. That has been my biggest grievance about binoculars I've owned, something that I recently read is often what happens with cheap sets.

 

[rockyridgefarm]

I dropped by the local gunnknife shop to try some, figuring I'd prder online. They showd ne several nice Leopolds and Zeiss for ~$350, I was surprised! Or do they offer strippo wannabes with their names on them.... Both were very nicely made, in both compact and full size...

 

[_RaT_]

I don't know Mike. I have kind of narrowed things down to either the Nikon 8X42 Premier LX or Zeiss 8X40 Victory II. Both are exceptionally nice. Both are about the same cost. The Zeiss are lighter. The Nikon has a lifetime guarantee that if you drop them off a cliff, $10 gets them fixed or replaced forever. With a 3 year old boy thats wants to do everything his way, that could be a bonus. On the otherhand, the lighter weight of the Zeiss makes them a real asset. What to do.... Rat.

 

[Docsknotinn]

I am certain you are not going to at all dissapointed with the Zeiss 10x40's. I agree completely with the other guys and my most used set is 7x30. However I am a hunter and spend several hours at a time glassing on hunts in the mountains. At home or for general use the 10x40's should be a hair splitting difference Vs the 7 or 8 x30 or 40's. The 8 and 10x40 was a huge seller for Zeiss. The only reason for the sale is a body style change. I really prefer the classics like you ordered. The 8x40's in the new style are $1,000 ! Glass has gone up and up the last few years.

 

[Richard]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( Please let us know your thoughts, especially how comfortable they are to use for an extended period. )</font>

Well they arrived today. I eagerly opened the box at work and spent a while staring through my blinds. Yes, I was too lazy to open them up. ACTUALLY, I feared if I opened them up and looked out, someone would think I'm "Mr. Kravitz" and spying into their bedroom /forums/images/graemlins/blush.gif.

I think I like them. I thought I'd get a bit more magnification than they provide (I'm a binoc dummy). As to their clarity? What can I say other than Zeiss?

I've only had Zeiss lens on my cameras for 20+ years, so it's all I've really ever known.

I'm going to borrow the Uncles binocs from next door and let the wifey use THEM (me as well) then swap over. I know for darn sure that he's got a wally-world special type. Then I think I'll have her swap over to these and see if she can tell any difference.

I expected front as well as rear lens covers. They only came with rear (eyepiece). Furthermore, with the way the cover seems to be attached, it SEEMS like it will be in the way when using them. I'm still a bit perplexed on that situation.

The "free" carrying case that Cabellas threw in for the "kit" status...well... doesn't look like the binocs WITH the eyecover and WITH the strap will fit very easily. I didn't want to fight it at work, but that was my initial feeling. Also, the case has no strap on it. It DOES have two slits where I'm presuming the neckstrap goes through. If so, then I don't think I much like THAT either, as it would then seem the binocs, eyecover AND the case would all be strung around your neck when trying to use them. If I'm wrong, then my case is missing it's strap AND happens to have two slits in it which would also leave me puzzled.

As for extended viewings, we're not much of birdwatchers, so I dont know that we'll ever do any real extended viewings. While I was at work, I DID just sort of sit there & look out. I could clearly tell how clear these were. I could see individual leaves in the trees behind the house across the street. I was perplexed with how to change the diopter on one eye. I "knew" it had to be adjustable on a fancy pair like these, but the darn eyepiece wouldn't move. Well /forums/images/graemlins/blush.gif /forums/images/graemlins/blush.gif Seems there's another wheel in the front of the hingepoint that is for the right eyepiece. I guess it's all done internally which I think is pretty cool.

I called Zeiss to inquire about mounting the strap with the eyecover, he gave me his spiel... I then asked him about them being "waterproof". I told him I've read that (which to me, has a specific meaning that they can be submersed), yet I've read that they are NOT to be submersed. He assured me they COULD be submersed, Zeiss just didn't like to advertise that fact. He said, they had that ability in case someone was on boat/other and the big wave caught them and you had a "Zeiss overboard... oh yeah... man included" (someone toss man life vest & someone else DIVE IN for the binocs to save them)

/forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Oh, and I forgot the eye adjustment. Meaning the width of eyeballs and making a singular image. I don't wear glasses and have pretty darn sharp/clear eyes. I think I'm showing my newness to binocs by the struggle I had to find that sweet spot. I guess I kept them too close to my eyes, or perhaps, too tense. I had to relax a bit & hold them a bit further away than I'd anticipated before I got a more uniform image.

I'm sure that all you binoc owners and serious users know all that stuff... I'm just reporting my experiences.


Oh, and ANOTHER thing, although I'm sure it's just the newness of the rubber armor.......they smell funny /forums/images/graemlins/blush.gif /forums/images/graemlins/blush.gif /forums/images/graemlins/blush.gif I suppose it will diminish in time, but it's just another facet of what I noticed.