Binocular tactics???

[ReneZ]

I'm in doubt what to do and would appreciate your advise. I understand that you get what you pay for, but if I take a budget of £350 and want to get the best for that money, you can do the following:

1 Buy second hand an earlier version of the big brands - probably not their best line(something like 7 or 8 X 40).
2 Buy second hand a smaller size, but better quality line (same 7 or 8 x 20/25) with the latest coating T* or similar.
3 Buy new a second-tier brand, but with multi-coating, Bak4 etc?

The difficulty is that you can't really compare all possible offerings.

Appreciate your advice! Thanks, Rene.

[Tero]

Warranty is a big deal. I just sent some Vortex for repair, hoping for the guarantee on the web site.

If you find the very thing you want, the model that was absolutely your dream, used, Get that. Otherwise get mid price Minox, Pentax, Vortex, Meopta etc etc. You might look at low [price] end Swarovski and Leica. Zeiss conquest are not worth the effort, my Pentax beat my Zeiss. I still have the Pentax.

[ThoLa]

... You might look at low end Swarovski and Leica. ...

You will admit that this is a very unfortunately phrasing as there are no "low end" instruments from these companies.

T

[ThoLa]

Zeiss conquest are not worth the effort, my Pentax beat my Zeiss. I still have the Pentax.

A week ago I had a chance to do a side-by-side comparision of Zeisses and Pentaxes.
The Pentax DCF ED was quite nice but not as good as a corresponding Zeiss Conquest.
The focusser on the Pentax was very stiff, and the rubber coating was loose at the objectives' end (very odd; more like a trench coat than a diver's suit).
The colours were very nice, the image crisp. Colour fringes in the periphery were pronounced, and clearly stronger than in any Conquest (or any of the top brand models).
There was something disturbing about the image in the Pentax; I think the collimation was not quite as good as in the top end instruments.

Tom

[Matt_RTH]

2nd hand is a great option. With auction sites, craigslist (which I think is in the UK but maybe not as popular) and other sites, your money can stretch further. But I'm like others in here who has had many, many sets of binoculars, though I now have "only" 8 or so. That means that I have experience in spotting a deal and spotting a dud and realize there are always risks to that.

One thing I'd encourage you to do is to factor the "on paper" specifications as a smaller fraction of the purchase decision. Your actual judgment of the view is the ultimate decision, not what it does on paper. There are many models coming out that look great on paper, ED glass, silver coating, etc, but only time will tell if all these newer, slightly upscale imports will stand the test of time or just become another wasteland of binoculars that don't hold their value. That said, some of these coming out look very interesting and well within your budget. Like this one for instance: http://www.telescope.com/control/product/~category_id=binocular_birding/~pcategory=binoculars/~product_id=09256

How much history do you have using binoculars? I'm going out on a limb and assuming that one big risk is that you need more time to determine what your tastes are.

So as a strategy - here's what I might suggest:
1. Keep an eye open for any great deals on top brand with known reputations (Leica, Swaro, Zeiss, Nikon (their high end that is).
2. Try out as many models as you can. Ask fellow birders what they like!
3. Get to the point that you can discern quality between models and make the best decision for you.

BTW, I see expert birders whose primary binocular is a small 8x20, and some who use 7x50! I am a huge fan of the 8x32 format. It can be shown to be ideal for almost any occasion. But if you are asking for the ideal format, I'd really suggest staying in the 8x32, 7x42, 8x42 category. If you have rock solid nerves and can take on the limitations of 10x binoculars, then 10x42 could be an option.

[OwenM]

A week ago I had a chance to do a side-by-side comparision of Zeisses and Pentaxes.
The Pentax DCF ED was quite nice but not as good as a corresponding Zeiss Conquest.
The focusser on the Pentax was very stiff, and the rubber coating was loose at the objectives' end (very odd; more like a trench coat than a diver's suit).
The colours were very nice, the image crisp. Colour fringes in the periphery were pronounced, and clearly stronger than in any Conquest (or any of the top brand models).
There was something disturbing about the image in the Pentax; I think the collimation was not quite as good as in the top end instruments.

Tom
The ED you looked at must be the biggest lemon ever.
I would have never believed a binocular as bad as the Conquest could cost so much until I compared several models side by side with my 8x32 SP.
Based on the four I looked at, Conquests can't compete in either optical or construction quality with the Pentax SP, much less the ED, which is noticeably better.
Most shocking to me was how poorly made the Victory FLs are for their price point. I paid $150 for some Bushnell-made Brownings that are better constructed than a $1500 FL. Shameful.

[Kevin Purcell]

I would have never believed a binocular as bad as the Conquest could cost so much until I compared several models side by side with my 8x32 SP.
Based on the four I looked at, Conquests can't compete in either optical or construction quality with the Pentax SP, much less the ED, which is noticeably better.


Very odd.

I have a Zeiss Conquest 8x30 and it smokes my Pentax WP and SP 8x32.

It's sharper than my Celestron Ultima DX 8x32 porro (a rather good deal but a decent porro).

It's essentially as sharp as the "Chinese EDs". Has great color. It is light. Fits well in my hands. The focuser action feels "like a machine screw" (as someone else described it and they're right).

The only bin I have that beats it is the Nikon SE (but I'm missing bins in the "top" level but I have a number of good to decent bins).

It's failing is how it handles stray light and I only saw that recently but a view close to the sun, compared with say the Chinese EDs and the SE, show how it fails with veiling glare.

I see Tero's comments (and Owen's above) and I wonder if we have the same binocular?

Are the bins different (sample to sample) or are people different?

For the OP the usual "Chinese ED" advice ... the Chinese are making better bins these days and they're well priced. You'd do well to look at the Hawke Frontier ED (for £270 well inside your budget) which really isn't bettered until you get to the top bins.

The other possibility is a good porro, to get the most optics for the money, to start and keep saving for later. Assuming you don't find porros too big or heavy.

The other problem about buying "good" old bins is the current design have moved on quite a bit: weather proofing, coatings (especially phase coatings in roofs) have improved a lot. And some of the old "good" bins still carry a premium (especially from people who couldn't buy them when they were younger!).

But start looking through a lot of bins ... you will see the differences with practice (and sometimes without!).

[Steve C]

I'm going to go with Kevin and recommend one of the Chinese offerings. The Hawke Frontier ED is most likely more easily available in Scotland than the Promaster ELX ED. There has been mention of an RSPB ED binocular that seems to offer the same sort of specifications in a traditional closed hinge design.

I would be some what astounded if you were not more than pleased with the Hawke. But as the back and forth between Tero, Thola, OwenM, and Kevin indicate, different eyes see binoculars differently, and there can exist some sample variation. So, either make arrangements to visit a shop with a good inventory and try a couple of different ones in your price range. Alternatively select a site to order from which will allow a return of something you don't like in exchange for another. It can be a hassle to either make a special trip to a place where you can look at several types, or a hassle to order and send back binoculars until you get it right.

But, the REAL hassle will come when you decide to avoid the hassle and stick yourself with something you really don't like. Mid price binoculars are getting ever better, and if you don't like the Hawke/Promaster (highly unlikely but always possible) try a different one. Giving two or three decent binoculars a try is likely to produce one you like. At the point you find one you like, just use it and enjoy it. My comments here are somewhat prefaced on an assumption that you don't want to spend a lot up front.

[Tero]

Based on the four I looked at, Conquests can't compete in either optical or construction quality with the Pentax SP, much less the ED, which is noticeably better.
Owen is right and the problem is obvious in the 10x Zeiss. It had no alignment problems, but they were not for me. I might still take the 8x30 Zeiss. Very solid feel in all the Zeiss in hand. Eye cups is a different story.

If Zeiss is you choice, go for the top.

[Sancho]

The difficulty is that you can't really compare all possible offerings.


But do try, if you can. I don´t know where in Scotland you are, but Black and Lizars have a number of stores dotted about there, try to get over to one and try as many binos as you can. You need to decide what mag you want (8x or, at a push, 10x as an earlier poster said), what objective (30-40mm), and whether you want "roofs" or the more trad-style "porros". If you are happy with porros that aren´t waterproof, you can get a pair of Nikon 8x30 EII´s still (online from England) for 259 sterling. That´ll give you about the best optics available (although what that constitutes is open to much debate). I have a pair and the lack of waterproofing has never been a problem....the climate here is probably even wetter than yours. On the other hand, the Hawkes cost about the same and are waterproof roofs. I´ve never seen a pair but check if B and Lizars have them....reliable folk here recommend them highly. Try as many binos as you can before you buy, to get a clearer picture of your requirements. Then go back and ask yourself if you want new or secondhand. My 0.02 euro´s worth, Best of Luck and tell us what you get!

[Pinewood]

Hello ReneZ,

There is a fourth option, at least in the States. Purchase a demo or a refurbished binocular. Some items are sent in for repair, but the owner gets a new one in exchange, while the old one may be repaired and sold as a refurbished. There are shop demo's, which were used to show customers, and there are demos from shows.

I am not in touch with the UK retail market to know if something similar exists.

A fifth option may be a clearance price on older models.

I bought one Zeiss, as a clearance, three and a half years, ago, and two Zeiss and a Leica, as Demos. The Zeiss glasses came with the identical guarantee, as did new ones.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur :brains:

[Kevin Purcell]

If you are happy with porros that aren´t waterproof, you can get a pair of Nikon 8x30 EII´s still (online from England) for 259 sterling. That´ll give you about the best optics available (although what that constitutes is open to much debate). I have a pair and the lack of waterproofing has never been a problem....the climate here is probably even wetter than yours.

I know you have glasses, Sancho. Does the Nikon 8x30 EII work with glasses for you? Or do you not wear them with the E2?

It seems to have very short eye relief in the specs (which might be a consideration for the original poster ... or not depending upon eyeglasses).

[Fireform]

I know you have glasses, Sancho. Does the Nikon 8x30 EII work with glasses for you? Or do you not wear them with the E2?

It seems to have very short eye relief in the specs (which might be a consideration for the original poster ... or not depending upon eyeglasses).

It was enough of a problem for me that I sold mine, alas. I lost so much of that huge FOV with glasses on that I couldn't stand it. Amazing binoculars, though, with a terrific balance of strengths.

[Kevin Purcell]

It was enough of a problem for me that I sold mine, alas. I lost so much of that huge FOV with glasses on that I couldn't stand it. Amazing binoculars, though, with a terrific balance of strengths.

Though I see Henry says

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=38202

The eye relief of the E and the EII measured about 16mm from the center of the eyelens and 14mm from the rim of the folded down eyecup. The SE measured 21mm from the eyelens and 19mm from the eyecup. Like Kimmo’s friend I found that I could see virtually the entire 70 degree field of the EII while wearing reading glasses . Nikon’s eye relief figures seem to be conservative and are apparently measured from the eyecup. Beware that some manufacturer’s like Swarovski appear to take their measurements from the glass so that 2-3mm need to be subtracted from their specs compared to measurements from the eyecup.

IMHO, it seems it's an "honest" 14mm rather than say a "dishonest" (speced from the glass) 16mm for an Swift Audubon. It seems they're both similar at bottom. The perils of the wide view.

[KorHaan]

About the Conquests:

Last year I could have bought a 10x30 model for half the price. 350 Euro's, a really good bargain. They were new in the box. The focus wheel was next to impossible to move. Not with one finger, not with two, only with great force from both my hands was I able to turn the focuser slightly. Sheer rubbish.
I've seen six models of 8x30 and 10x30 Conquests over the last few years and only one had a smooth focus wheel. So much for the non-existant quality control at Zeiss.

I could say all kinds of nasty things of FL's too, but let's say I'm glad I sold mine and bought Minox BL's; four times cheaper, and well-designed separate diopter and focus.

Regards, Ronald

[ColonelBlimp]

Also, try the Opticron Imagic BGA SE's. I had a budget about the same as yours, bought them, and was very happy with the great construction, great customer service, and very nice optics. Can't comment on how they would compare to a Hawke etc. though.

[Fireform]

Though I see Henry says

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=38202



IMHO, it seems it's an "honest" 14mm rather than say a "dishonest" (speced from the glass) 16mm for an Swift Audubon. It seems they're both similar at bottom. The perils of the wide view.

That's likely true. My experience with the Audubon is that the eye relief feels more like 12mm--very short. The EIIs may be OK for some eyeglass wearers, but they weren't for me. If you could try out a pair in advance you would know, but there aren't many of them around in stores anymore. I had to "upgrade" to other bins, a process I'm still not happy about.

[Sancho]

I know you have glasses, Sancho. Does the Nikon 8x30 EII work with glasses for you? Or do you not wear them with the E2?

It seems to have very short eye relief in the specs (which might be a consideration for the original poster ... or not depending upon eyeglasses).
I don´t know quite how to measure real eye-relief (without sticking a tape-measure in my eyeball;)) but I reckon it´s about 15mm, for both the 8x and 10x EII´s. I do wear glasses with my EII´s nowadays, but (and this is going to sound so obvious as to be daft), it depends what glasses. My normal everyday glasses (the ones I wear to work, at home etc.) don´t work with any binoculars because they sit further out on the bridge of my nose (and I have a big nose). I have special "dedicated" birding-eyeglasses (we had a thread about that some time ago), which are small round wire-framed, and sit back into my eyes. With these, I can get full FOV with my EII´s and my EL´s. It´s been said before, but I think the crucial feature is not the eye-relief of the binoculars, but the eye-relief of the spectacles, that makes the difference. So much so that I´m going to save myself a fortune and not buy any of these new ED long-er bins (that might never get produced anyway....;)).

[Kevin Purcell]

I don´t know quite how to measure real eye-relief (without sticking a tape-measure in my eyeball;)) but I reckon it´s about 15mm, for both the 8x and 10x EII´s. I do wear glasses with my EII´s nowadays, but (and this is going to sound so obvious as to be daft), it depends what glasses. My normal everyday glasses (the ones I wear to work, at home etc.) don´t work with any binoculars because they sit further out on the bridge of my nose (and I have a big nose). I have special "dedicated" birding-eyeglasses (we had a thread about that some time ago), which are small round wire-framed, and sit back into my eyes. With these, I can get full FOV with my EII´s and my EL´s. It´s been said before, but I think the crucial feature is not the eye-relief of the binoculars, but the eye-relief of the spectacles, that makes the difference. So much so that I´m going to save myself a fortune and not buy any of these new ED long-er bins (that might never get produced anyway....;)).

EDIT: correct the previous gibberish ... (not Sancho's post ... I posted a gibberish response ... copy and paste error!).

Eyeglasses don't have "eye relief". They're like Galilean telescopes in that they don't have an exit pupil. They just add or subtract power the eye lens system (the lens + the cornea).

The important thing is just matching the position of the exit pupil from the back of the eyepiece to the position of the entrance pupil of the eye (after it's been "moved" by any "lenses" placed in front of it like your eyeglass or your cornea).

So eye relief is easy to specify optically ... the distance from the back of the last lens to the position of the exit pupil. Done.

Easy.

Except for the problem of "unusable distance" enforced by the eyecups around the lens. This makes a difference from eyeglass wearers (but not usually for non-eyeglass wearers as their eye doesn't care about that edge). So that removes bit of distance from the "optically correct" ER making some sort of "usable ER".

And then these the problem of the marketers and the "big numbers" sell. So you get the Audubon that quotes IIRC 16mm (sounds good) but with glasses is closer to 12mm usable (not so good ... you will lose field).

Then there's the problem of the glasses themselves. There's a convenient fiction that the vertex distance (the distance from the front most part of the cornea to the back of the eyeglass lens) is 15mm. It actually makes a little difference to the correct prescription but as lenses come in multiple of 0.25 diopter it doesn't show up.

But people fit eyeglasses in all sorts of ways with vertex distances below 10mm (though your eyelashes might start to hit the lens) out to 30mm (big eyeglasses worn down the nose often by old guys!). These difference distances make all the difference.

Then there's how much correction you need and what the eyeglasses are made out of. High index plastics make thinner lenses and so help with poor ER.

You could give a person with close fitting thin lens (10mm vertex distance) a bin with 14mm ER and they'ed see the whole field. Give it to the guywith the 30mm vertex distance and thick CR39 lenese and maybe he'd see a little bit in the middle. Same bin. Same ER. Different eyeglasses and different people.

Add in deep set eyes and you can see the problems.

Sancho (and me) do the right thing by having custom eyeglasses for birding.

But even than can lead to problems ... my nice close fitting glasses give me problems with the SE. Why well one reason is the ER is too long with the eyecup down for my close fit eyeglasses. So I need to move the eyeglasses out.

So getting the balance right is a problem ... and the only way to know is to test. But you can stack the deck in your direction with well though out birding eyeglasses.

[Pinewood]

A member of this forum suggested to me that myopics should have fewer problems with eye relief, becaue our specs make things seem smaller, and we get a bigger field. Certainly, I see a bigger FOV with my glasses on, and the cups down, then with my glasses off, and the cups up.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur :scribe:

[Kevin Purcell]

A member of this forum suggested to me that myopics should have fewer problems with eye relief, becaue our specs make things seem smaller, and we get a bigger field. Certainly, I see a bigger FOV with my glasses on, and the cups down, then with my glasses off, and the cups up.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur :scribe:

And that minification (making things smaller) is what contributes to KB blackout problems in some bins with a lot of myopic correction ... the effective ER becomes increased because the negative corrective eyeglass lens diverges the light moving the effective position of the exit pupil back (so the eye is effectively "too close").

Hyperopes who have a positive eyeglass correction would suffer less from blackout problems with the SE and more from lack of ER.

So stronger myopes should be happier with shorter ER than weaker myopes or all hyperopes (and the stronger a hyperope you are the more you need long ER). Not all eyeglass wearers are the same.

I see this effect with my Yosemite 6x30 too. Just in the more corrected right eye. A little bit of eyecup twist up (a couple of mm) gets rid of it i.e. I move the eye further away from the EP and the KB blackout disappear.

The other issue you describe, seeing the full field, is nothing to do with myopia and everything to do with insufficient ER or too much distance from the eyeglasses to the eye as I mention above. Hyperopes and even normal vision people wearing sunglasses have this same problem (again depending on the fit of the glasses).

The usual myope's problem viewing through their bins without eyeglasses is having enough focus "beyond infinity" to get the negative correction they require. For some bins there isn't enough. It's often speced and needs to be more than your prescription (including astigmatism correction).

And if you have astimgatism then not using your glasses with bins isn't a good option.

I can see the difference in view with my -1D (left) and -3D (right) of astigmatism between wearing and not wearing my glasses with a bin (assuming I can deal with the spherical -3D in both eyes with the bins) with any halfway decent bins. So for me not wearing glasses is not really an option anymore.

[Sancho]

[QUOTE=Kevin Purcell;1352504]
But people fit eyeglasses in all sorts of ways with vertex distances below 10mm (though your eyelashes might start to hit the lens) out to 30mm (big eyeglasses worn down the nose often by old guys!). These difference distances make all the difference.

QUOTE]

Thanks for the very informative post, Kevin, and also for saying far more succinctly what I was trying to get at; and for explaining how to measure real er. "Vertex Distance" is what I meant when I said er of eyeglasses....and yes, one tiny problem is that my eyelashes do brush off the lenses....John Lennon glasses, Sophia Loren eyelashes!;) (And Cyrano de Bergerac nose....)

[Pinewood]

Strong myope! I guess that describes me. When I don't use glasses, which is rare because of astigmatism, I twist the dioptre setting way over, as I need -7.5

Happy birdwatching,
Arthur

[Kevin Purcell]

Strong myope! I guess that describes me. When I don't use glasses, which is rare because of astigmatism, I twist the dioptre setting way over, as I need -7.5

Happy birdwatching,
Arthur

So that's more of an indication of the difference in correction between the eyes than the total amount of correction (the bin can do that).

But -7.5D difference is a lot!

You are not the oddball who is a hyperope in one eye and a myope in the other? With a prescription of something like +4D in one eye and -3.5D in the other eye are you?

I'm myopic but only a 1.5D difference between the eyes (when I include astigmatism ... otherwise they're about the same for spherical).

You had problems with the SE blackouts too didn't you? I think I can see why. In just one eye?

What is your prescription?

[Pinewood]

But -7.5D difference is a lot!

...
What is your prescription?
Kevin,

Sorry, I was writing of IF binoculars, not the right dioptre with a CF binocular. Both of my eyes are -7.5.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur

[John M Robinson]

Kevin and Arthur,
This is a very interesting discussion to me as I haven't been able to correlate some minor black out issues with certain bins. For example the SE (though maybe the 8x32 not the 10x42), bins seem to be known as a black-out prone bins, while I haven't read much about 8x42 Ultravids being problematic in that area. I have 10x42 SEs with no black out issues while my Ultravids are finicky.

I am mildly far sighted, + 1.75 right eye, +1.5 left eye, with no astigmitism. I feel I have slightly deep set eyes, but I don't know how to measure this. I typically use my bins without glasses. Is there anything you can tell me about my eyes and a propensity for black outs? For example would I be testing my luck by buying a 8x32 SE, sight unseen? I forgot, I also have a very narrow IPD, my bins are usually very close to the narrowest setting.

Thanks,
John

[Kevin Purcell]

Kevin,

Sorry, I was writing of IF binoculars, not the right dioptre with a CF binocular. Both of my eyes are -7.5.

Yeap, that's a pretty big prescription. And would explain the allergy to the SE's.

So strong myopes need not apply might be a useful rule when bying an SE (to return to the OP's topic).

[Pinewood]

Kevin and Arthur,
For example would I be testing my luck by buying a 8x32 SE, sight unseen?

Thanks,
John

John,

I recommend that a binocular should not be bought, sight unseen. However, some vendors, do have a good return policy which allows a little "test driving."
You also bring up nasal relief, meaning can the binocular accommodate both your IPD and the size of your nose? Some binoculars fail to fit everyone, for a variety of reasons.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur

[Kevin Purcell]

I second Pinewoods advice and I actually prefer a buy and return strategy with an more extended evaluation. I find store evaluations not not be be a great deal of help aside from "That's crap" immediate evaluation. A thourgh evaluation followed a buy a day or two's birding gives you the answer to "keep or return".

I think I've narrowed down some of the circumstances of when the SE causes blackouts: I'd worry more about it if you are myopic or if you have a flat face ("shallow set" eyes. I think with your prescription you are less likely to have problems (at least that's my prediction).

The narrow IPD though is a problem. You do have to get these bins centered on your pupils (that's the spherical aberration of the exit pupil part). That's the thing that might sink you.

So for you it's a coin toss ... so be sure you can return them.

Perhaps you can find a local birder with an SE. You would know after a few minutes use.

I think the rubber eyecups are better for "nasal relief": the twist ups do tend to be bigger in diameter and more of a problem.

All of the SE's should be the same with blackouts. They have a classic minimalist design: they all share the same prism housing and eyepieces. So they all have the same eye relief. They all have the same exit pupil size. The only thing that changes is the objective lens and tubes so the magnification and lens diameter increase at the same rate.

If you have an SE and it does or does not give you blackouts could you say something about your vision, eyeglasses, or your face shape? We might be able to wrap this one up!

[John M Robinson]

[QUOTE=Kevin Purcell;1352843) All of the SE's should be the same with blackouts. They have a classic minimalist design: they all share the same prism housing and eyepieces. So they all have the same eye relief. They all have the same exit pupil size. The only thing that changes is the objective lens and tubes so the magnification and lens diameter increase at the same rate.

If you have an SE and it does or does not give you blackouts could you say something about your vision, eyeglasses, or your face shape? We might be able to wrap this one up![/QUOTE]

That information helps because I do own and use the 10x42SE without any blackout issues whatsoever. It is actually less finicky than my 8x42 Ultravid.

Thanks,
John

[ReneZ]

It seems my question is leading on to a lot of other things not necessarily related to the subject. Maybe an other thread is in order?

Meantime appreciate those answers received. Basically don't go for the smaller sizes eventhough latest spec. Be careful with second hand and there are some pretty good alternatives out there. Thanks for the local chain information, I'll look them up.

I do appreciate that it is best to test and try before you buy, but I am particular to the performance during dawn and dusk. Not a lot of shops are open then or will allow a test and there are too many options out there to try every one else's bino's.

The quest continues! Thanks, Rene.

[Tero]

Mostly, we use friendly on line sellers so we can exchange two or three times till we are happy. Most models are not in my local stores. Besides, they know me by now. Here comes the binocular guy.

[ColonelBlimp]

I do appreciate that it is best to test and try before you buy, but I am particular to the performance during dawn and dusk

Probably should go for a magnification of 7x or 8x and 'big' objective lenses if this is the case.

[Swissboy]

....
I could say all kinds of nasty things of FL's too, but let's say I'm glad I sold mine and bought Minox BL's; four times cheaper, and well-designed separate diopter and focus. ...

What is more important, optics or looks? On the first topic, FLs sure are better, by far, in my opinion. But I agree about the lousy Zeiss quality controls.
And the diopter is far from optimal as well. Interesting that Leica has no problem with their way they have solved the combination of diopter and focus.

[ReneZ]

I don't care about the looks, but am looking at a good pair that fits the bill and will allow me to see things in the early or late hours. I like what I read about the Minox HG, but understand there are two models APO and without APO. It is unclear (to me) if the comments refer to the first or the latter. All thanks for the advise so far!! Cheers, Rene.

[Pinewood]

Hello ReneZ,

Most of our American readers may not realize how long twilight can be in the higher latitudes. A 8x42 might give only a 'couple of minutes' more viewing than an 8x32, in Missouri, 39ºN, but it may give much more viewing time in Perth, 53ºN.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur

[Sancho]

Hello ReneZ,

Most of our American readers may not realize how long twilight can be in the higher latitudes. A 8x42 might give only a 'couple of minutes' more viewing than an 8x32, in Missouri, 39ºN, but it may give much more viewing time in Perth, 53ºN.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur

Too true, Arthur...and this is compounded by the fact that in Humid Temperate Climes (such as here), "Twilight"-conditions may start long before sundown if there´s low-lying cloud. Sometimes even at 2pm in the afternoon, at this time of year (low sun, gun-metal cloud), I feel a need for binos that transmit as much light as possible.

[ReneZ]

Indeed, something suitable for low-light conditions. 7 or 8 x 42/43/44/45 with very good low-light qualities. Something must be out there that doesn't break the bank as I'm not ready (yet) to steal the study funds of the kids. Appreciate your help! Cheers, Rene.

[Tero]

Sorry, Rene, those are very few. Maybe the Leupold Yosemite 6x30 would give you enough light?

Otherwise you are stuck with 7x marine binoculars, they tend to be 50mm.
http://www.opticsplanet.com/s/search.php?query=Marine+binoculars

we have almost nobody here that has experience with those. The military ones are not central focus, you focus each side separately.

[Sancho]

The military ones are not centarl focus, you focus each side separately.
Why is that? You´d imagine soldiers would have to focus quickly, what with folks trying to kill them and all......

[Kevin Purcell]

Why is that? You´d imagine soldiers would have to focus quickly, what with folks trying to kill them and all......

IFs work fine for distant targets which the military is most interested in so you can set the bin at the hyperfocal distance and see everything from closer than that to infinity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperfocal_distance

Then you never need to worry about refocusing the bins ... pick them up and scan. What could be quicker. And they never get knocked out of focus either.

Same goes for sailors and anyone else interested in stuff 100m or more away.

If the person is close enough to easily kill you with small arms you don't need optics to see them. The iron sights (or low magnification reflex gun sights these days) work fine. ;)

A secondary effect is the (mostly) young soldiers have a big accommodation range to they can come in even closer by changing their eyes focus. Doesn't work for older farts like me but I find that Yosemites set to the hyperfocal distance I can see "clearly" down to 75m or less. Actually IF Yosemites probably would sell well.

Peter Dunne observed that most birders using field marks to ID birds (i.e. passerines) do so at a range of 40m or less. That's the same as shotgun range with bird shot. Some things haven't changed (except the birds get to fly away). ;)

[Perry Grin]

I'm in doubt what to do and would appreciate your advise. I understand that you get what you pay for, but if I take a budget of £350 and want to get the best for that money, you can do the following:

1 Buy second hand an earlier version of the big brands - probably not their best line(something like 7 or 8 X 40).
2 Buy second hand a smaller size, but better quality line (same 7 or 8 x 20/25) with the latest coating T* or similar.
3 Buy new a second-tier brand, but with multi-coating, Bak4 etc?

The difficulty is that you can't really compare all possible offerings.

Appreciate your advice! Thanks, Rene.

Hi,

I was recently in the market for some new bins and looked at 2nd hand and new. I found that the used bins being offered by retailers were very expensive. I plumped for 10x42 SLC's £699 new (at the time) vs £589 used (and not perfect). There are much better bargains to be had privately, though often there won't be a guarentee or the chance to try before you buy. Not sure if the recent credit crunch will mean cheaper bargains as no one has any money or no used bins as no one has the cash to upgrade!

If you are set on second hand then I would just be very patient, take the time to try a few out at various retailers/field days to decide which models you would be happy with and then wait until a bargain appears.

Perry

[Sancho]

Thanks for that explanation, Kevin!:t:

Rene, we are all in a state of suspense....what are you going to buy? (I can´t buy anymore bins so I´m living vicariously through your purchase).

[Steve C]

Indeed, something suitable for low-light conditions. 7 or 8 x 42/43/44/45 with very good low-light qualities. Something must be out there that doesn't break the bank as I'm not ready (yet) to steal the study funds of the kids. Appreciate your help! Cheers, Rene.

Rene

That post, and your post just before it, have just defined the Promaster ELX ED and the Hawke Frontier ED. My Promaster is the best low light binocular I own. Its image qualities are on par (or close enough not to make a noticeable practical difference) with anything else. And they will not leave you with the feeling that you have deprived your kids of basic necessities.

[Kevin Purcell]

Rene

That post, and your post just before it, have just defined the Promaster ELX ED and the Hawke Frontier ED. My Promaster is the best low light binocular I own. Its image qualities are on par (or close enough not to make a noticeable practical difference) with anything else. And they will not leave you with the feeling that you have deprived your kids of basic necessities.

Given Rene is a Scot (nay, a Glaswegian!) she would be looking at a Hawke Frontier ED for £270.

And we have a report elsewhere on the board of another Glaswegian using a Hawke looking across at Mull one late fall afternoon (probably not from Glasgow ... that would be rather good for a pair of bins ;) ) and being rather happy with the late in the day view.

You might hunt down his post, PM him and see what he has to say.

[ReneZ]

Good one team, many thanks!! (and for the record, I'm a 6'5" bloke):-O
Cheers, Rene

[Sancho]

.......(and for the record, I'm a 6'5" bloke):-O

Yeah, sure...everyone says stuff like that about themselves online!!!;)

[Northern Viking]

I'm in doubt what to do and would appreciate your advise. I understand that you get what you pay for, but if I take a budget of £350 and want to get the best for that money, you can do the following:

1 Buy second hand an earlier version of the big brands - probably not their best line(something like 7 or 8 X 40).
2 Buy second hand a smaller size, but better quality line (same 7 or 8 x 20/25) with the latest coating T* or similar.
3 Buy new a second-tier brand, but with multi-coating, Bak4 etc?

The difficulty is that you can't really compare all possible offerings.

Appreciate your advice! Thanks, Rene.

Today I got my hands on a few binos that I wanted to check out, this is my short resume.

The weather was cloudy but clear, with deasent light.

Leica Ultravid 8-42 they were very good on optics, but didn't like the feel of the focusing wheel and they are not worth the price at all. they cost 2,9 times the Imagic

Swarovski EL 8,5x42 WB Brilliant optics, but they feel clumsy compared to Opticron. However the optics are excelent, but pricy! they cost 2,5 times the Imagic.

Zeiss Victory 8x42 + FL this was a disapointment, they are good, but for the price they were not good enough. They cost 2,4 times the Imagic

Opticron Imagic BGA se 8-42 These bins are unbelievable, optics and feel are totally insane for the price and the competition.

I couldn't really tell the difference between Imagic, Leica and the El. I could probably look for things that could separate them, but I used them like I would use any bins and I am surpriced on behalf of the Opticron Imagic, I also tried the DBA and Aurora and they were not better. However, the Aurora was very compact, but they cost almost twice the price and are not worth it.

I did switch between all the binos I mentioned, back and forth and there is no doubt in my mind when the day comes

However, the best binos that I tried was the Swarovski SLC 8-56 but at 1,29KG or almost 3lbs, they will stay at home, but they were insane good!!!

This is a short review i did a few months ago, and my honest opinion is that you don't get what you pay for when you buy one of the big 4.
They are good, but Opticron Imagic BGA se gives you the same for a lot less.
I had all the socalled best binos and different Opticrons and there is no way I'll spend 2,5-3 times the cost of the Opticron Imagic BGA se to get simmilar or even lesser performance(Zeiss Victory 8x42 + FL) because of the Brand.

[ColonelBlimp]

Hear hear, I actually preferred my Imagic BGA SE's to some ELs at a testing day a while back.

[Sancho]

FWIW, Opticron´s After-Sales Service is, in my experience, as superb as that of the legendary Swarovski equivalent.

[John M Robinson]

I can see the difference in view with my -1D (left) and -3D (right) of astigmatism between wearing and not wearing my glasses with a bin (assuming I can deal with the spherical -3D in both eyes with the bins) with any halfway decent bins. So for me not wearing glasses is not really an option anymore.

Kevin have you considered contact lenses. I don't know about you but I am often out in the rain and my glasses frequently get wet and hard to look through. After 57 years of never needing glasses I tried contacts, it was hard at first but then I got used to putting them in. I don't use them on a daily basis, only when I'm outdoors in the field in bad weather.

[Kevin Purcell]

Kevin have you considered contact lenses. I don't know about you but I am often out in the rain and my glasses frequently get wet and hard to look through. After 57 years of never needing glasses I tried contacts, it was hard at first but then I got used to putting them in. I don't use them on a daily basis, only when I'm outdoors in the field in bad weather.

No, I've not tried contacts.

I've worn glasses since I was a teenager (I can't do without them). And as a chemist (in a previous life) some always-on eye protection helped when things went wrong plus you don't want to be wearing contacts in a lab (too many things to get in the eye and a contact won't help then). So I never considered them.

Plus I have moderate astigmatism (-3D) in my right eye that contacts used to have problems correcting for. I suspect it's better today than it was.

I think my next step is to get progressive lenses in my eyeglasses. I went bifocal at my last prescription (time waiteth for no man) but I think PALs might be in my future.

Hmmm, Zeiss eyeglass PALs with Lotutec (they do have them!). Now how do I make sure the logo is visible ;)

[ColonelBlimp]

Hmmm, Zeiss eyeglass PALs with Lotutec (they do have them!). Now how do I make sure the logo is visible

I'm putting an order in for some today-my current glasses are terrible and when I look through bins with them they reduce it to mud.

To get some new ones with AR coating to stop me having to put my specs on my head all the time would cost £60-odd anyway, so an extra £40 for Lotutec and brand loyalty can't go amiss!