Binocular Options?

[rmeliso]

First a hello as I am new here. Thanks for a couple opinions.

I am looking to upgrade some inexpensive binoculars I have and have come across the Nikon Monarch 8.5x56 set. I am looking for a "best buy" type of item, high performance for a fair price, and at @$380, I think this is pushing my budget. My current binoculars are two pair, a Bushnell and Nikon 10x50, good $100ish glasses. And I would love to buy a set of Zeiss or Leica optics, but I am pretty sure that if I spend huge bucks with either of those companies my product will involve the letter "M" as in cameras.

Also, after doing some looking I found that Vortex makes some very highly regarded binoculars. Their Viper line is considered a best buy and they offer an 8.5x50 option, but it is @$200 more than the Nikon.

I know I can save some $$$ with an 8x42 set, but after looking through the Nikon Monarchs 8x42 and 8.5x56 the difference is remarkable. So much so, even if the optics are not great (and I think the Nikon has decent optics) the brightness will make the set a winner.

So, I guess my question is, are there other options I should look at? Knowing I prefer the brighter view and have a max budget of @$400, maybe less, what companies can offer high quality optical options? I guess you can tempt me too and have no regard for my budget. :t:

Too many good options out there it seems, confusing without some guidance.

Thanks.

[Marys1000]

When I called Eagle Optics recently for some advice of my own I heard about the new Vortex Viper's which are pretty new. The few who have bought them seem to like them. I believe they are 450 or so. Additionally, and I thought this was interesting, he made mention of the Burris Signature Selects 8 x42's and said he was favorably impressed. I think I've seen these for 415 so you may be able to find someplace that carries them for below 400.00
I looked them up and they were touting a silver vs. aluminum coating as their claim to fame, along with precision grinding etc.
I talked to some engineers at work and we looked silver up in some optics charts and it does indeed have a little more reflectivity than aluminum, and in a a slightly different wavelength. Now, its only a percent or two and the one guy seemed to think that it couldn't be enough to be appreciable in a binocular/human eye scenario. But we were just speculating for 10 minutes and these guys while smart don't know much about binocular optics and their coatings so who knows? Maybe it does make them just a touch brighter. I hope to get to Cabela's in a month or so and see for myself. Meanwhile you might want research them check for prices on the web - the EO guys are usually pretty good. And you probably know but they will let you charge more than one pair for home comparison and return the rest (as long as you don't have an accident with them or something).

[Corvus Corax]

Firstly may I say welcome to Birdforum.

In your price range there is currently a huge choice of binoculars available from Nikon, Opticron, Vortex, Steiner and a whole host more.

The Monarchs are regularly discussed in posts and the consensus seems to be they are an excellent optic for the money, see:

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=103926&highlight=nikon+monarch

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=68081&highlight=nikon+monarch

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=106444&highlight=nikon+monarch

If at all possible you should call into a dealer and try a few pairs out for yourself as the enjoyment of using binoculars can be made or broken if they do not feel comfortable around the neck or in the hand.

Good luck and have some great birding.

[rmeliso]

Thank you for the quick responses.

I have been looking some more and the closest focusing difference between the Monarch and Viper is pretty significant.

[J. Moore]

I know I can save some $$$ with an 8x42 set, but after looking through the Nikon Monarchs 8x42 and 8.5x56 the difference is remarkable. So much so, even if the optics are not great (and I think the Nikon has decent optics) the brightness will make the set a winner.

So, I guess my question is, are there other options I should look at? Knowing I prefer the brighter view and have a max budget of @$400, maybe less, what companies can offer high quality optical options?

Hi and welcome to the forum. I assume you know that anything much beyond a 42-43 millimeter objective is considered non-standard for a birding binocular. The Nikon Monarchs 8.5 x 56 show one reason why -- they weigh over 40 ounces. I personally consider 30 ounces about the maximum comfort level, and consider 24 ounces or less close to ideal. I have the Vortex Vipers 8 x 42; they are 23 ounces and feel so light I often forget I am wearing binoculars. They are also renowned for their brightness, so if they were not out of your price range, I would recommend them to you.

The Nikon Monarchs are going to be tough to beat in this price range. Looking at the various review sites, the only thing consistently rated higher looks to be the Eagle Optics Ranger 8 x 42, which goes for around $300. It is supposed to have very good optics and is also very lightweight at around 22 ounces.

If you have fallen in love with large objective lens binoculars, the only other thing I could quickly find that looked moderately appealing is the Vortex Vulture 8.5 x 50, which goes for around $240. I do not know much about them optically other than that they are designed for low light viewing. They are 10 ounces lighter than the big Nikons, but have a rather cramped field of view of only 283 feet (versus 325 feet for the big Nikons).

Hope this helps,
Jim

[robinm]

Hi rmeliso,

A warm welcome to BirdForum from all the Moderators and Admin :t: Hope you are getting some useful advice.

[J. Moore]

Thank you for the quick responses.

I have been looking some more and the closest focusing difference between the Monarch and Viper is pretty significant.

I should also add that the Viper 8.5 x 50 has only a 305 foot field of view. That is pretty cramped for an everyday birding binocular.

Jim

[rmeliso]

Looking at the various review sites, the only thing consistently rated higher looks to be the Eagle Optics Ranger 8 x 42, which goes for around $300.

I am stumbling and bumbling around finding sites via google searches. May I ask what review sites you reference? I probably have run into them, but this will confirm I am looking at the correct places.

[J. Moore]

I am stumbling and bumbling around finding sites via google searches. May I ask what review sites you reference? I probably have run into them, but this will confirm I am looking at the correct places.

Here are the most useful links in my collection:

http://www.birdwatching.com/optics.html
There are a number of excellent articles on this page. In particular, check out the Midpriced Binocular Roundup link with the accompanying chart, as well as the "Binocular Picks for Every Price Range" chart.

http://www.eagleoptics.com/buying_guide.asp?cid=4
The above is a list of Eagle Optics (a very well respected optics dealer) "staff picks" for birding binoculars in various price ranges.

http://www.birddigiscoping.com/2006/12/closer-look-at-binoculars-advice-from.html
If you scroll down to the bottom of this page, you will see a list of binocular picks for various price ranges. The author works for Vortex Optics, though I think he is actually fairly objective in his opinions.

There are also various sites with out of date information. I would take their recommendations with a grain of salt because they do not include consideration of more recent models such as those from Vortex, but they have some good info:

http://www.betterviewdesired.com/index.php

http://www.birds.cornell.edu/Publications/LivingBird/Winter2005/Age_Binos.html

Cheers,
Jim

[rmeliso]

Thank you Jim, and everyone.

So if you get me off that 56mm objective the # of choices sky rocket and I will have more to consider.

I just printed the Cornell article before checking back here. I guess that is my next read.

[trashbird]

You might try the Fury line of Vortex binocular. They are just under the quality of the Vipers, and are pretty much mid-priced binos. $300-ish.

Eagle Optics is a good place to look around , and if you buy from them they have a liberal 30-day return policy. I just bought a bino from them and returned it cuz it didn't meet my needs. I have a different pair on its way to me now.

My return experience has been good. They are helpful over the phone, and they will check the binos out before they ship it to you. They actually have a collimation machine there that check to see if the binos are in alignment.

[J. Moore]

You might try the Fury line of Vortex binocular. They are just under the quality of the Vipers, and are pretty much mid-priced binos. $300-ish.

I am not aware of any reviews of the 8 x 42 Furies (they just came out as I understand it), but they look promising on paper. They have a locking diopter, which is rare for this price class and which the Rangers lack, and a slightly wider field of view than the Rangers.

Jim

[rmeliso]

OK, I suspect this question is going to spark some discussion. I judged the 8.5x56 favorable to the 8x42 Monarch yesterday at Cabelas. So, my question is, can the large objective and bright view mask or hide a lesser quality optic? Conversly, and I guess more to my point, Can a higher quality optic mirror a brighter objective glass?

[J. Moore]

OK, I suspect this question is going to spark some discussion. I judged the 8.5x56 favorable to the 8x42 Monarch yesterday at Cabelas. So, my question is, can the large objective and bright view mask or hide a lesser quality optic? Conversly, and I guess more to my point, Can a higher quality optic mirror a brighter objective glass?

I have no experience with monarchs, but unless you were in a low light situation (which might be possible considering you sound like you were inside a store), I am surprised that you saw that much of a difference. I wonder if something was awry with the 8 x 42 monarchs you tried. In any event, here is a link to a good article talking about the difference between full-sized (42 mm) binoculars and mid-sized (32 mm) binoculars that discusses some of the basic principles applicable to your question.

http://www.birdwatching.com/optics/midsizedbins2005.html

Jim

[rmeliso]

Well, though the store was very diverse in lighting conditions and I did look at scenes of differing light qualities, the exit puple of one is roughly 25% larger than the other. More than anything else that may be what is driving my perception.

Again, thank you, you are saving me a week or more worth of work by, or shall I say, anything but work though I am at my desk being paid.

[rmeliso]

I just saw this discussion to read also

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=99435

[trashbird]

I think that improved coating technologies for lenses and prisms make for brighter images.

One thing to watch out for on the Monarch 8.5X56. It has a close focus of 32 feet!

The Viper Vulture 8.5x50 has a close focus of 9 ft. But it's field of view is narrower than the Monarch.

There are all kinds of trade offs in optical design when you start changing eye relief, field of view and close focus.

I could live with, say, a 15 foot close focus on a binocular that I loved everything else about. But 32 feet!

[J. Moore]

Well, though the store was very diverse in lighting conditions and I did look at scenes of differing light qualities, the exit puple of one is roughly 25% larger than the other. More than anything else that may be what is driving my perception.

Again, thank you, you are saving me a week or more worth of work by, or shall I say, anything but work though I am at my desk being paid.

You are welcome, and thanks for highlighting that other thread. I think you probably understand this, but you know that it is conventional wisdom that the larger exit pupil would make a difference only in low light situations.

In any event, as has been pointed out in this thread, the large objective binoculars all seem to have drawbacks that make them questionable choices for every day birding binoculars -- oppressive weight, small field of view, and/or inadequate minimum focusing distance.

Best,
Jim

Best,
Jim

[Steve C]

I see no advantage with the monarch 8.5x56 unless you intend to do a lot of Owl watching. There is no way I'd lug aroung the extra weight of the 56 mm Monarch unless dim light was the sole reason for purchasing the binocular. For a relatively inexpensive general purpose birding glass, the Monarch 8x42 is a tough act to follow. In the same category are Eagle Optics SRT Rangers, Leupold Cascades, Vortex Fury and some others. If you can stretch your budget, the Vortex Viper is a definite and noticably better binocular. I have both. The new Swift Eaglet binoculars are very good as well.

Steve

[rmeliso]

OK, I am off the 8.5x56 idea and onto the 8x42 mainstream line of thinking. And I think my budget may grow a little too. It looks like the Burris, Viper and Eaglet's are all in the same price area.

[trashbird]

If you can afford the Viper 8x42, go for it. I looked through one recently at a local store. They are top notch. I can't speak about the other two.

It looks like there are about a dozen dealers in Connecticut that carry Vortex, if you wanted to try them out before you buy.

http://www.vortexoptics.com/dealers/how_to_buy#

[ceasar]

You should look at this one also. The Swift 8.5 x 44 HHS. http://www.eagleoptics.com/index.asp?pid=1156

Bob

[Tero]

OK, I am off the 8.5x56 idea and onto the 8x42 mainstream line of thinking. And I think my budget may grow a little too. It looks like the Burris, Viper and Eaglet's are all in the same price area.

8.5x is a bit odd, there are only a few models. If you find a good 8x, it will be as good as the 8.5x in nearly all aspects. If you think you need more power, try a 10x.

40-42mm is pretty much the best compromise. And there are lots of models. If you want to spend a lot, some 8x32s are also pretty good, but a decent 8x42 (Pentax, Vortex Viper etc) will work as well. I use a Bushnell 8x32 for woods, warblers. I get about 400f fov. During the day, a good 32mm will be bright enough.

[Marys1000]

rmeliso - do you think you are going to go back to Cabela's now that you have dropped the large bino idea? (everyone is right btw, bigger is not better, I bought 10x42 Swarv's and probably should have gotten the 8's, for a long time I was sure I needed the 50s, thankfully I at least didn't do that).
If you do can you see if the they have the Burris? A bino that no one has looked at as of yet is like sand in my pants:)

[rmeliso]

Hi Mary,

I will get to a smaller retailer tomorrow who I know carry the Vortex line, and if I am correct I do recall seeing the Burris binocs at Cabelas. The local store is not too far from me so I will make another trip there in not too long from now I am sure.

[marcus]

Hello Mary,
Excuse me please. What does 'sand in my pants' mean?

[rmeliso]

Hello Mary,
Excuse me please. What does 'sand in my pants' mean?

The gentleman in me didn't want to ask, but now that Marcus has brought it up. o:D

[rmeliso]

OK, so my next issue, actually, what I am seeing preparing for my shopping trip this afternoon.

Most/All of the $500ish binocs 8x42 offer about the same field of view of my current 10x50 Nikons. Same field of view and less magnification (I see the eye relief is the "other" factor causing this), but I don't know if that is what I want. To get a greater FOV it seems the $750ish price range is necessary, or a move to Porro sets.

[J. Moore]

OK, so my next issue, actually, what I am seeing preparing for my shopping trip this afternoon.

Most/All of the $500ish binocs 8x42 offer about the same field of view of my current 10x50 Nikons. Same field of view and less magnification (I see the eye relief is the "other" factor causing this), but I don't know if that is what I want. To get a greater FOV it seems the $750ish price range is necessary, or a move to Porro sets.

Different people have different preferences with respect to field of view. I am satisfied with the field of view of my vipers, which is about average for 8 x 42 binoculars (around 350 feet), and think anything more than 325 feet or so is adequate. Most birders only use binoculars once they see a bird with the naked eye, or to scan for birds; in either case, having a somewhat larger field of view is not a great advantage, in my opinion. Though others have a definite preference for a wider field of view.

The main difference you should experience with the vipers compared with your Nikons is an improvement in optical quality, which I consider to be a much more important characteristic. I get a "charge" out of my vipers every time I look through them, and can actually see better through them in dim light than with my naked eye. The other big difference you will notice is the weight, and having a locking diopter. (Plus better eye relief if you wear glasses).

If you crave field of view, you can also get this in binoculars of all price ranges, including roof prism. But typically this comes with less eye relief. There is the roof prism vortex fury 8 x 32, for example, which has a 412 foot field of view, and goes for around $300. But it has only 16 mm of eye relief and of course a smaller objective. If you are looking for an 8x binocular with good eye relief, an above-average field of view, a 42 mm objective, low weight, and top optical quality, then you will have to pay a lot more (if you can find anything at all). I think the top of the line Swarovski and Zeiss come close to this, as well as the vortex razor, but they are all several ounces heavier than the vipers.

My two cents,
Jim

[FrankD]

I am glad to see that you decided to go with a slightly smaller glass. I tried the 56 mm Monarchs at Cabelas right after they debuted. Though I found the brightness and centerfield sharpness to be very good I just could not get over the weight and the poor balance. They were big honkin' binoculars. I would consider them if most of their use was from a relatively stationary position but I wouldn't want to tote them around anywhere...and that is coming from someone who had regularly used 34 ounce bins and heavier fairly often at one point.

[Marys1000]

Hello Mary,
Excuse me please. What does 'sand in my pants' mean?

I guess that comes from when your a little kid, going somewhere really exciting in the car and are bouncing and wiggling around in anticipation and your parents say "what's the matter with you? do you have sand in your pants?" ( this would be before car seats:)

I guess I get sort of wrapped up in the intrique of new bino's touting something better LOL!

Of course I also sometimes use it if I find something really irritating - like that person makes me feel like i've got sand in my pants - because sand in your pants is just that - irritating!

I caught the comment that if your into FOV you will usually lose eye relief. I'm sure there's a technical reason I have to take on faith - I just never realized the correlation before (or maybe just forgot) and find it very interesting since both are very important to me (bad bad eye's, thick glasses even with the thinner plastic glass, and have trouble staying on birds with narrower FOV)

[J. Moore]

I caught the comment that if your into FOV you will usually lose eye relief. I'm sure there's a technical reason I have to take on faith - I just never realized the correlation before (or maybe just forgot) and find it very interesting since both are very important to me (bad bad eye's, thick glasses even with the thinner plastic glass, and have trouble staying on birds with narrower FOV)

I cannot give you the exact technical explanation, but here is a somewhat authoritative reference repeating that claim: http://www.birdwatching.com/optics/2007roundup/binoculars_fieldofview.html

Best,
Jim

[ceasar]

..............

I caught the comment that if your into FOV you will usually lose eye relief. I'm sure there's a technical reason I have to take on faith - I just never realized the correlation before (or maybe just forgot) and find it very interesting since both are very important to me (bad bad eye's, thick glasses even with the thinner plastic glass, and have trouble staying on birds with narrower FOV)

Most 7 x 42 binoculars will give you both a wide FOV, 420' @ 1000 Yards or so, AND a quite long eye relief, 20mm or more. There aren't too many on the market, however, and they are high priced. Here is a not quite 7x42 (6.5 x 32) very reasonably priced Vortex that is excellent on both counts. http://www.eagleoptics.com/index.asp?pid=4836

Bob

[FrankD]

Most 7 x 42 binoculars will give you both a wide FOV, 420' @ 1000 Yards or so, AND a quite long eye relief, 20mm or more. There aren't too many on the market, however, and they are high priced. Here is a not quite 7x42 (6.5 x 32) very reasonably priced Vortex that is excellent on both counts. http://www.eagleoptics.com/index.asp?pid=4836


You can still also find some 7x42 Bushnell Discoverers or those Meade Montanas in the $250-$300 price range and they, too, offer that 420 foot field of view. I also seem to remember that Vortex (or possibly the Stokes offshoot) was offering an 8x42 model with a 400+ field of view.

[rmeliso]

Well, I have done my shopping and will pick up a new pair of Vipers next week.

Over the past few days I have tried quite a few glasses, the Burris Sig Series, Bushnell Elite, Nikon Monarchs again, a bunch of Vortex models, and a Swarovski, Leica and Pentax too. All were very good, much better and brighter than what I have, very well built, very sharp, all seemed very good, actually excellent. The Swarovski was amazing, the Leica right behind it, but I would not be willing to pay the extra $$$$$$$$$ for either (unless I win lotto).

I did choose the Viper because it just seems to be the best bang for the buck for me. I will purchase it from a local dealer for a little less than EO's price. I think supporting a local small business is important, so no purchase from Cabelas either.

Mary, the Burris is a very nice binocular. Just as bright and sharp as you may expect. I did not try it at the same time as the Viper so I don't know if I perceive much of a difference between the two. Perhaps if I had them together to try side by side I would have seen a difference.

Of note, the Vortex Razor had a stiff focus knob just like mentioned in the review here
http://www.birdwatching.com/optics/2007roundup/note_vortex_razor.html

The Swarovski compared to the Viper was sharper by a hair to my eye and had a more neutral color rendition.

I liked the style and handling of the Viper to the Swarovski or Razor.

The Vortex Fury, lower priced, is also very good. I think I am too inexperienced to really see all of the subtle differences in these models.

Likewise, the Stokes models were very nice, but I prefer the Viper and Fury over the DLS and Broadwing. I don't think these are just cosmetically different models for each line, but I think the Viper and Fury are more current as they share more of the current features with the Razor, so maybe there is a generational gap separating the lines.

Thanks again to every one's guidance. It was very helpful.

[J. Moore]

Glad to hear you found something you are happy with rmeliso. I am sure you will not regret getting the vipers. And thanks for the full report on your comparison with other models.

Cheers,
Jim

[lucznik]

You can still also find some 7x42 Bushnell Discoverers or those Meade Montanas in the $250-$300 price range and they, too, offer that 420 foot field of view. I also seem to remember that Vortex (or possibly the Stokes offshoot) was offering an 8x42 model with a 400+ field of view.

These 7x42 Bushnell Discoverers can be found at www.sportsmansguide.com for $220 (under $200 if you are a member of their "buyer's club").

[one eye joe]

Just a note. Cameraland has the Vortex binoculars on sale right now. I believe the Viper is $449. Wish I had some money.