Zeiss 7x50 'Classic'

[solentbirder]

Has anyone used these ? I'm looking for a high quality waterproof 7x50 and prefer porro prism designs. I don't mind individual eyepiece focussing. I used to own the Fujinon 7x50 FMT-SX which was excellent, but in the end I couldn't get on with the extremely long eye-relief. I also owned a Leica 8x50 BA; optically superb but the ergonomics were terrible for me over the long term and I sold them (I have quite large hands and there's nowhere to put my thumbs in the BA design). Any thoughts or experiences with the Zeiss or other top 7x50's (or even 8x50's) ?
Thanks !
SolentBirder

[John Russell]

No personal experience I'm afraid, but have you considered the Docter Nobilems or Navidocs (CF & IF respectively), Nikon 7x50IF SP WP or the Pentax 7x50 PIF?
All have a quoted eye-relief less than the 23mm of the Fujinon but the Pentax must be armoured with something other than rubber as it weighs 1650g!
If your'e prepared to hang a millstone round your neck, then why not those 10x70 Nikons you mentioned in another thread? :-)

Regards,

John

[Pinewood]

I have the Zeiss 7x50 ClassiC, which I chose over the Fujinon Polaris. The Zeiss is less bulky and is free of some very disturbing distortions of the Fujinon, but it is still a handful. The Fujinon does have a flatter field, but seemed bulkier. I think that a big Porro like the Zeiss is easier to handle than an 8x50 BA. I do not use the Zeiss for bird watching but for astronomy, but only in the winter, and "marine" activity, looking at shipping in the harbour. As everyone writes, you have to try it yourself.
Is the Zeiss still in production? The rumour in the States was that it was going to be discontinued.

Good luck.
Arthur Pinewood

[solentbirder]

Thanks both very much for the advice. The 7x50 is still available here in the UK although I suspect it's time is running out and that's why it's a bit cheaper than it used to be. It seems that someone somewhere has decided we should all use roof prisms ;)

[John Finnan]

I can highly recommend the Nikon 7x50 IF SP (Prostars). Their eye relief is 16mm and if you do not need to wear glasses when using binoculars, then I think they're much more comfortable to use than the Fujinons.

They weight about 10 ounces more than the Zeiss 7x50 Classics but since the magnification is only 7x I do not find them difficult to hold steady. However, if you use them for a long time their 50oz weight will cause your arms to tire.

This binocular was made specifically to meet the needs of astronomers and it was one of the first, if not the first binocular to use some type of ED glass. There are very sharp right to the edge of the field and the glass is as clear as any I've seen in Swarovski, Leica or Zeiss binoculars. Although, I have not had a chance to do a side by side comparison with the new Zeiss FL models yet.

Nevertheless, this is a great binocular and highly regarded by astronomers. When noted Canadian astronomers Terrance Dickenson and Alan Dyer published the first edition of their highly regarded "The Amateur Astronomers Handbook" in 1992, this is what they had to say about them, "For the purist, the Nikon 7 x 50 SP-HP Prostar (about $600) has the best optics we have seen in any binoculars at any price by any manufacturer". The price has gone up a few hundred dollars since then, but that statement about it having the best optics of any binocular they ever tried can still be found in the most recent (around 2003) 3rd edition of their book.

I picked up a used pair (in excellent condition) last year out of curiosity. I wondered, how could them be that good. Well, overall, I still prefer my 8.5x42 ELs to them because of their higher power, lighter weight and better ergonomics. Nevertheless, these 7x50 are so good I use quite it bit more than I expected to. And their depth of field is the best I've seen in any binocular.

I'm sure that the Zeiss 7x50 classics are also superb (I have the 15x60 Classics) so you can't go wrong if you get those. But if you get the opportunity to try a pair of these I think that you will have found your dream 7x50.

John Finnan

[leicaeddy]

IMHO, for premium 7x50 Porro there are only handful of legitimate candidates. A friend of mine living in Hong Kong has tried (and owned) several of them and come up which the following conclusion:

Fo purely optical point of view: Prostar>FMT>PIF>BGAT=CommanderIII. Funny is that for the price of BGAT, one can buy top 3 Japanese models altogether!

His comments of individual glasses are as follow:

Prostar: optically superb, but comes with "tunnel vision" feeling. Mechanically awkward, no armoring. Handle it like an eggshell!

FMT: optically not bad at all, but on-axis CA objectionable. The view is a little bit easier than Prostar. Mechanically OK.

PIF: (my favorite pick!) optically a little bit inferior to Prostar. Slight yellow cast noticed in direct comparison to Prostar. Mechanically superb, built like a tank! In case of emergency, can be used as a hammer. (Just kiddin') And the best thing is: Inexpensive! I got mine for 343.5 USD (currency equivalent.)

BGAT: excessive CA noticed, the image is a little bit softer than its contenders. Ridiculously expensive in Hong Kong (don't know why).

Commander III: mechanically awful, like a chunk of plastic meat. Optically unimpressive except brightness. Yes, even brighter than FMT by a small margin!

No info on Nobilem, though.

[John Finnan]

I'm sure that the Pentax PIFs are also great binoculars, I've never read anything bad about them except that they're very heavy.

However, I have to take issue with everyone of your characterizations of the 7x50 Nikon Prostars with the exception of your correct and honest acknowledgement that they do have great optics.

First, regarding "tunnel vision". Their true field is 7.1 degrees and their apparent field is 53 degrees. Those are the exact same specs that Pentax lists for their 7x50 PIF model. I have not looked through the Pentax model so I can't say how they compare with respect which one has the more "tunnel vision" feeling. However, I currently have 4 binoculars that have apparent fields ranging from 62 degrees to 69 degrees plus 1 with 53 degrees (the Prostars), 1 with 51 degrees and 1 with 46 degrees. Based on my experience with these binoculars (plus many others) I don't find that the Nikon 7x50s give me anything approaching a "tunnel vision" effect at all. They have a standard size field but not a wide apparent field (although their true field is quite large). On the contrary I find that I often grab them over a wider field model precisely because they're so optically superb and are very comfortable to observe with. To be sure, different people have differing opinions about what constitutes an acceptably wide field for a binocular. However, given my real world experience with the Prostars and the fact that their field width specs are exactly the same as the Pentax PIFs, I don't see the "tunnel vision" issue is any issue at all.

With regard to the characterization of them as being "mechanically awkward" could you please elaborate on what that means? No, they're not as ergonomically comfortable to hand hold as my 8.5x42 ELs or 12x50 Ultravids, but I don't think that they are that bad and I never give this issue a second thought whenever I go to use them (which is quite often). On the strictly mechanical side, I think they're superb and every bit as good (and maybe better) than my Zeiss 15x60 B/GATs.

On the "no armoring" issue that should be clarified to say they have no "rubber armoring". These binoculars are made of steel and that is one of the reasons why they weigh 50 ounces. Furthermore, they were made by Nikon specifically to cater to the astronomy market and not the hunting/search & rescue teams markets. Astonomers don't need the rubber armoring it bulks up the size of the binocular and adds to their already hefty weight. The Prostars are fully waterproof.

On the "handle like an eggshell" advise. I try to handle all my binoculars carefully, but not like eggshells and certainly not the Prostars. I found that I liked the Prostars so much that I also purchased their larger brothers, the 10x70 Nikon Astroluxes. Several months ago I dropped them about 4.5 feet onto hard pavement while attempting to mount them on a tripod. When I picked them up I saw that there was a good size dent on the front left barrel (outside of where the front left lens is). I've been using those binoculars for several months since then and it has not affected their optical performance in anyway. Perhaps if they had more rubber armoring they wouldn't have acquired that dent. Nevertheless, it is obvious that they (and the Prostars) are exceptionally well made and durable binoculars.

One other factor that should not be overlooked is that the Nikon Prostars have 16mm of eye relief and the Pentax PIFs have 20mm. While many users who must wear eyeglasses while using binoculars might favor the Pentax for that reason, the originator of this thread said that he was looking for a 7x50 with shorter eye relief because he didn't like observing with his long eye relief 7x50 Fujinon FMTs. Hence that was one of the reasons why I specifically recommended the Prostars to him (plus I knew from experience that they were great). Also, used Prostars occasionally come up for sale on Astromart for prices ranging from $425 - $550. I got mine for $435 US and they were in almost new condition.

John Finnan

[leicaeddy]

For the "tunnel view"issue, I forgot to mention that I had the same feeling when I used PIF. My primary glass is Leica 10x50. Maybe I was too accustomed to wide-field model when I tested the glass. Therefore, whenever I use 7x50s, I would feel the views are omewhat narrowed. It is O.K. for 7x50 glasses, but would discount the otherwise great view IMHO. When scanning the milky way, I always stick to wide field models, despite poorer edge performance. Nontheless, it is purely personal performance. Some of my friends always opts for sharpness first. But I am willing to sacrifice a little bit sharpness for wide field anyway.

I would not question its structural integrity but I doubt whether it will be as robust as PIF and FMT. When I held the SP the feeling it gave me was not as "solid" as its Japanese contenders. Because it is not rubber armored, it is not scratch resistant. Therefore it is not suitable for daily field uses. I used to take my PIF for bushwalkings but I would not take Prostar to do the same. My friend would wrap it with a thick cloth when using it. It is not a concern if you want to keep it for life, but if you consider to resell it someday (for upgrading or whatever), then you would have second thought.

Regarding the ER issue, 16mm is enough for me even with my glass on.

Having said that, I still think Prostar is optically the best 7x50 in the market. I just have some opinions on its ergonomics and mechanics, compared to its counterparts. If the originator looks for the best 7x50, it definitely worth serious consideration.

$435 US for a SP in almost new condition? What a deal!

[Kevin Barker]

Has anyone used these ? I'm looking for a high quality waterproof 7x50 and prefer porro prism designs. I don't mind individual eyepiece focussing. I used to own the Fujinon 7x50 FMT-SX which was excellent, but in the end I couldn't get on with the extremely long eye-relief. I also owned a Leica 8x50 BA; optically superb but the ergonomics were terrible for me over the long term and I sold them (I have quite large hands and there's nowhere to put my thumbs in the BA design). Any thoughts or experiences with the Zeiss or other top 7x50's (or even 8x50's) ?
Thanks !
SolentBirder

I have tried the T* version of the 7x50 B out perhaps 10 years ago. I also later on acquired and own an older version identical in shape but with much older coatings. I found the views excellent in both but my older design are not as bright as more modern 7x50's. The prisms are huge and the binoculars are quite short but squat in shape. And so nice to hold. When looking down at the objectives of both pairs I notice the main prisms appear to be uncoated. A strong white reflection was apparent in the T * pair I tested.

I have read that the 7x50 B have an airspaced semi apochromatic design.

The ergonomics, solidity and eye relief are very comfortable in these binoculars. They are supposedly shockproof and very watertight.

Optically I would suggest the later Nobilems made by Zeiss Jena and later Doctor may have a bit of an edge. They have a longer focal ratio and a wider apparent and actual field. I have owned the Nobilem 7X50B version and they were great. They were about 200 g lighter than the beefier and more compact Zeiss West.

I have not used Fujinon FMT 7X50 but have the 10X70 version and agree the eye relief is a bit too long. The optics are nice with the field flattener lenses.

They are also very massive.

Kevin