Low end roofs o.k. says dealer.

[lvn600]

I've seen a lot of commentary in the forum regarding low end porros being superior to low end roof prisms. I would not argue this statement as porros usually seem to give a good view to my eye as well. However, that being said I have discussed with two of the more reputable binocular dealers in this area the notion that buying a $300 range roof prism is a waste of money. Both dealers who regularly test new and old models of all kinds have expressed to me that manufacturers have become more advanced in the design of roof prisms including the kind of coatings on the lenses. They said that you can get a very good quality roof prism binocular in the $300 range where as that may not have been the case 5 or 10 years ago. They were also of the opinion that if you were going to make the jump to a higher quality that you might as well go for the top of the line and skip the mid range. In other words invest $300 or $1500 but why bother with the in between. These are not the end all of opinions of course but just another perspective. One dealer mentioned brunton and swift as having good quality low end roof prisms just to name two.

[Alexis Powell]

I agree with these dealers. In cheap roofs, I'd get a Bausch&Lomb/Bushnell 7x42 Discoverer for $300 (until recently, this was easy, but it may not be possible anymore due to price hikes). Failing that, I'd search around to find a used/refurbished Swarovski 7x42 SLC, Zeiss 7x42 Classic, Leica 7 or 8x42 Ultra/Trinovid, or Nikon 8x42 LX for around $500, or maybe a Bausch & Lomb Elite 8x42 or Nikon 8x32 LX for $400. Otherwise, I'd give up on the roofs and go for a nice new Nikon 8x30 EII for $240.
--AP

[Bill Atwood]

For brand new current model bins I totally agree with the $300 or $1500 sentiment (more like $250 or $1,200 for what I prefer). However there are some new inbetweeners that I haven't heard much about yet, the new Stokes models and the Leupold Gold Rings. Otherwise, at the in between prices I would consider used premium models or discounted older lines like the Nikon HG/LX. If I had the money to throw around I would pick up a few pair of the 8x32 and 10x32 HGs.

At $250-$300 I would look at the Bushnell Legends, Celestron Nobles and Nikon Monarchs.

I don't care how great optically any porro is, due to ergonomic considerations I don't think I will ever use one as a main birding bin ever again.

[Pinewood]

In the middle, is the Nikon SE, a Porro glass loved by many, detested by a few, including me. It goes for less than $600.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur Pinewood

[Otto McDiesel]

They said that you can get a very good quality roof prism binocular in the $300 range .

Now that's a lot of bull...

[Robert Ellis]

Now that's a lot of bull...

Excellent build quality and waterproofing, sure, but optically (as far as birding is concerned) they are barely above acceptable for the serious user.

[elkcub]

For brand new current model bins I totally agree with the $300 or $1500 sentiment (more like $250 or $1,200 for what I prefer). However there are some new inbetweeners that I haven't heard much about yet, the new Stokes models and the Leupold Gold Rings. Otherwise, at the in between prices I would consider used premium models or discounted older lines like the Nikon HG/LX. If I had the money to throw around I would pick up a few pair of the 8x32 and 10x32 HGs.

At $250-$300 I would look at the Bushnell Legends, Celestron Nobles and Nikon Monarchs.

I don't care how great optically any porro is, due to ergonomic considerations I don't think I will ever use one as a main birding bin ever again.

Bill,

Yesterday I had the opportunity to look at Leupold Gold Ring 10x42s as well as several Bushnell Discoverer and Legacy roofs. I don't know if it was the particular specimen, but the focus control on the Gold Ring was literally a joke. Honestly, there was an 80 degree dead band when changing direction of the wheel. I never did get to think about the optics since that was so bad. No bull, the Legend Bushnells are serious binoculars, as are the Discoverers. The former can be gotten in the $250 - $300 price range and should satisfy many a birder or nature observer. I was very underimpressed with the new (expensive) Bushnell Elite, which I mentioned on an earlier thread.

Elkcub

[SteveF]

Hi Elkcub,
Where around the Sunnyvale area (assuming this is the area) can you try the new Leupold Golden Rings? Thanks.

[elkcub]

Steve,

I saw them at Kerley's gun shop on Stevens Creek Blvd., a few blocks east of Sunnyvale-Saratoga Rd. They also have Bushnell/B&L and at one time sold Swaros.

-elk
PS. I don't know if these were new or old gold rings, if there are such.

[Len Glasser]

Steve,

I saw them at Kerley's gun shop on Stevens Creek Blvd., a few blocks east of Sunnyvale-Saratoga Rd. They also have Bushnell/B&L and at one time sold Swaros.

-elk
PS. I don't know if these were new or old gold rings, if there are such.

Hi,
I also looked through those same Leupolds (at Kerley's) and was also less than impressed with either the terrible, tiny, barely projecting, focus ring as well as the very poor optical quality (low resolution and poor contrast) of the binoculars. Based upon the add photos in Audubon magazine for the new gold rings, I'm assuming that the bins at Kerleys are a different, low cost line of gold ring binos. They are mechanically much different.
Len Glasser

[Bill Atwood]

Bill,

Yesterday I had the opportunity to look at Leupold Gold Ring 10x42s as well as several Bushnell Discoverer and Legacy roofs. I don't know if it was the particular specimen, but the focus control on the Gold Ring was literally a joke. Honestly, there was an 80 degree dead band when changing direction of the wheel. I never did get to think about the optics since that was so bad. No bull, the Legacy Bushnells are serious binoculars, as are the Discoverers. The former can be gotten in the $250 - $300 price range and should satisfy many a birder or nature observer. I was very underimpressed with the new (expensive) Bushnell Elite, which I mentioned on an earlier thread.

Elkcub

Interesting about the LGRs Elkcub, from their pricing and advertising I figured Leupold was finally gonna be on the doorstep of the premium brands.

The Legacy's are porros so they aren't for me. I looked at a few Discoverers a number of years ago it, looking through them was like looking through a milk film. I don't think they ever came in 8x which is what I prefer. I think they cost more then too. Looks like Bushnell might have tweaked them a bit, as very many manufacturer's seem to be doing. Their new sub $200 Excursion model ought to be looked at also. These days it sure seems more difficult to keep up with all the new and modified models. Personally if I had to pick a Bushnell bin it would be the $250 Legend 8x32 roofs.

Another bin that ought to be looked at in the $300-$400 range is the new LX version of the Celestron Legend.

[Bill Atwood]

Now that's a lot of bull...


Now THAT'S alot of bull!

Oh I suppose it depends on your definition of "very good". Just a few months ago I would of agreed with that sentiment. I would even have agreed if it were regarding most mid-priced roofs. Not today. Not at all. Admittedly they aren't as good as the premium bins, but their optical quality is much closer than their price would indicate. FOV appears to be the main sacrifice, followed by durability, possibly ER and lastly sharpness.

These days I even not as quick to dismiss sub $200 roofs as I used to be.

Personally I think these newer low priced roofs are a boon for the birding community.

[elkcub]

Now THAT'S alot of bull!

Oh I suppose it depends on your definition of "very good". Just a few months ago I would of agreed with that sentiment. I would even have agreed if it were regarding most mid-priced roofs. Not today. Not at all. Admittedly they aren't as good as the premium bins, but their optical quality is much closer than their price would indicate. FOV appears to be the main sacrifice, followed by durability, possibly ER and lastly sharpness.

These days I even not as quick to dismiss sub $200 roofs as I used to be.

Personally I think these newer low priced roofs are a boon for the birding community.

Oops, my bad. I was taking about the Bushnell Legend and not the Legacy, — i.e., the roofs. Sorry about that. I've changed the earlier post. |=(| In my opinion they are serious binoculars. Regarding the Discoverers I was quite impressed with them too.

-elk

[elkcub]

... I'm assuming that the bins at Kerleys are a different, low cost line of gold ring binos. They are mechanically much different.
Len Glasser

Yeah, you're right, they don't look anything like the ad on the back of Audubon. I guess the new ones are a high cost line of gold ring binos.

Now if one were marketing a new product like this, why in the world continue using the same "Golden Ring" label after putting out, er, ... less than impressive, products with that logo? The only thing I can think of is that so few people own them that there's little risk of ruining their repuation.

-elk

[lvn600]

The basis of the argument was that while high end roof binoculars may be 5 times more expensive than $300 binocular they are not 5 times better. They may be noticeably better optically but the difference is probably less than 30%. 20 or 30% is a big difference for someone with a discerning eye so spending top dollar is worth it if you are willing to pay. The optical difference between the better of the low end roofs and most mid range roof is often minimal. I'm just repeating the info that was given to me . I know that as soon as I feel like spending the money I'll want the best binoculars I can find regardless.

[Otto McDiesel]

My whole point about birding is to get the best view of the bird, and if it takes an "ugly" porro, so be it. In my opinion, $300 roofs are unsatisfactory. You can get excellent porros for that money, or less. I've seen $100 porros that blow out of the water all roofs that cost less than $1000.
It's your money and you do what you want with it.
As far as two different kinds of Golden Ring binoculars, i don't know what are you people talking about. What i saw, a new model 10x42 Golden Ring, was just as good (or very very close) and just as heavy as a Swaro SLC.

[elkcub]

... I've seen $100 porros that blow out of the water all roofs that cost less than $1000.



Do those $100 porros have names? :scribe:

-elk

[lvn600]

This was really not a commentary on porros. The dealers acknowledged the optical performance per dollar for porros. The point was low end roofs have improved over the last ten years because of adjustments in design and coating processes etc.-I wonder if Audubon would have been satisfied with the optical performance of today's $300 roofs or if he would have dismissed them as junk.

[Bill Atwood]

Do those $100 porros have names? :scribe:

-elk

Yeah, what elk said.

The ONLY porros I have seen stand up to premium roofs are the Nikon SEs.

[Robert Ellis]

Yeah, what elk said.

The ONLY porros I have seen stand up to premium roofs are the Nikon SEs.

True you may feel the SEs are the only porro to match the high end roofs, but the $100 porros (Bushnell Legacy and Legend, Nikon Actions, etc.) are far superior to $300 roofs. Further, $300 porros contend with the high end roofs, if you do think they are up to the optical quality of the top models I suggest you look through a pair of Swift Audubons (porro, please).

At the $300 range, a porro can proivide an image far superior to any $300 roof.

[Tero]

Its the under $100 roof prisms that are poor, but so are most porros. I have $50 Minoltas, Porros, they are OK, my wife uses them for nonbirding stuff.

[elkcub]

... but the $100 porros (Bushnell Legacy and Legend, Nikon Actions, etc.) are far superior to $300 roofs.


But the man said these (or other?) $100 porros will blow out of the water any roof under $1000. Do you concur? It's just a matter of degree.
-elk :scribe:

[lvn600]

It reminds me of people who rave about certain wines. When I try them it just tastes like wine to me. I have $160 porros which have a better optical view than a pair of $300 roofs I own but I bring the roofs birding because they are comfortable, have a closer focus and still give a nice view. Not as nice but nice enough.I've never missed a bird id because of optical quality.I use my porros for astronomy and When I viewing mainly distant birds like eagles and whatnot.

[marcus]

True you may feel the SEs are the only porro to match the high end roofs, but the $100 porros (Bushnell Legacy and Legend, Nikon Actions, etc.) are far superior to $300 roofs. Further, $300 porros contend with the high end roofs, if you do think they are up to the optical quality of the top models I suggest you look through a pair of Swift Audubons (porro, please).

At the $300 range, a porro can proivide an image far superior to any $300 roof.
Mr. Ellis, you are 100% correct there, concerning the Swift Audubons. The optics of them, (I've got one of the new versions) contend with the top models. I'll be honest and admit that the eye relief and the old fashioned diopter, always moving, bothers me.

[elkcub]

It reminds me of people who rave about certain wines. When I try them it just tastes like wine to me. I have $160 porros which have a better optical view than a pair of $300 roofs I own but I bring the roofs birding because they are comfortable, have a closer focus and still give a nice view. Not as nice but nice enough.I've never missed a bird id because of optical quality.I use my porros for astronomy and When I viewing mainly distant birds like eagles and whatnot.

Yup, I guess even with binoculars there are gourmets and a gourmands. I'd like to think I can appreciate the finer aspects of a good porro or roof, but suspect that even the connoisseur does most birding with a roof, — if not for the internal image then for the external one. I use an 8x30 SLC for every-day birding, because it's small and light, and a heavier 10x42 SLC for long distance. There is a mellow-restful quality that Swarovsk optics provide, which is hard to define or measure, but for me makes them as good as it gets!

-elk

[Bill Atwood]

True you may feel the SEs are the only porro to match the high end roofs, but the $100 porros (Bushnell Legacy and Legend, Nikon Actions, etc.) are far superior to $300 roofs. Further, $300 porros contend with the high end roofs, if you do think they are up to the optical quality of the top models I suggest you look through a pair of Swift Audubons (porro, please).

At the $300 range, a porro can provide an image far superior to any $300 roof.

I have seen several 8.5x Albatrosses...oops I meant Audubons. I haven't compared them to the low end roofs, but my 8x32 Leica BAs always had a cleaner and sharper image. Plus their eye relief is abysmal.

I would really be surprised if $100 porros have the clarity and sharpness of the sub $300 8x42 Celestron Nobles and 8x42 Nikon Monarchs. In the latest Cornell Lab review article cheap porros got their clocks cleaned on image quality when compared to the $300 roofs. For porros, one of the Action models was included, as were the Bushnell Natureviews but not the similarly priced Legend and Legacys. I would allow the possibliity of certain cheap porro models having a recent increased in quality as have the low priced roofs.

One area where I concede porro superiority is FOV. And that's about it.

I can't say for certain, but the old bromide about porros being better than cheap (and midlevel) roofs may be about to come to an end. I surmise this would be due to additional industrial experience and techincal advances in design capabilities, materials and manufacturing techniques.

[leicaeddy]

Have anyone tried the new Celestron Ultima DX (Porro) recently? Judging on specification alone, it seems to me that they are quite good: PFM, good optics, lightweight, waterproof and inexpensive.

[marcus]

I can't say for certain, but the old bromide about porros being better than cheap (and midlevel) roofs may be about to come to an end.

Cheap porros, yes. You're right.

[lvn600]

I have seen several 8.5x Albatrosses...oops I meant Audubons. I haven't compared them to the low end roofs, but my 8x32 Leica BAs always had a cleaner and sharper image. Plus their eye relief is abysmal.

I would really be surprised if $100 porros have the clarity and sharpness of the sub $300 8x42 Celestron Nobles and 8x42 Nikon Monarchs. In the latest Cornell Lab review article cheap porros got their clocks cleaned on image quality when compared to the $300 roofs. For porros, one of the Action models was included, as were the Bushnell Natureviews but not the similarly priced Legend and Legacys. I would allow the possibliity of certain cheap porro models having a recent increased in quality as have the low priced roofs.

One area where I concede porro superiority is FOV. And that's about it.

I can't say for certain, but the old bromide about porros being better than cheap (and midlevel) roofs may be about to come to an end. I surmise this would be due to additional industrial experience and techincal advances in design capabilities, materials and manufacturing techniques.
I've pretty much had the same experience. Field of view seems to be the biggest difference. Not long ago I returned 8x40 Nikon Porros with a wide field of view because they just weren't sharp overall. Some porros I've seen have however had a nice crisp image.