Porro vs Roof

[clwpaddler]

I am considering a new pair of binos and sure could use some help. Have for the last 6 years used a pair of Bushnell Glass-On binos that were designed for glasses wearers only. I feel that I would gain alot more enjoyment from birding with a newer pair with better glass. My dilema is I am used to the porro prism and wide field of view. I am finding that the roof prism offers more weather resistance and closer focusing. Where do you begin to accept the trade offs for the best bino for the money. I also would like to begin some butterfly viewing so close focus is a consideration. Any help would be gratly appreciated. |8)|

[FrankD]

Where do you begin to accept the trade offs for the best bino for the money. I also would like to begin some butterfly viewing so close focus is a consideration. Any help would be gratly appreciated.

Excellent questions. If you are looking for the absolute best image quality for the least amount of money then the $200-$300 porros would be your best bet. Roofs in the same price range cannot match these porros for quality of image though they may be more durable, weatherproof, etc... Also, since you mentioned butterfly watching the roofs might be more well suited as their closer objective spacing allows for more overlapping of images at close range.

Price versus performance in roof prism glass is a great topic of discussion. I think many folks will argue that roofs in the $300 to $500 offer excellent optics which can only be bettered by spending three to four times as much money. If you are looking for a durable, waterproof binocular that offers excellent image quality then it is in this price range that I think you will find the greatest values. You didn't mention configurations but....

Nikon Monarch
Bushnell Legend
Pentax XP and SP
Zeiss Conquest
Leupold Olympic, Cascade and Pinnacle

...to name but a few. The 8x32 configuration will give you the widest field of view for any of these models that offer it (in comparison to an 8x42, 10x42, etc...) but you have to watch the level of eye relief since you are an eyeglass wearer. The new lightweight version of the Bushnell Legends may suit your needs. I believe their eye relief was at least 16 mm with a 21-22 ounce weight, a close focus somewhere around 6-8 feet and a field of view of around 393 feet. Hope you find this helpful.

[Tero]

Very few porros give close focus and work with glasses. I think the Action EX 7x35 would work for butterflies.

With roofs the options are many.

[AlanFrench]

Porros, except for the smaller reverse Porro designs, have wider spaced objectives than Roofs. For close focus this causes the Porro design to show significantly different fields of view through the two halves, with overlap in the middle. Roofs show more of an overlap with close focus. I find the effect annoying with my 8x42 Porros, and much less bothersome with my 7x42 roofs.

For serious butterfly enthusiasts, the Pentax Papilio might be worth considering. They have a close focus of about 26", and the objectives move closer together as the focus distance decreases. At about $130 they seem an affordable specialized binocular for many folks (and work fine as a compact "regular" binocular too).

Clear skies, Alan

[Alexis Powell]

For serious butterfly enthusiasts, the Pentax Papilio might be worth considering. They have a close focus of about 26"

Actually, the Papilio close-focus is officially 18", though mine easily focus to 16"
The Papilios are without a doubt the best binos for butterflying.
--AP

[Swissboy]

Actually, the Papilio close-focus is officially 18", though mine easily focus to 16"
The Papilios are without a doubt the best binos for butterflying.
--AP

They work well with glasses, but they are not waterproof. And with their 21mm objective diameter they are limited to decent light conditions (which is when butterflies are active). But other than these points, they are VERY fine binoculars.

[AlanFrench]

The ad I pulled out claimed 26". One other ad I just found had 18", and Pentax gives it as 1.6 feet, or a bit over 19". At any rate, I thought the 26" number was a bit farther than I remembered.

Thanks for the correction.

Clear skies, Alan