Swift 804 Audubon Binoculars - A Beginner's Experience

[downunder]

I have to start by saying that I am totally inexperienced at bird watching and using binoculars, totally "green", but I thought it might be useful or other beginners if I were to describe what I went through in purchasing my first set of binoculars specifically for bird watching. I had better warn you though that this is a long read, so sit back in your chair, make yourself comfortable, and hopefully enjoy my story.

I already had a set of Tasco 7x26 Eyemax binoculars that I bought for about $60 US a few years ago. Recently, for some unknown reason, I started sitting out on my verandah early in the morning with my two dogs and these binoculars watching the bird life. This has become a habit. Birdwatchers have probably known about this for years, but I discovered it was soooooo relaxing, pleasant and interesting. Even the humble sparrow was of interest. I just loved it and am at an age where I no longer question or analyse why I like doing something - I just accept that I do and do more of it.

This time next year I will be living on a fairly wild piece of Australian rural
land that seems to have a great deal of wildlife and birds, so I went looking for pair of good binoculars - but on a budget (with a house to build etc., $1000 binoculars would have resulted in severe bashing around the head from my otherwise calm wife). I started by reading these forums and also investigated others like cloudynights and betterviewdesired forums. I read every binocular review that I could lay my hands on. I had previously thought my Tasco binoculars were great but after reading these forums and others, I came to realise that perhaps I had been deprived, that perhaps my cheap binoculars were letting me down. Fancy that, I had not realised this until I read what all the binocular experts were saying. Well, I decided I wanted to try to get something better to take full advantage of my fortunate future situation of living in the country where wildlife was abundant (even deadly snakes).

I narrowed my criteria down to needing a pair of binoculars with super great optical qualities so as to give clear crisp images and a set of binoculars that could easily be used handheld ( ie. magnifications of 8.5 or less). Ones that would not tire my poor old eyes even when viewed through for hours on end. Weight was not a problem because most viewing would be done on my property and close to home. Waterproofing would be nice but not essential (Australia is one of the driest continents on earth and my property doesn't receive a great deal of rain. Anyhow, much of my viewing would take place under a covered verandah).

After a lot of research, I decided I wanted a pair of Swift Audubon 8.5x44 binoculars. These have an amazingly long history of providing quality binoculars that give great viewing. I could not believe that this basic model had been around for some 40 years - and somehow that appealed to me - I like history.

And that's when I became frustrated! I presently live in a rural country town in Australia (quite a distance to a shop that specialises in binoculars) and found a long time ago that it was just as easy (usually), and a great deal cheaper, to buy things like binoculars online from overseas. I started looking for my Audubons online; what an absolute pain! There were lots of online dealers selling these for anywhere between $240 and $260 US (and of course a lot selling for way above that price). This wasn't a bad price. Perhaps at the extreme end of how far I could stretch my budget. But heck, these were the binoculars I had set my heart on - that's when I learnt to hate online dealers! Every time I tried to buy a set, they either didn't sell to Australia, or delivery costs were nearly as much as the binoculars (they all refused to use USPS and wanted to use some of those exorbitantly, outrageously over-priced private delivery firms), or they wanted a photocopy of my credit card and passport faxed to them (and I don't have a passport), or they had sold out. I couldn't believe how hard it was to buy a pair of Audubons online from Australia. I then thought I would pick up a new pair on ebay. None were listed.

I finally decided on trying for a second-hand pair of Audubons and my excitement reached new heights - four were listed on ebay. They were all 804's; one was about 10 years old and the other three were all over 20 years old. If you look at the great article by Edward Huff and Renze de Vries on this forum about the history of the Audubons, there was one type 2a, a type 3a, a type 3b, and a type 4a. I started bidding. Again frustration. Each and every time I was outbid in the last second. Two went for about $160 US and one for about $210 US. I couldn't believe how sought after these binoculars were. I thought the Gods were against me and that I would never own a pair of Audubons. Heaven forbid, I even started considering looking at a different brand.

Finally there was only one left - the very,very old type 2a. The seller had a good ebay rating and advised that these binoculars were in perfect operating order (quite amazing when you think these binoculars were more than a quarter of a century old - I wonder if the new plastic marvels will still be sought after in 25 years time). After reading the excellent article on the cloudynights forum comparing old and new Audubons (titled "Will the Real Audubon Please Stand Up"), I started thinking that maybe the best was left to last. I had worked out the ebay game by then, knew roughly what the market price was, left my bid to the last second - and whammo, I was the proud new owner of a piece of binocular history for about $160 US. This was a bit more that I had hoped to pay for an old, secondhand pair of binoculars, but I had become desperate to own a pair of Audubon's. At this stage of my quest, no other brand would have satisfied me. Please let the collimation still be perfect.

Now all that is left for me to do is the wait for the binoculars to arrive. But even when they do, I am not allowed to have them until Christmas - women. Even after I had been as thrifty as I could, would you believe my wife still hit me over the head and told me they were my Christmas present and I wasn't seeing them until Christmas day. These women have no consideration for us men. She muttered something about men and their toys. Well, I hope this story was worth the read. Good luck to all other beginning birdwatchers. After Christmas, I'll have to give you a review of my Tasco's versus my Audubon's. It might be something different to all those reviews by experts comparing all the new plastic marvels.

[elkcub]

Hello Downunder,

Welcome to BF and thanks for the wonderful story about your Audubon acquisition. We'll be looking forward to hearing more about whether it's still clean and collimated. All three of mine (one Kestrel) were in great condition. Be prepared for a BIG binocular with a WIDE field of view. But, above all, enjoy the view. :D

Happy holidays,
Ed Huff

[SteveF]

Downunder,

It was nice reading your post. I have an 804, and it's one of my best binoculars. As you've likely figured from your research, the 804 is probably the best of the series, except possibly for the ED version. Elkcub's article was very well done. You've made a fine choice.

Please post your impressions when you receive the binoculars.

[downunder]

Unfortunately my ebay experience has been disastrous. The binoculars arrived in an undamaged well packed cardboard box filled with foam. The binoculars were in their hard protective binocular case with the case itself well wrapped in bubble wrap and then placed in the foam.

When I pulled the binoculars from the box it didn't take too long to work out that the collimation was dreadful. Each eye saw its own image. It was like having double vision. I travelled to York Optical in Brisbane (about 700 kilometres from where I live) to have an inspection made. The techo took about two seconds to confirm that the collimation was dreadful. He also showed me that one of the prisms was chipped from a hard knock on one side. I left them with York Optical to be collimated.

The person I bought the binoculars from appeared to have good feedback on ebay. I also specifically asked a question about the condition of the binoculars before bidding and was told that the binoculars were giving clear crisp images and were in great condition. The seller now says that they must have been damaged in transit because he had them checked before selling them. Strange that the well packed cardboard box they came in was undamaged and yet the binoculars (inside the foam, bubble wrap and hard protective binocular case) were damaged.

I am still in negotiation with the seller about who pays for repairs and won't know the full damage until I pick the binoculars up from York Optical in mid January. The moral of the story is that ebay is probably not a good way to buy binoculars but unfortunately it was probably the only way I was going to find a secondhand pair of Swift Audubons. :storm: :storm:

[Pinewood]

Dear Downunder,

I am sorry to read about your ebay troubles. Unfortunately, this is not uncommon with used binoculars.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur

[elkcub]

Hi Downunder,

Very sorry to hear about this. Shame on the seller. You would certainly have been justified to return the binoculars, but perhaps the collimation job will be all you need to enjoy your pastime. Try to put the aggravation behind and the birds in front.

Let's hear more when repairs are completed and the enjoyment begins.

Happy holidays,
Ed

[cbushme]

The seller now says that they must have been damaged in transit because he had them checked before selling them. Strange that the well packed cardboard box they came in was undamaged and yet the binoculars (inside the foam, bubble wrap and hard protective binocular case) were damaged.:


Sorry to hear about your misfortune. However in some defense of the sellers contention that the binoculars were fine when he packed them up, I remember reading somewhere, from a birder who obviously traveled frequently, that airline travel was one of the worst things you could do for the collimation of your binoculars. Something about a constant vibration level that you really could not do much to protect your bins from. His contention was that if you were going to be a frequent flier you might as well resign yourself to more frequent trips to the optical shop for collimation. I am picturing your binoculars in their well padded box, but sitting on the floor of a cargo bay humming away for 20 odd hours on their flight to Australia.
In YOUR defense, I don't believe that airplane vibration caused a chip in a prism - apparently these binoculars suffered a fairly hard knock at some point in their lives. Also, I shipped a nice pair of Nikon HG's to a fellow in Australia and they arrived unscathed, he was very happy with them. Hope all ends well for you.

[downunder]

It appears to have all turned out well. It certainly pays to check feedback on ebay. This dealer turned out to be very good (as was suggested by his ebay feedback). I had told him that York Optical had quoted $65 Australian for a normal collimation.

In our negotiations I had asked the dealer to pay for the collimation and I would pay for the cost of the travel to York Optical and I would wear the chip in the prism (In their preliminary investigation of the Audubons, York Optical believed that the the chip was at the edge of the prism and should not affect viewing through the Audubons).

The dealer surprised me by refunding $90 Australian on the price of the Audubons and provided there are no other problems found by York Optical, I am very happy with that outcome. I am now looking forward to mid January when I will be able to pick up my newly collimated binoculars. :D

[elkcub]

It doesn't get much better than that. Use them in good health — and tell us what the birds look like though them. :-O

Happy holiday season,
Ed

[downunder]

This is a great forum and thankyou for all the helpful comments.

[downunder]

The experience of buying these Audubons has felt like being on a roller-coaster ride. It's been a cycle of one minute up, next minute down, next up, next down. Hopefully it will end on a high when I eventually pick up the binoculars. :bounce:

Surely it can't be like this for every pair of binoculars I eventually purchase - can it?

[downunder]

I can't believe I did this, but I just bought another exact same model Swift Audubon binoculars on ebay. I just couldn't resist them. The seller had 100% feedback and reported the binoculars to be in great shape. The reason I couldn't resist these was that the seller had them at a "Buy It Now" price of $29.99. I don't think I will look at ebay again or my wife will do really nasty things to me. But that makes the price range on these early Mark 2's varying from $29.99 to over $200 (on 5 different pairs) on ebay over a matter of a few weeks (with the average price being about $160). Even if this second pair has to be re-collimated (at $65 Australian) they will be a relatively cheap pair of quality birding binoculars - and now I will have a spare pair for friends to use with me.

[elkcub]

I can't believe I did this, but I just bought another exact same model Swift Audubon binoculars on ebay. I just couldn't resist them. The seller had 100% feedback and reported the binoculars to be in great shape. The reason I couldn't resist these was that the seller had them at a "Buy It Now" price of $29.99. I don't think I will look at ebay again or my wife will do really nasty things to me. But that makes the price range on these early Mark 2's varying from $29.99 to over $200 (on 5 different pairs) on ebay over a matter of a few weeks (with the average price being about $160). Even if this second pair has to be re-collimated (at $65 Australian) they will be a relatively cheap pair of quality birding binoculars - and now I will have a spare pair for friends to use with me.


One more Audubon, my friend, and you will qualify as a collector. |=)|

[downunder]

One more Audubon, my friend, and you will qualify as a collector. |=)|

I think you are right. I now seem to have this irresistable urge to buy a type 4 (804 R, HR/5, or ED HR/5) audubon. I'll have to wait for my finances to recuperate from my recent purchases (it costs about $40 US in delivery charges alone for each pair of binoculars), but even now I find myself checking ebay each day for a type 4. This is like having an infectious disease.

[elkcub]

I think you are right. I now seem to have this irresistable urge to buy a type 4 (804 R, HR/5, or ED HR/5) audubon. I'll have to wait for my finances to recuperate from my recent purchases (it costs about $40 US in delivery charges alone for each pair of binoculars), but even now I find myself checking ebay each day for a type 4. This is like having an infectious disease.

Uh, oh, you've been infected all right. I'm very interested to hear about your visual experience with the Type 2 Audubons, since I don't have one myself (or a Type 3 for that matter). I just acquired a Type 2 Model 823 7x,50 Commodore Mark II, however, with a whopping 525 ft. FOV. The 5-element ocular and housing are the same, as well as the 70 deg. apparent FOV. Very nice, crisp image, but of course not as much color contrast as the later models with multi-coating. The 804R and HR/5 Audubons show up quite regularly on eBay, but the ED HR/5 does not. If one does, you'll have to duke it out with other collectors. (The inexpensive approach would be to paint a red band around the objective cap of a standard HR/5. ;))

Oh, please tell me the serial numbers of your Audubons. Indications are that the first two digits are the year the binocular was manufactured.

Regards,
Ed

[downunder]

[Oh, please tell me the serial numbers of your Audubons. Indications are that the first two digits are the year the binocular was manufactured.

Regards,
Ed[/QUOTE]

I hope to send you the serial numbers shortly. The latest purchase will arrive next week and the other one will be picked up from York Optical in about 2 1/2 weeks time.

Regards,
Glenn

[downunder]

Ed, the second pair have arrived; exactly the same story as the first pair. The seller said they were giving great images when he sent them but they have arrived needing collimation. I know cbushme believed that the vibrations from airline travel could very well have caused this, however I am still surprised after reading Bill Cook's article on the Cloudynights forum ("Will the REAL Audubon Please Stand Up) where he stated that because of the collimation with eccentric rings, once these these suckers get collimated they stay collimated. Ah well, off to York Optical again.

My question for you Ed: Where do you look for the serial number? I've looked all over the binoculars but can't find one.

[Pinewood]

Ed, the second pair have arrived; exactly the same story as the first pair. The seller said they were giving great images when he sent them but they have arrived needing collimation. I know cbushme believed that the vibrations from airline travel could very well have caused this, however I am still surprised after reading Bill Cook's article on the Cloudynights forum ("Will the REAL Audubon Please Stand Up) where he stated that because of the collimation with eccentric rings, once these these suckers get collimated they stay collimated. Ah well, off to York Optical again.

My question for you Ed: Where do you look for the serial number? I've looked all over the binoculars but can't find one.
Downunder,
Look at the bottom of the hinge, opposite from the interpupillary distance scale.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur Pinewood

[downunder]

Downunder,
Look at the bottom of the hinge, opposite from the interpupillary distance scale.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur Pinewood

Arthur, thanks for the help but the only number I can make out down there is B56. Am I looking at the right number?

Glenn

[Pinewood]

Arthur, thanks for the help but the only number I can make out down there is B56. Am I looking at the right number?

Glenn
Glenn,

I do not think so, but the Audubon has had a lot of variations. I should have written on the hinge bottom where it pivots, to be clearer. The placement of the serial number may not be consistent. Other places serial numbers may be found are the cover plates over the prisms and on the hinge itself.

Perhaps Ed would know, if you know the variant or can describe it.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur Pinewood

[elkcub]

Ed, the second pair have arrived; exactly the same story as the first pair. The seller said they were giving great images when he sent them but they have arrived needing collimation. I know cbushme believed that the vibrations from airline travel could very well have caused this, however I am still surprised after reading Bill Cook's article on the Cloudynights forum ("Will the REAL Audubon Please Stand Up) where he stated that because of the collimation with eccentric rings, once these these suckers get collimated they stay collimated. Ah well, off to York Optical again.

My question for you Ed: Where do you look for the serial number? I've looked all over the binoculars but can't find one.

Downunder,

Aarrrrgggg. Well, at least you're going to have properly collimated Audubons, that should keep for the duration. Also, the last purchase was really a give-away.

The serial number on all my binoculars is located on the front hinge as Arthur mentioned. I recently acquired a Type 2 construction 7x50 Commodore, and if that serves as a guide the s/n would be on a circular plastic hinge cover held on with a machine screw. It also says "JAPAN." Hopefully, yours are not missing. The L-B58 manufacturer's mark should also be clearly stamped on the hinge itself.

Please describe the other markings on the left and right prism covers. Are both binoculars the same? Is there a white triangle on the right side under a blue AUDUBON with Mark II inside?

Keep in touch please,
Ed

[downunder]

Downunder,
The serial number on all my binoculars is located on the front hinge as Arthur mentioned. I recently acquired a Type 2 construction 7x50 Commodore, and if that serves as a guide the s/n would be on a circular plastic hinge cover held on with a machine screw. It also says "JAPAN." Hopefully, yours are not missing. The L-B58 manufacturer's mark should also be clearly stamped on the hinge itself.

Please describe the other markings on the left and right prism covers. Are both binoculars the same? Is there a white triangle on the right side under a blue AUDUBON with Mark II inside?

Keep in touch please,
Ed

Ed, you're correct. The circular plastic hinge cover is missing on this one. I only just realised it when I compared it to the photo of the other one that is being collimated in Brisbane at the moment. There is a brass end to the hinge on this one and it looks obvious there should be a protective cover. I can see the protective cover on the photo of the one in Brisbane but can't make out any detail.`

The LB58 is engraved in the metal to the right of the hinge just where it joins the right side of the binocular. I only have one pair of binoculars with me but have photos of the second one. They appear to be exactly the same (in every other detail except for the missing hinge cover). Both binoculars are marked Audubon Mark II in blue but no white triangle. In every other way they appear exactly the same as the type 2a photographs.

On Both:

The left prism cover has "SWIFT" on the top and down lower it has "FULLY COATED OPTICS FEATHER WEIGHT".

The right prism cover has "AUDUBON" (in blue) and directly under it (in blue) "MARK II". Further down it has "8.5x,44 EXTRA WIDE FIELD 445ft. at 1000yds. MODEL NO. 804"

I pick the other pair up in about 10 days. I'll look for its serial number and get back to you.

Hope the above helps,
Glenn

[Otto McDiesel]

You Swift Audubon collectors better save some money for the rarest of them all: there was a porro prism variant of the Audubons made in 9x42. I am not sure if it had the same 5 lens eyepiece, it probably did.

[elkcub]

You Swift Audubon collectors better save some money for the rarest of them all: there was a porro prism variant of the Audubons made in 9x42. I am not sure if it had the same 5 lens eyepiece, it probably did.

Otto,

We'd love to update our historical review with any model that can be verified. (However, Swift Audubon collecting is still somewhat less than a big bucks avocation.) Let me know if you can share any documentation please.

Thanks,
Ed

[Otto McDiesel]

Otto,

We'd love to update our historical review with any model that can be verified. (However, Swift Audubon collecting is still somewhat less than a big bucks avocation.) Let me know if you can share any documentation please.

Thanks,
Ed

One was sold on ebay, from England, sometime this spring. I couldn't bid on it (tuition and all).

[richt]

You Swift Audubon collectors better save some money for the rarest of them all: there was a porro prism variant of the Audubons made in 9x42. I am not sure if it had the same 5 lens eyepiece, it probably did.

Hi Otto

Indeed there is a model of this spec one surfaced on ebay mid last year
I seem to recall it sold for about the same or just a little more than good condition 8.5 Audubon models so from what you say this will have been a bargain
I was so intrigued when it was advertised i contacted Stephen Carter at Swift customer services who replied stating it was probably a USA spec model ?

I'm guessing if its quality was based on the 8.5 Audubon this may well have been an excellent binocular in between 8 x and 10 x

Regards
Rich

[elkcub]

Hi Otto

Indeed there is a model of this spec one surfaced on ebay mid last year
I seem to recall it sold for about the same or just a little more than good condition 8.5 Audubon models so from what you say this will have been a bargain
I was so intrigued when it was advertised i contacted Stephen Carter at Swift customer services who replied stating it was probably a USA spec model ?

I'm guessing if its quality was based on the 8.5 Audubon this may well have been an excellent binocular in between 8 x and 10 x

Regards
Rich

Rich,

What does a "USA spec model" mean? Made for the US market? Did Steve have any record of it? Swift's records are known to be incomplete, and apparently don't include European variants.

Ed

[Otto McDiesel]

Rich,

What does a "USA spec model" mean? Made for the US market? Did Steve have any record of it? Swift's records are known to be incomplete, and apparently don't include European variants.

Ed

Those binoculars had an interesting acronym on the right prism housing, something like SPWF, or SWUFA or such.

[elkcub]

Those binoculars had an interesting acronym on the right prism housing, something like SPWF, or SWUFA or such.

Since the early 1990s, Swift started using codes like BWCF, meaning B=eyeglass friendly, W=wide angle, and CF=center focus (as I recall). Could that be it? Their default ocular was a 3-element Kellner, unless otherwise specified (usually a 5 element Erfle). But there were 4-element oculars they called Erfles too.

Historically, Swift was not consistent about markings and changed names rather often. The 10x50 Model 826, for example, was at various times called an Audubon, an Audubon Kestrel, or simply a Kestrel. Who know what else?

A 9x42 Swift Audubon would be an interesting curiosity, and would add even more spice to the story. Apparently it didn't last very long.

Many thanks,
Ed

[richt]

Rich,

What does a "USA spec model" mean? Made for the US market? Did Steve have any record of it? Swift's records are known to be incomplete, and apparently don't include European variants.

Ed

Hi Ed

I have searched in vain for Stephen Carter's email but cannot find it (probably daughter deleting spree !!) however i notice Otto has indicated this model had prism housing markings in another reply and i recall the ebay advert did mention SP in the model description
I am convinced this pair were listed as 9 x of course as ever with ebay it could have been a listing error but the advert appeared with a semmingly knowledgeable description
Stephen Carter initially indicated that he was unaware of this as a standard model i think this is why he mentioned the USA /European spec's annoyingly i cant quite remember his actual comment on the possible origin
Its certainly an intriguing one
If i find any other info will post again

Regards
Rich

[Otto McDiesel]

Hi Ed

I have searched in vain for Stephen Carter's email but cannot find it (probably daughter deleting spree !!) however i notice Otto has indicated this model had prism housing markings in another reply and i recall the ebay advert did mention SP in the model description
I am convinced this pair were listed as 9 x of course as ever with ebay it could have been a listing error but the advert appeared with a semmingly knowledgeable description
Stephen Carter initially indicated that he was unaware of this as a standard model i think this is why he mentioned the USA /European spec's annoyingly i cant quite remember his actual comment on the possible origin
Its certainly an intriguing one
If i find any other info will post again

Regards
Rich
I looked at the pictures of binoculars in that particular ebay listing. The binos looked like the classical Audubon porro, and were clearly marked "9, x42"
The acronym was interesting, the first letters were SWAxx. I did not know what it stood for, and as always when i try to remember, i made it up as SouthWestern Association xx of something. Maybe i don't remember correctly, but it was a 9x42 for sure.

[richt]

I looked at the pictures of binoculars in that particular ebay listing. The binos looked like the classical Audubon porro, and were clearly marked "9, x42"
The acronym was interesting, the first letters were SWAxx. I did not know what it stood for, and as always when i try to remember, i made it up as SouthWestern Association xx of something. Maybe i don't remember correctly, but it was a 9x42 for sure.

Hi Otto

Yes your post has jogged my memory a little more it was actually an acronym that prefixed with SWA... and not SP as i posted
They did indeed look like the standard pre 820 Audubon body type and thankyou for confirming the 9 x 42 spec i was starting to think i had imagined this !!
Its an interesting question as to which areas of the world these particular models were sold in but the SWA acronym i think may be simply Swift Wide Angle ?

The plot thickens as surely someone somewhere must have info or have seen/owned a pair
After all if these were anything like Audubon quality they must have sold at least to some enthusiasts in the time they were available
I'm guessing if a pair or two of these were by some quirk of fate still available as "new old stock" sat on a shelf they would be very collectable

Damn knew i should have had a bid !!

Regards
Rich T

[elkcub]

Hi Otto

Yes your post has jogged my memory a little more it was actually an acronym that prefixed with SWA... and not SP as i posted
They did indeed look like the standard pre 820 Audubon body type and thankyou for confirming the 9 x 42 spec i was starting to think i had imagined this !!
Its an interesting question as to which areas of the world these particular models were sold in but the SWA acronym i think may be simply Swift Wide Angle ?

The plot thickens as surely someone somewhere must have info or have seen/owned a pair
After all if these were anything like Audubon quality they must have sold at least to some enthusiasts in the time they were available
I'm guessing if a pair or two of these were by some quirk of fate still available as "new old stock" sat on a shelf they would be very collectable

Damn knew i should have had a bid !!

Regards
Rich T

Rich/Otto,

I'll be calling Steve about 826 Kestrel materials, but will again inquire about this mysterious 9x42. As you will note from our paper, the entire Type 3 series of 804 Audubons was designed and sold in Europe, and there are no records of them in Swift's San Jose archive at all. In general, they are fairly rare in the US, and mainly show up because of eBay. European models were developed and sold by a different Swift company with little connection to the US holding company. (The names of these companies are in the historcal paper.) So, my guess is that the mysterious 9x42 was also European in origin. Let's agree to post any new information found.

Many thanks,
Ed

[chartwell99]

[QUOTE=elkcub]Since the early 1990s, Swift started using codes like BWCF, meaning B=eyeglass friendly, W=wide angle, and CF=center focus (as I recall).

Actually, the "B" indicated a unibody or one piece Bausch & Lomb style body. The Swift Ultralites, by contrast, use a 2 piece Zeiss style body and and are marked with a "Z" as in 7 x 42 ZCF.

[elkcub]

[QUOTE=elkcub]Since the early 1990s, Swift started using codes like BWCF, meaning B=eyeglass friendly, W=wide angle, and CF=center focus (as I recall).

Actually, the "B" indicated a unibody or one piece Bausch & Lomb style body. The Swift Ultralites, by contrast, use a 2 piece Zeiss style body and and are marked with a "Z" as in 7 x 42 ZCF.

Yes, I'm sure you're right. That's an important code. Thanks for the correction.

Ed
PS. And "H" is used to designate a roof prism, usually as HCF.

[Renze de Vries]

Hello you guys in search of lost Audubons,

I'm afraid I have to shatter your dreams about a 9x42 Audubon.
Yes, Swift indeed produced a binocular with this unusual configuration, but as it came with a blue dot logo instead of the Audubons gold one, its quality must have been just a bit below the top range. In my 1987 (prob.) Swift catalogue all leather-clad porro's are dot-classified: gold, blue, red, green, orange. There is only one gold dot, the 8.5x44 Audubon. There are three blue dots: the 9x42 SPWA, the 8x36 Saratoga and the 10x42 Newport.
I have seen a 9x42 SPWA, from I think Italy, listed on eBay in October/November. The curious thing is, my Dutch catalogue has a photograph of exactly this type (with SPWA and 9x42 on the right lid) while in the text it is mentioned as the 9x42 Condor.
All three blue dots are BWCF's, meaning Bausch uni-body wide angle centre focussing types. What SPWA exactly means is not entirely clear to me: wide angle superb performance maybe (SP is, if I'm correct, also used in this way by Pentax).
Anyway, while not Audubons, this Swift blue dot range could be of very good quality. I think not only the 9x42 SPWA/Condor is worth a try, but also the 8x36, looking like a lovely, miniature Audubon.

cheers,

Renze

[elkcub]

Renze,

Okay, so the 9x42 model was not an "Audubon" variant. In your catalog are the models broken out into Mark I, II, and III? In my 1980 catalog, the lower cost Mark I are discussed as "... accuracy at a very modest price." They looked a lot like "Swift's finest..." Mark II premium series with "B" bodies, but with a narrower FOV — probably 4-element eyepieces. The Mark III are all "...the last word in compact [i.e., roof] binoculars," but Model 820 is a 9x35 IF with 5-lens Erfle ocular, called the "Armored Trilyte."

Now this is very curious, for as we know the replacement for the 804 Audubon porro is also designated Model No. 820. Could it have been a printing mistake? Not likely since it's also shown in the price list as the Model No. 820 Armored Trilyte 9x35 HWIF. Price: $375. The Model No. 804 Audubon 8.5x44 BWCF of that era, incidentally, was only $240.

Ed

[ceasar]

Renze,

Okay, so the 9x42 model was not an "Audubon" variant. In your catalog are the models broken out into Mark I, II, and III? In my 1980 catalog, vol. 54, the Mark I are discussed as "... accuracy at a very modest price." They looked a lot like "Swift's finest..." Mark II premium series with "B" bodies, but with narrower FOV — probably not a 5-element eyepiece. The Mark III are all "...the last word in compact [i.e., roof] binoculars," but model 820 is a 9x35 IF with 5-lens Erfle ocular.

Does your catalog show the model number of the 9x42?

Ed
This post strikes a chord in my memory. In the late 1970's, no later than 1980, I was on the South Lookout of Hawk Mountain on a cold November day. One of the birders next to me was using an unusual (to me) binocular.
I asked him about it and he graciously let me look through it. It was a Swift 9 x 35 Roof Prism. The only one I have ever seen. I was very impressed with their view and I asked him where he got them. He mentioned a place in New England where he was visiting from. I never was able to locate another one and I have often wondered why Swift never marketed them more actively.

I do not recall these as being Individual Focus but memory does play tricks.

[elkcub]

Ceasar,

See my reworded post #37. It could be they were sold in the US somewhat prior to 1980. I don't have any other full catalog to go on.

Ed

[richt]

Rich/Otto,

I'll be calling Steve about 826 Kestrel materials, but will again inquire about this mysterious 9x42. As you will note from our paper, the entire Type 3 series of 804 Audubons was designed and sold in Europe, and there are no records of them in Swift's San Jose archive at all. In general, they are fairly rare in the US, and mainly show up because of eBay. European models were developed and sold by a different Swift company with little connection to the US holding company. (The names of these companies are in the historcal paper.) So, my guess is that the mysterious 9x42 was also European in origin. Let's agree to post any new information found.

Many thanks,
Ed

Hi Ed

Judging by the various replies coming in on this thread the Swift 9 x 42 does seem to be likely of European origin not USA
Thinking back again Stephen's reply to me from Swift may have actually indicated this and not the other way round as i stated in my early post
Thats the trouble with deleted mails etc often you can only remember bits and pieces when time has gone by

Or maybe its just middle aged dementia !!!

Its a very interesting topic though this Swift history and i hope more folk throw light on the lesser known specs etc
At this rate Ed you and a couple of other forum folk will likely build a Swift "reference" file which will become definitive

Regards
Rich

[elkcub]

....
Its a very interesting topic though this Swift history and i hope more folk throw light on the lesser known specs etc
At this rate Ed you and a couple of other forum folk will likely build a Swift "reference" file which will become definitive

Regards
Rich

Many thanks. Any encouragement at all should keep us going. ;)

-ed

[downunder]

Ed, bad news - I've just returned from York Optical in Brisbane. They have some sort of military contract and are short staffed. I may not get my Audubons back collimated until as late as Easter. I won't forget to send you the serial number for the first pair when I eventually get them back.

In the meantime, I decided I needed a pair of waterproof roof prism binoculars and bought a cheap pair of Carson 8x42 XM binoculars from eBinoculars.com for $168 US. It will be interesting to compare these to the Audubons. My first experience is that they give an very clear bright image but a considerably reduced field of view (compared my memory of the audubons). I'm quite impressed that such a cheap pair of roof prisms are this good. I am also amazed that these arrived by air from the USA and are absolutely perfectly collimated. It further strengthens my suspicions about the eBay dealers' descriptions of the two older Audubons being perfectly collimated before they were sent to me.

[elkcub]

Downunder,

I've never encountered Carson binoculars, but it looks like you got an outstanding price. Phase coated, nitrogen purged, etc. — not bad. The apparent FOV is considerably smaller than the Audubon's and the weight it about the same. Sorry that it's taking to long to get your Swifts collimated. I'll keep tuned.

Ed

[downunder]

Ed, I think you were correct with the serial numbers. I've just got my binoculars back. The serial number on the one that had that end cap was 725957. Both of my binoculars are type 2A so 1972 (first two nos depict the year of manufacture) matches.

Although these are good binoculars, my Carsons are another level or two above both Swifts in every respect and amazing for the price. In fact, I find it hard to believe that a better image would be possible. I know the Swifts are old, but they are perfectly collimated now and the Carsons give a crisper image, are far brighter, much easier to focus, give a focused image right to the edges and that's not counting the waterproofing, lighter weight (mine are 24 ounces), etc and in real use I find it amazing that the field of view is not much different. I think it shows to some extent the advances made in binoculars in recent years to be able to produce something of the quality of the Carsons for such an amazingly low price.

[elkcub]

Ed, I think you were correct with the serial numbers. I've just got my binoculars back. The serial number on the one that had that end cap was 725957. Both of my binoculars are type 2A so 1972 (first two nos depict the year of manufacture) matches.

Although these are good binoculars, my Carsons are another level or two above both Swifts in every respect and amazing for the price. In fact, I find it hard to believe that a better image would be possible. I know the Swifts are old, but they are perfectly collimated now and the Carsons give a crisper image, are far brighter, much easier to focus, give a focused image right to the edges and that's not counting the waterproofing, lighter weight (mine are 24 ounces), etc and in real use I find it amazing that the field of view is not much different. I think it shows to some extent the advances made in binoculars in recent years to be able to produce something of the quality of the Carsons for such an amazingly low price.

Hi,

Thanks for the post. I almost forgot you. Yes, I have little doubt that many advances have been made since 1972 and your Carson's are nicer in all those respects. Remember, we wrote a history of the Audubon not an endorsement from time immemorial. ;) Those large body Type 2s were very heavy, and were not multicoated. I wouldn't use one day to day either.

Looking at this ad for a Carson 8x40 porro, http://www.opticsplanet.net/carson-8x40-os-binocular.html, on the surface it looks like the small body Type 4 Audubons. It's probably based on the same Japanese design which is pretty bullet-proof. Is this what you have?

Let's hear from you once in a while.

Best regards,
Ed

[James Bean]

My Audubon is the 804(3b)HR, extra wide field, gold band (1984) and the most relaxing view of all my binoculars, even compared to my favourite Zeiss Jena 8x50 BGA Octarem. I don't mind the size or weight; indeed, it sits nicely in my hands and feels 'just right'. The 804 is truly a classic and still compares favourably with most modern binoculars, an amazing feat for an 'oldtimer'...

[elkcub]

James,

Very interesting. What is the width of the eyecups in mm? I don't own a Type 3.

Thanks,
Ed

[James Bean]

Ed, Nice to converse with you...
Diameter of rubber eyecups, measured from outer edge, is 44mm (maybe 45mm) and the ocular lenses are 25mm across. Field width is 445ft at 1,000yds. My Audubon says "HR" and not "HR/5" but I gather this is not significant. The rubber cups' depth is only 12mm, and merely 5mm of that extends beyond the metal ocular surround, so can't be 'folded down' in the usual sense: all they do is protect spectacles from being scratched; since I don't wear glasses, I can get close and see the 'whole picture', which is probably why I find the view brilliant and 'restful', even better than the Zeiss Jena Octarem which does have 'up' or 'down' rubber cups (no half-way, so I always have them folded down, for a 'bigger view'). I find most of my binoculars with rubber cups give me a better view if the cups are left folded down, even though this facility is meant for those with glasses! Each to his own, eh? Jim.

[elkcub]

Ed, Nice to converse with you...
Diameter of rubber eyecups, measured from outer edge, is 44mm (maybe 45mm) and the ocular lenses are 25mm across. Field width is 445ft at 1,000yds. My Audubon says "HR" and not "HR/5" but I gather this is not significant. The rubber cups' depth is only 12mm, and merely 5mm of that extends beyond the metal ocular surround, so can't be 'folded down' in the usual sense: all they do is protect spectacles from being scratched; since I don't wear glasses, I can get close and see the 'whole picture', which is probably why I find the view brilliant and 'restful', even better than the Zeiss Jena Octarem which does have 'up' or 'down' rubber cups (no half-way, so I always have them folded down, for a 'bigger view'). I find most of my binoculars with rubber cups give me a better view if the cups are left folded down, even though this facility is meant for those with glasses! Each to his own, eh? Jim.

Hi Jim,

It sounds like you own the version shown on pg. 8 or our paper, which says "Audubon" above "H.R." on the right cover plate. I assume it means "High Resolution" but we have no confirmation. The HR/5 mark didn't show up until Type 4b appeared in the modern era. ;)

Your 45mm rubber eyecup corresponds exactly with the Type 2 models sold in North America during the same period. I have a lot of trouble with them pressing against the sides of my nose. When the IPD is set to 64mm, the space between the eyecups ("interocular breath") is only 2.0cm, which is much smaller than even the 5th percentile (2.7cm) of of the population (of US aviators, 1978). My IPD would have to be 69mm for my nose to be comfortable. So, I take it you have a wide IPD or a narrow nose. Nothing personal, just nosy.

Regards,
Ed

[James Bean]

Hi Ed, My IPD is 64 or thereabouts, so it must be the narrow top of my nose! My other Swifts, an 8x32 SP(1985) (looks like a scaled-down 804) and 7.5x42 Osprey HRGA(1989) both have rubber eyecups designed to roll down. However, with their eyecups up, both give 'tunnel vision' so I always use them rolled down, with the resulting slightly thicker rubber eyecups pressed into my eye sockets, giving an improved view but not in the same class as the Audubon. SP ocular lens diameter is 21mm, the Osprey only 19mm. The folded eyecup diameters are 40mm(SP) and 39mm(Osprey) and I have to place them carefully to avoid 'blackouts', so neither is an 'easy view'. Picking up the Audubon after using the other two is always a revelation, so easy, so clear, so bright.
I remember buying the Audubon secondhand about 10 years ago from a camera shop in Chester for £125. From the shop door I looked across the road at Chester Cathedral and had my first 'wow' moment. As 'Sam' (Tom Hanks) said to 'Doctor Marcia' in 'Sleepless in Seattle', "...it was like coming home, it was like...magic". Maybe I'm daft to wax lyrical about just a binocular, but there is something unique about 'the Audubon experience'.
Regards, Jim.

[elkcub]

Jim,

Yup, it must be a narrow bridge that does it for you.

My 1985 Pyser catalog shows the red dot SP 8x32/383', which appears to be what you have. Just for reference, what is the s/n and Japanese maker's mark on it? The Audubons, of course, were made by Hiyoshi Kogaku (JL B-56). With only a 7.3˚ FOV, the 8x32's would be rather tunnel like — and the 8.49˚ Audubons a WOW experience by comparison. The 7.5x42/367' Osprey has an even a narrower 7˚ FOV.

My feeling is that the 804 Audubon was significantly improved with the introduction of the small body Type 4 in early the 1980s. Apparently, early Swift-Pyser HR/5 models with multi-coating may have predated the 1985 introduction of Model 804R in the US. They are great, but my recommendation would still be to update your Swift collection with a later "fully multi-coated" version if you can. The 804ED is the ultimate. In my opinion, it's the finest binocular ever produced by the hand of man — and that includes all of the big four.

Regards,
Ed

[James Bean]

Hi Ed, Thanks for that... Yes, the SP has the red dot, no.851261, J-B56. It's a nice size to hold too, although the 804(3b)'s greater heft isn't a problem when I can enjoy such a wonderful view. I'm sure you're right about the later, smaller 804s being optically better, but I've seen reports of poorer build quality and 'popping' out of collimation, whereas my chunky older Audubon seems built like a T-34 tank. Yes, I'd love an 804ED: there was one for sale on eBay a while ago; this 'rare and sought after' model went for a premium price, although I can't recall how much. I did look at an 820 in a camera shop a couple of years back: it was clear and sharp, but I couldn't seem to get a 'comfortable' view; I don't know why. So, what's the best 804 all-rounder...any model with 'fully multi-coated' on it? Incidentally, I've just had the good fortune to buy an 'as new' Kowa BD 10x30 on eBay for £150 (half rrp in UK) and it's quite an eye opener (literally) but, in comparison with my Swift Audubon, 'that's a horse of a different colour'. Jim.

[John M Robinson]

ElkCub,

Is there a particular size 804ED that you prefer over the others? I already have a 10x42 Nikon SE, an 8x32 Ultravid and a 6x30 Yosemite.

Thanks,
John

[elkcub]

Jim,

Thanks for the useful information about the red-dot SP. It appears to conform with Hiyoshi's s/n convention of using the first two digits to indicate the year of manufacture. The chances are that your 8x32 may use the same type of prism alignment screws as the 804. On the front, look carefully at the coverings mid way between the hinges to see if there are "U" shaped flaps cut into the material. Similar flaps will show up on the back side between the main tube and eyepiece housing. I'm curious if you find them.

One of the problems with used Type 4 Swifts is that they may have been subject to repair by incompetents — often, no doubt, the owners. Although external alignment screws are easy enough to access, one really has to understand the mechanism before making adjustments. The springs at each internal mounting location have to be in proper compression, otherwise the collimation may only be conditional (for one IPD), or mechanically unstable (leading to popping out of alignment). It's best left to qualified persons, who, fortunately, are still around.

I would think this sort of thing plagues any old binocular, not just Swifts. For a while Renze and I were confused by a report that some 804EDs had cemented doublets, rather than air-spaced objectives. Nicolas Crista, Swift's master opticalman in Boston, pointed out that some repairmen cemented the lens elements if the very thin spacer was lost. Others have reported a rare species of leather covered 804EDs, no doubt also hatched in some repair shop along the way.

Yes, since man's ultimate binoculars are no longer manufactured, we all have to make do with penultimates in the form of Swaro SLCs, Nikon LXLs, and now Kowa. Congrats on the great financial deal you happened upon. ;)

Regards,
Ed

[elkcub]

ElkCub,

Is there a particular size 804ED that you prefer over the others? I already have a 10x42 Nikon SE, an 8x32 Ultravid and a 6x30 Yosemite.

Thanks,
John

Well, yes. An 8.5x44/430' configuration is ideal. All the others are — how to put this diplomatically — lacking in one way or another. :king:

You're welcome, by the way.
Elk

[James Bean]

Hi Ed, As you surmised, the SP has those U-shaped flaps. Mine is pristine, with no signs of tampering. As to updating my Swift Audubon experience, apart from the 804ED (hard to find and expensive) and looking for "fully multi-coated", which later model 804 would tick most of the boxes? I wouldn't want my trusty 3b to feel neglected though... Jim.

[John M Robinson]

Did Downunder ever get either one or both of his ebay 804s back in good order?

[elkcub]

Hi Ed, As you surmised, the SP has those U-shaped flaps. Mine is pristine, with no signs of tampering. As to updating my Swift Audubon experience, apart from the 804ED (hard to find and expensive) and looking for "fully multi-coated", which later model 804 would tick most of the boxes? I wouldn't want my trusty 3b to feel neglected though... Jim.

Jim,

The first Audubon I bought on eBay turned out to be a mint Type 1c, made in 1965 by Tamron — also with a 445' field. The metal eyecups, which retract about 3mm for eyeglasses, are only 42mm in diameter and have the same 2mm interocular breadth as your Type 3b. They fit me perfectly with no room to spare. Marvelously clear and clean. I never had to have them cleaned or aligned, and they are truly magnificent. Still, these are used for veneration purposes only, and they might feel neglected. Being kept on a pedestal must have its down side. ;)

Basically, the Type 4 you should look for will say "HR/5" and "Fully Multi-Coated" (FMC) It turns out that some models marked "HR/5" and "Multi Coated Optics" (MC) are actually FMC, but unless you know what to look for it's better to play it safe. Also, Pyser sold HR/5 models with MC much earlier in Europe than Swift USA, so there is another good reason to be cautious. Any 804ED, of course, will be FMC for sure.

Ed

[ceasar]

I have an Audubon Model 804 8.5 x 44 HR/5 FMC (J-B 56). I like it alot but use it mostly on my deck and for casual astronomy. It's optics are first class; it is a real pleasure to use. It has short eye relief but I don't wear glasses and it isn't a problem. It does have one peculiarity though. The wider your IPD is, the further your fingers get from the focus wheel. I have an IPD of 68mm and large hands but I find that I have to operate the focus wheel with the tip of my middle finger. I like to hold them resting more or less on my palms. If my IPD were 62mm I could use the tips of both my index and middle fingers, but then my nose, which is romanesque, gets slightly pinched. I believe this issue with the nose and a narrow IPD was mentioned in an earlier thread.

All that aside, I can tell you that these 804's are one fine binocular, and if the ED version is better, it must be spectacular and in a class with the Nikon SE's which I also own.

Cordially,
Bob

[elkcub]

Did Downunder ever get either one or both of his ebay 804s back in good order?

Can't recall. It's been some time. :scribe:

[John M Robinson]

Hi Bob,

I know how you feel about the Nikon SEs, how do the 804s compare with the SE? Are they close to the same power for apples to apples?

After reading this whole thread from the beginning, I'm dying to know what happened with downunder, did he get his bins? How did he like them? It's a real cliff hanger.
John

[James Bean]

Hi Ed, Thanks for your advice on which Type 4 to seek. This prompted me to revisit your sagacious saga on the history of the Swift Audubon and its technical intricacies, as well as its eccentricities. Some of the scientific stuff was beyond me but, to misquote Lord Birkenhead, "I may not be much the wiser but I'm certainly better informed". Basically, if you own one of the older 804s, like your Type 1c (by Tamron, one of my favourite lens makers) or my Type 3b (Hiyoshi) you've got a solid, reliable binocular, easy on the eyes, with respectable optical quality. If you want something smaller, lighter and sharper, look for a Type 4 with 'HR/5' and 'Fully Multi-coated' on it, preferably with an opportunity to inspect/handle it to ensure its integrity/condition. Over-simplified perhaps, but sufficient as a 'rule of thumb'? And, if you can find one and afford it, grab an 804ED... Jim.

[elkcub]

By God, Jim, you've got it! :t:

[elkcub]

...
It does have one peculiarity though. The wider your IPD is, the further your fingers get from the focus wheel. I have an IPD of 68mm and large hands but I find that I have to operate the focus wheel with the tip of my middle finger. I like to hold them resting more or less on my palms. If my IPD were 62mm I could use the tips of both my index and middle fingers, but then my nose, which is romanesque, gets slightly pinched. I believe this issue with the nose and a narrow IPD was mentioned in an earlier thread.

All that aside, I can tell you that these 804's are one fine binocular, and if the ED version is better, it must be spectacular and in a class with the Nikon SE's which I also own.

Cordially,
Bob

Bob,

When sitting in the palm of one or both hands, the focus wheel on a Type 4 Audubon can be operated quite naturally from below with one or both thumbs. My hand length measures 18 cm (from heel to middle finger tip), which is in the center of the population distribution. I can still operate it this way even when the IPD is spread to 68 mm, so you might wish to give the technique a try. This is one of the hidden ergonomic marvels of the 804's design.

The ED version is better than the standard, but, unfortunately, there are not enough of them to go around. I'm also afraid that many have been compromised by improper repair. So, if purchased, one should plan on having it reconditioned by Nicolas Crista. http://www.nrcoptics.com A small price for such superb optics.

Having briefly interviewed Swift management after our Audubon review appeared in 2005, my distinct impression was that they spent a fair amount of time in the early days selecting or refining products being proposed by their Japanese manufacturers. Apparently, one of these proposals was the 804ED, which looked like the standard model but involved several costly changes that were reflected in a much higher retail price. It ultimately marketed for nearly twice that of the standard model, but the standard was so good that even Steve Ingraham found himself questioning the additional cost. I'm sorry he did that since it may have inadvertently contributed to limiting sales and a full appreciation of this remarkable optic.

Regards,
Ed

[young ian]

Good day to everybody.
Advice please:- Is it possible to replace the rubbers
on the eyepieces of the Audubon binoculars? Or for that
matter,any of the Swift range of bino's

Kindest regards,
young Ian.

[elkcub]

Good day to everybody.
Advice please:- Is it possible to replace the rubbers
on the eyepieces of the Audubon binoculars? Or for that
matter,any of the Swift range of bino's

Kindest regards,
young Ian.

Hello Ian,

In the US I'd contact Nicolas Crista (see above), but he uses his parts stock for repair jobs and not direct sales. In England/Europe you might contact Pyser, Ltd., who still distributes Swift products as far as I know. I don't have their address. There is a Swift International in The Netherlands that might also help.

As a last resort you might try the new Swift Sport Optics http://www.swift-sportoptics.com/, but they don't seem to have much to do with the older Swift Instruments products.

Best of luck, but please let us know how it works out.
Ed

[James Bean]

Yes, Ed, I've got IT... Well, I hope to have tomorrow, when my Swift HR/5 FMC Kestrel 10x50 'in perfect condition' is due to arrive. I came to the conclusion that waiting for a rare 804ED is a forlorn hope, and I'm not getting any younger. So, having again referred to your 2004 assessment of the Kestrel, which at the time you ranked as your binocular of choice (subsequently overtaken by the 804ED) I decided "that'll do for me".
Incidentally, on your assumption that 'HR' = 'High Resolution', but there was no proof of this, there may be some comfort in the Swift 7.5x42 Osprey actually having these words on the right-hand plate (in red); not conclusive evidence perhaps, but persuasive? Jim.

[elkcub]

Jim,

Outstanding choice. Outstanding! Now, of course, you must reveal the first two digits of the s/n, just to see if it's older or younger than Renze' or mine. I put my Kestrel through it's paces at Shoreline Nature Preserve just last week, so I doubt that you'll be disappointed. (Someone mentioned they were selling their Kestrel on BF recently. Is that the one?)

The Osprey. Thanks for pointing that out. I have a color picture of Swift-Pyser's 1985 model 102-091 Osprey that says "High Resolution" in red (when I turn it upside down). Unfortunately, the 1985 Swift USA catalog also says their model 754 Osprey uses "...new BPG-2" prism material" that "give[s] this binocular the eyes of a hawk." It seems the Osprey is a quite different optical design than the Audubon. So, it remains elusive. :flyaway:

Ed

[young ian]

Hello Ian,

In the US I'd contact Nicolas Crista (see above), but he uses his parts stock for repair jobs and not direct sales. In England/Europe you might contact Pyser, Ltd., who still distributes Swift products as far as I know. I don't have their address. There is a Swift International in The Netherlands that might also help.

As a last resort you might try the new Swift Sport Optics http://www.swift-sportoptics.com/, but they don't seem to have much to do with the older Swift Instruments products.

Best of luck, but please let us know how it works out.
Ed


Hello Ed.
Thank you so much for your observations and quick
response. I have been offered a pair of Audubons (which I
need like a bullet in the head as I already have a super pair
of them) sadly one of the eyepiece rubbers have split.
My first binoculars, 35yr ago, were some Saratogas,
which I still use from time to time. To make them more
comfortable I made my own rubber eyepieces. Very successful
they are too. They being made out of an old cycle inner tube,
cut to size i.e. 2" in length, threaded over the hard eyepiece
and folded back on it's self about three times to form the
'cushion' effect. Still going strong after all that time! I suppose
I could give that another go.

Most kindest regards Ed
young Ian.

[Simon S]

I have just bought a nice pair of 804's and can't wait to receive them. I have a well used pair but a good pair is better.

[James Bean]

Ed, First impressions of Kestrel. As new, in box, with case, straps, & lens caps; number 001912, with label on box dated 30/11/2000. I'm surprised it's more or less the same size as my Audubon 804(3b): not as 'fat', but slightly longer (being a 10x50) and much bigger than my similar-shape, 8x32 SP. View is clear and a bit sharper than my 3b, with deeper colours, but image is not as 'big' as the 3b which has larger oculars and gives an 'easier', restful view. If I had to choose between these two, it would be difficult; but if I had to settle for only one binocular from my collection, then my Zeiss Jena 8x50 BGA Octarem would win. Nevertheless, the Audubon 804(3b) still has the most relaxing view I've seen. Happily, I can keep 'em all ! I stress these are only my first impressions... Jim.

[elkcub]

Jim,

Congrats on finding a brand new Kestrel. Year 2000 may have been the last date of issue, so it's a collector's item as well as a rare find. Let's hear more after you do some birding with it. :t:

Ed

[James Bean]

Further to my Kestrel 10x50 acquisition, I've been comparing it with my Zeiss Jena 8x50 Octarem, just for fun. I re-read Holger Merlitz's reviews, with particular reference to the Kestrel this time, and note he commented "...it does not reach the performance level of the Docter Nobilem" (Nobilem 10x50, sister model of Nobilem/Octarem 8x50); nor was it
"reaching the outer-field sharpness of high-end devices like Nobilem" (Kestrel sharp out to 70% of field, compared with 80% for the Nobilem/Octarem). I'm not trying to belittle the Kestrel; far from it, it's an excellent binocular. It's just that, comparing one with the other (as you do) I was finding it difficult to determine which is 'better', the 21 year old Octarem (1987) or the 8 year old Kestrel (2000). On balance (and before I'd read again
the Holger Merlitz reviews) I'd decided the Octarem 'just had the edge' and so remained the 'reference standard' (for my eyes). I now also have a 1998 Swift Audubon HR/5 FMC (430' field/1,000 yds) and have compared it with my 1984 big-body 3b Audubon (445'). I have to say that, whilst the HR5 is slightly sharper and renders deeper colours, just like the Kestrel, it likewise doesn't have the 'big relaxed view' of the old big-body 3b, which also has superior build quality. I realise that 'big bins' are not fashionable nowadays and anything over 700g is regarded as 'heavy', but I truly prefer the bulk and solidity of the older models, which seem to fit my (medium) hands better, strangely enough, and give a steadier view. That's probably why I like my Leicaflex SL camera so much (big & heavy!) although my favourite camera for many years was the Pentax ME (small & light). Anyway, as Kevin Arnold in 'The Wonder Years' would say, "...so there you have it".

[James Bean]

Ed, In #58 you mentioned your 1c, now "used for veneration purpose only". I forgot to ask you, why? I like the look of this last Tamron model, J-E45/J-B26 and you were quite impressed by the view. Is it because the image quality isn't as good as your 4b(2) & ED, or is it just the big body? Cosmetically, it looks handsome and 'classic' old style. Jim.

[elkcub]

Jim,

Many thanks for your insightful comparisons. It seems like you're having a lot of fun. Holger's evaluations are always first class, of course, and he has much more experience with military optimized instruments. However, so far I have not been able to confirm a stray light problem with my Kestrel, particularly under daylight conditions. His specimen appears to be identical to mine, except for the liquid color of his oculars, which I would have expected to appear as dark green. Maybe it's the camera flash he used, or ... who knows? Overall, though, he says:

Altogether, [the Kestrel] does not reach the performance level of the Fujinon FMTR-SX and the Docter Nobilem, but it may be regarded as a legitimate, in optical performance and handling improved successor of the Zeiss Jenoptem/Dekarem, and it comes with a reasonable price-tag.

That's not too bad an endorsement, I gather, never having seen a Fujinon FMTR-SX, Docter Nobilem, or Zeiss Jenoptem/Dekarem, which apparently have less reasonable price tags. Renze de Vries knows a lot more than I do about Zeiss optics, so he may chime in. (Next week, he's on vacation.) Also, when Holger mentions 'performance level' he includes several things I don't give a lot of weight to.

What I have found is that the Swift FMC models (i.e., Type 4, HR/5) really do provide brighter images with possibly greater color contrast. The experience is, as you say, "deeper colours." So, for me, the Type 1c is not only larger and bulkier but also (forgive the expression) more 'washed out' than the 4b,c. I assume this is due to more internal light scatter, even under daylight conditions, which suppresses color contrast. The other reason for keeping my 1c on the pedestal, I admit, is just because it is the progenitor of the species. :t:

Regards,
Ed

[James Bean]

Hi Ed, I was simply trying to explain why I like the Octarem/Nobilem & older Audubon so much... Holger Merlitz had the answer (at least for me): "the most relaxing kind of view". I have found this (from my own personal experience) to be the most important criterion. There's no substitute for 'the big easy' in assessing quality of view. Other attributes like sharpness, contrast, and colour fidelity play their part but, as a German acquaintance of mine once said, the main thing "is a 'good look', yah?" I'm not technically qualified to say what it is, 'scientifically', that makes a look through one bin' better than another: all I do know is (for me) the Octarem and big-body Audubon both have 'it'. The Kestrel & 4b(2) have lovely views yet, for some reason I can't adequately explain, they don't quite have the 'reach out and touch' images of the Octarem and big-body Audubon. Perhaps others may be able to elucidate? Or is it a case of "I don't know why, but I know what I like!" ?
As to comparisons with other optics, the Octarem/Nobilem are considered to be the best binoculars ever made in East Germany; they were more than twice the price of the other Jenoptem/Dekarem line. Oh, and in 1995 the price of the Nobilem 8x50 BGA was £4 more than the Swift 804 ED, which gives some idea of the perceived quality of these premium products. Coming back to the Audubon 1c, I really like the look of it, and would expect it to have the 'big view' of the much later 3b, since the specifications are similar... Finally, I can't remember if I've mentioned this before, but my 3b has a black-metal focus wheel, rather than rubber covered. I prefer the metal to the rubber, as it gives a better grip. Regards, Jim.

[elkcub]

As usual, Jim, an interesting discussion. I mentioned somewhere above that Types 2/3 have eyecups that are just too large for my face. So, I envy your anatomical advantage.

Blue skies,
Ed

[Simon S]

As usual, Jim, an interesting discussion. I mentioned somewhere above that Types 2/3 have eyecups that are just too large for my face. So, I envy your anatomical advantage.

Blue skies,
Ed
I have the same problem but removing the rubber cups solves the problem and eye relief seems fine.

[elkcub]

I have the same problem but removing the rubber cups solves the problem and eye relief seems fine.

Hmmm, I'll give it a try.

Ed

[James Bean]

Hi Ed, me again. I've just acquired a 1969 Swift Audubon 1c described as 'mint' and hope to receive it early next week. From your historical review of 804s it would appear to be one of the last Tamron models. While I await delivery I propose constructing a suitable pedestal: how high do you reckon it should be? Another Swift which interests me is the 8x30 Hunter with 'Quintar' objectives (whereas the 1c has 'Ultrar') so in all likelihood is a Tamron product too, from about the same era. The Hunter seems to have a unique body shape, quite unlike other Swifts, with a line drawing of a 'pointer' or hunting dog on the right prism plate. Not too sure how good the optics would be compared with the 1c, but if it's a Tamron then it's fine by me. I'm expecting great things of the 1c: what I'd term an 'ABCD' binocular (Above & Beyond the Call of Duty). But I really must stop buying...

[elkcub]

Jim,

Before the company was sold few years ago, Swift moved its HQ from Boston, MA to San Jose, CA. On the day I was invited to visit with Alison Swift, then president, her husband opened a box that had just arrived from Boston containing several dusty, vintage binoculars. Not knowing the history, of course, he was rather baffled and asked me about the largest. I nonchalantly said, "Oh, that's a Type 1c Audubon, circa 1968-70. You've kept the very best."

The pedestal should complement the instrument, and bring out its noble Japanese heritage. This suggests a bamboo stand within a glass display cabinet. From then on it's "ABCDE" — Above and Beyond the Call of Duty and Enshrined. 8-P

Let's hear more when it arrives.

Regards,
Ed

[elkcub]

Jim,

Back in 1966 the predecessor to Swift-Pyser, Pyser-Britex, Ltd. marketed the BWCF Type 1c Audubon for £36 and a line of "new shape" Swifts including an 8x30 (Hunter), 7x35 (Sportstar), and 8x35 (Highland). I have no field of view data, but these BCF models were probably not extra wide angle. The Hunter first became available in April 1966, and marketed for £23.12. I don't know if models like these were also sold in the US at that time — possibly with different names. The series were said to use "Swift's exclusive Ve-cote coating giving [a] brilliant 'white image'."

Only 804 Audubons appear to have withstood the ravages of time.

Ed

[Simon S]

Jim,

Back in 1966 the predecessor to Swift-Pyser, Pyser-Britex, Ltd. marketed the BWCF Type 1c Audubon for £36 and a line of "new shape" Swifts including an 8x30 (Hunter), 7x35 (Sportstar), and 8x35 (Highland). I have no field of view data, but these BCF models were probably not extra wide angle. The Hunter first became available in April 1966, and marketed for £23.12. I don't know if models like these were also sold in the US at that time — possibly with different names. The series were said to use "Swift's exclusive Ve-cote coating giving [a] brilliant 'white image'."

Only 804 Audubons appear to have withstood the ravages of time.

Ed
Elkcub, my girlfriend picked up a pair of mint Swift Highland binoculars and they are model 713 and boast a 5 lens ocular. Field is 420ft at 1000 yards.
Resolution is fairly poor for a Swift binocular, on par with the Belmont range, and have objective lens extensions made of plastic.

[elkcub]

Elkcub, my girlfriend picked up a pair of mint Swift Highland binoculars and they are model 713 and boast a 5 lens ocular. Field is 420ft at 1000 yards.
Resolution is fairly poor for a Swift binocular, on par with the Belmont range, and have objective lens extensions made of plastic.

Simon,

Thanks for the info. 420 ft. isn't too shabby for an 8x.

Supposedly, that series was up-scale, according to the advertising. I think all the Swift models at the time had plastic objective extensions — including the 804 Audubons. Over time they tend to crack, but an expert repair person like Nicolas Crista can glue them back almost perfectly. Still, the rubber front ends used on later Type 4s was a big improvement.

Thanks,
Ed

[James Bean]

Verily, my cup runneth over... 'Enshrined' indeed ! My Audubon 1c arrived first thing this morning and it's mint. Lovely brown leather case & strap (nicer quality than later models) and even the 'Passed' sticker on the binocular looks like it was affixed yesterday. Quite pristine in all respects, this Audubon is new 'out of the box'. The black body, instead of the later grey, is set off by the chrome-barred focus ring and eyepieces, with matching chromed ring + 2 white rings on each objective: sounds 'overdone' perhaps, but looks so classy. Focus and dioptre adjustments are firmly smooth, and the IPD bridge movement is good and tight. Considering it's nearly 40 years old (1969) this 1c is simply gorgeous. The view is 'big', clear and clean, just as I hoped it would be; the wonderful '3D' image is the 'reach out and touch' kind, with magnificent depth; when I looked at the fir tree in my front garden, I was in there, amongst the pine needles and cones all around me. No doubt about it, these older big-body 804s have an uncanny optical quality which in my experience is unique; there's no substitute for 'being there'. Even the close focus was a surprise: about 10 or 11 feet, not bad for an 'oldie' and about the same as my 1984 3b. So, am I impressed? Let's just say I'm going to need a ladder since, at 5'11", I'm not tall enough to reach the top of that pedestal... Jim.
P.S. Ed, I envy your personally meeting the Swift president of 'the old firm'. It must have been a memorable occasion. Do you have any more anecdotes?

[elkcub]

Well, Jim, there are now three of us on the planet who understand the origins of the Swift 804. Consider that at the other end of its long history lies the 804ED, which adds closure to the word "Inimitable." (hint)

The 1c was the first Audubon I purchased. Of course, at the time I didn't know (nor could anyone else) that it was a 1c — since these were the early days before classification. After opened the shipping box, I gently pulled open the cover of the leather case, as if making entry into an ancient sarcophagus. What greeted me were two glass eyes staring out from beneath a uniform layer of gray dust. With some disappointment, I slowly extracted the preserved instrument and stood it in the light of day. Thinking archaeologically at this point, and with growing concern for my own lungs, I inhibited the first inclination to blow away the curious dust. Instead, I donned a surgical mask and gloves, and used a "Giotto" rubber hand blower. Voilà! The powdery dust was so light that it departed without a trace, revealing a perfect specimen of the progenitor of the 804 line. It didn't take long to determine that the powder was the decomposed remains of the foam cushion under the leather cover, which over time had simply floated down like a gray shroud.

That experience, plus the psychological presence of the magnificent view that you so well described in the last post, motivated writing the article with Renze de Vries. Now you know the full story. Until you came along there was no one for us to share it with. :t:

Ed

[tom1946]

Can anyone tell me about the build quality of the Swift Audubon 8.5 X44 BWCF 820ED.

I am new to bird watching, and have been using JB era Yashica 8X30 binoculars to date I am now ready to buy a better quality optic. From my reading, I know the Swift Audubon 8.5 X44 (804 model) had a devoted following, and were rated very highly optically. More recent comments about the newer 820 model while continuing to praise the optical quality (especially the ED model) have expressed some concern for the quality of the design of the bridge and other parts of the binocular.

I would be interested in hearing from anyone with field experience with the 820. The durability question, as well as all other comments and thoughts will be appreciated.

Any advice on other binoculars in the price category would also be welcome.

[Simon S]

Can anyone tell me about the build quality of the Swift Audubon 8.5 X44 BWCF 820ED.

I am new to bird watching, and have been using JB era Yashica 8X30 binoculars to date I am now ready to buy a better quality optic. From my reading, I know the Swift Audubon 8.5 X44 (804 model) had a devoted following, and were rated very highly optically. More recent comments about the newer 820 model while continuing to praise the optical quality (especially the ED model) have expressed some concern for the quality of the design of the bridge and other parts of the binocular.

I would be interested in hearing from anyone with field experience with the 820. The durability question, as well as all other comments and thoughts will be appreciated.

Any advice on other binoculars in the price category would also be welcome.
Hi Tom the Yashica,s you own are a great pair of binoculars, very close to the performance of the Zeiss Jenoptem of the 1970's.
The Swift Audubon 8.5 X44 (804 model) is however far better with a wider field of view, a much brighter image and you will notice the difference without a doubt!

[Simon S]

Hi Tom the Yashica,s you own are a great pair of binoculars, very close to the performance of the Zeiss Jenoptem of the 1970's.
The Swift Audubon 8.5 X44 (804 model) is however far better with a wider field of view, a much brighter image and you will notice the difference without a doubt!
Oh and build quality is great too:king::-C

[tom1946]

thank you

Tom

[elkcub]

Can anyone tell me about the build quality of the Swift Audubon 8.5 X44 BWCF 820ED...
...More recent comments about the newer 820 model while continuing to praise the optical quality (especially the ED model) have expressed some concern for the quality of the design of the bridge and other parts of the binocular.

I would be interested in hearing from anyone with field experience with the 820. The durability question, as well as all other comments and thoughts will be appreciated.

Any advice on other binoculars in the price category would also be welcome.

Tom,

I've examined them but don't have field experience with the 820 or 820ED. There have been few if any kudos for the 820ED—unlike the earlier 804ED. There have been no observations reported about improved color contrast or center clarity, at least not enough to justify the substantial added cost. (I'm assuming someone will correct me if I'm off base.) I assume this is because it's not the same optical design as the 804ED, e.g., no air spacing, etc. The 820 has received ample praise, for sure, but also some criticism for its waterproofing being somewhat deficient and the bridge not holding focus well. Still, it has a marvelous view, and for the money it would be hard to beat.

Blue skies,
Ed

[orbitaljump]

Elkcub, do you have an extensive collection of Swift? Id sure like to see it sometime....or maybe just chat.

[elkcub]

Hi,

Well, I own about 32 binoculars of which 14 are Swifts. Most of them are Audubons, but I do have 7x35, 7x50, and 10x50 Mk II examples. Included among the Audubons is an 828 HHS roof and a standard 820. Two recent acquisition that I prize are original Type O Audubons (not shown in the article), which were sold by the predecessor company Swift-Anderson. However, I don't own any of the dozens of other models Swift sold over the years under various names and model numbers.

If you're in my area some time I'd be happy to show them to you. Otherwise they are always worth chatting about.

Incidentally, I have had each binocular I own cleaned and collimated before comparing it with anything else. I've encountered a few surprises in the process.

Clear viewing,
Ed

[orbitaljump]

Thanks Ed,

Im on the other side of the continent.

Id be interested in the picture of the "Type O."

Ive become a fan of Swift. I have the Type 2 8.5 Audubon porros, 7x50 Commodore with 375 fov and a Swift #821 Spotting Scope with the complete eyepiece set, have owned a Triton 7x35 and Type 2a or 2b and a 4a #804 and have bid on a Holiday, another 7x36(I think), and something else maybe 8x40 Saratoga.

Oh and I live on the other side of this magnificent continent....tough to ride over for a bino fest.

Cheers!

[elkcub]

Thanks Ed,

Im on the other side of the continent.

Id be interested in the picture of the "Type O."

Ive become a fan of Swift. I have the Type 2 8.5 Audubon porros, 7x50 Commodore with 375 fov and a Swift #821 Spotting Scope with the complete eyepiece set, have owned a Triton 7x35 and Type 1 #804 and have bid on a Holiday, another 7x36(I think), and something else maybe and 8x40.

Oh and I live on the other side of this magnificent continent....tough to ride over for a bino fest.

Cheers!

Sure. I've been meaning to continue posting on the Audubon historical thread:
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?p=1295850#post1295850
but here is OK too.

The original Type 0a Audubon is show in the first picture, and is quite different from any models shown in our 504 article (see the other thread). Note that lettering is in green and that the construction is more similar to a Type 2 than Type 1. These were made by Tamron for Swift-Anderson about 1957. The exact date is hard to pin down because it was not encoded in the serial number, but this specimen was from the first production, possibly a prototype. The oculars and prism-cover plates shown next reveal unique phenolic eye cups, that almost look incomplete. The third picture is a Type 0b, which was refurbished by Nicolas Crista. The eyecups are very similar, except that now there is provision to extend them with a bayonet mounted phenolic attachment. Note that the lettering is in white, and it is marked fully-coated rather than coated. The FOV for both instruments is 420 ft.

The picture on the next post reveals some of the unique aspects to this model.

[elkcub]

What we see here is that the cover plates are held on with no less than four screws, which is quite unusual. More unusual is that the cover plate and eyepiece tube are made from a single piece of extruded metal. The usual and less costly technique is to braze or solder the tube and plate together, as is done with all subsequent Audubon body types. Nicolas Crista tells me that the internal construction is of the highest quality, and involved considerable precision manufacturing operations.

The view through these robust instruments is quite stunning and compares very favorably with the later Type 1, 2, and 3 models. From an ergonomics perspective, if one must have a large, heavy binocular, these are probably as well balanced and friendly as they get. Type 4 (i.e., HR/5) is quite different, however, and much to be preferred.

Ed

[orbitaljump]

You should post these over on that other thread. Thanks for linking to it. Fantastic stuff. The Green Audubon!

Im gonna have to work on my Typing numerolgy. I have the 80s/90s smaller traditional style body with the Gold lettering(which I think indicates better coatings).

Anyway, Ill have a read and catch up.

Thanks for sharing.

[Tero]

Even after I had been as thrifty as I could, would you believe my wife still hit me over the head and told me they were my Christmas present and I wasn't seeing them until Christmas day.

My tripod base...the head moves from the old base..is somewhere in a closet. Will have to do with duct tape repairs till then. ;)

[orbitaljump]

Elkcub Ed, I have the Type 4b(2) Gold Writing HR/5 Fully Multi-coated model. Ive also had a 4a model which was fantastic as well.

Personally I would be happy with any of the Type 4 models in good spec and shape. The older ones were just too large for ergonomic comfort.....and I dont particularly like the newer 820s. I wish they would go back to the 804R style bodies.

[Kevin Purcell]

Personally I would be happy with any of the Type 4 models in good spec and shape. The older ones were just too large for ergonomic comfort.....and I dont particularly like the newer 820s. I wish they would go back to the 804R style bodies.

What is it about the 820 enclosure you don't like?

[orbitaljump]

Everyone knows about the dinky thin bridges. But I dont like the focus wheel either. The 804R also has a body that is easier to one hand hold, IMO. You can see the 804R has a higher angle cone to the objectives and this gives you something to wrap your fingers around and keep the bino from slipping back when the head is tilted up.

Maybe a little nitpicky, if they beefed the bridges up, Id probably like them a lot better(and if they tweaked the focus knob with finer ridges to be more traditional, Id probably buy one). I absolutely HATE those knobs on older Japanese models that are chromed and heavily knurled or both. I dont know who or why binoculars went from all black or understated chrome rings around the barrels to knurled "chrome" around the eyepieces and on the focus knob. For that matter, I dont like a lot of flash on the objective covers....like big Ribbons and big pictures of Eagles. I guess some of that is kind of vain(or something)....but there it is.

I guess Im kind of a classic WW2 style porro fan as well, with the classic pebbled "leatherette" finish, etc.

[orbitaljump]

One thing I dont like about the 804R is that it has those roll down rubber eyecups....both because they are a nuisance with the tight eye relief and they will degrade over time.

EDIT

And the objectives are a bit exposed. I guess they did this to cut weight. The first pair of 804Rs I had, Type 4a, had scratches on the front objectives, quite a few nics....though it didnt degrade performance too much I dont think.....I still loved the them. When I acquired them, they also had, had the eyecups rolled up for a very long time and when I unrolled them they were mishapen, flared outwards abit, but no too much I guess, and they would probably have self corrected over time somewhat, but I just rolled the back up and left them.