Swift historians

[planetester]

Hi, Ive just joined this forum so I can pass on some information on a pair of Swift binoculars that I recently aquired.
Hope it is useful to someone out there,

Swift
model number.. 801
model name.. Saratoga MK11
Type.. 8x40, Extra Wide field
FOV.. 488ft at 1000yds
optics.. fully coated
serial number,, No 26-706309

I presume they were made in 1970, anymore info would be welcome.

thanks all

[WJC]

Hi, Ive just joined this forum so I can pass on some information on a pair of Swift binoculars that I recently aquired.
Hope it is useful to someone out there,

Swift
model number.. 801
model name.. Saratoga MK11
Type.. 8x40, Extra Wide field
FOV.. 488ft at 1000yds
optics.. fully coated
serial number,, No 26-706309

I presume they were made in 1970, anymore info would be welcome.

thanks all

The Little brother to the Swift Commodore 7x50.

Bill

[elkcub]

Hi, Ive just joined this forum so I can pass on some information on a pair of Swift binoculars that I recently aquired.
Hope it is useful to someone out there,

Swift
model number.. 801
model name.. Saratoga MK11
Type.. 8x40, Extra Wide field
FOV.. 488ft at 1000yds
optics.. fully coated
serial number,, No 26-706309

I presume they were made in 1970, anymore info would be welcome.

thanks all

Hi,

Welcome aboard.

This 801 is a large body Type 3 produced by Hiyoshi Kogaku, Japan, and imported by Swift-Pyser, UK. Bill might know if it was marketed in the US, but all my records show European distribution. Since it's labled Mk II, the chances are that it uses BaK-4 prisms and has a 5-element eyepiece. The large body Type 2, 7x35 Holiday—Wide Angle, Mark II, of the same vintage, however, did not use high quality prisms, contrary to the conclusion one would draw from the catalogs of the day. So it would be appreciated if you could comment about the exit pupil of your 801. Is it round with no square frame visible within it, as would be the case with high quality glass?

The Saratoga was promoted for use at horse races and sporting events. The Type 2, 7x50 Commodore—Wide Angle was a sibling, as Bill indicated, and promoted for boating applications. But there was also a standard-field 7x50 Commodore that probably didn't use an Erfle eyepiece. I don't know if either Commodore appeared as Type 3 models in Europe, or had 7x50 counterparts given other names.

I'd also like to hear your assessment of the view using the Saratoga. It may be comparable to the somewhat larger 8.5x44 Audubon, Type 3, its big brother. Incidentally, variants the Saratoga had blue or gold ribbons on the left cover plate, as is typically seen on Type 3 Audubons.

Regards,
Ed
PS. See this thread for related historical info. http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=42944

[planetester]

Hi,

Welcome aboard.

This 801 is a large body Type 3 produced by Hiyoshi Kogaku, Japan, and imported by Swift-Pyser, UK. Bill might know if it was marketed in the US, but all my records show European distribution. Since it's labled Mk II, the chances are that it uses BaK-4 prisms and has a 5-element eyepiece. The large body Type 2, 7x35 Holiday—Wide Angle, Mark II, of the same vintage, however, did not use high quality prisms, contrary to the conclusion one would draw from the catalogs of the day. So it would be appreciated if you could comment about the exit pupil of your 801. Is it round with no square frame visible within it, as would be the case with high quality glass?

The Saratoga was promoted for use at horse races and sporting events. The Type 2, 7x50 Commodore—Wide Angle was a sibling, as Bill indicated, and promoted for boating applications. But there was also a standard-field 7x50 Commodore that probably didn't use an Erfle eyepiece. I don't know if either Commodore appeared as Type 3 models in Europe, or had 7x50 counterparts given other names.

I'd also like to hear your assessment of the view using the Saratoga. It may be comparable to the somewhat larger 8.5x44 Audubon, Type 3, its big brother. Incidentally, variants the Saratoga had blue or gold ribbons on the left cover plate, as is typically seen on Type 3 Audubons.

Regards,
Ed
PS. See this thread for related historical info. http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=42944


Hi, thanks for all the info,
First off, the exit pupils have a very pronounced square shape,
Secondly, Last night was the first chance I have had to view stars through them, Astronomy is my 'thing', I was comparing them to 3 other pairs, Hilkinson 20x60, ZOMZ 7x50 & KOMZ 8x30, When focusing the swifts, it could be seen through both eyepieces that the image of a star focussed in from the side rather than from all around, the others were not perfect but better, I the tried splitting a double star(Alberio), Hand held, the 20x60 was easy,7x50 just about, 8x30, there was a hint & Swifts, not at all.
One other thing I noticed was when I was trying to asses the edge sharpness, when looking at the centre of the field of view, the edge was well defined, but when you tried to look at the edge, the field went dark & the object disappeared, this was very much more noticeable in the swifts than the others.
Finally they didn't have the terrible yellow cast of the 8x30.
Hope this is of use to you,
Good luck

[elkcub]

Hi, thanks for all the info,
First off, the exit pupils have a very pronounced square shape,
Secondly, Last night was the first chance I have had to view stars through them, Astronomy is my 'thing', I was comparing them to 3 other pairs, Hilkinson 20x60, ZOMZ 7x50 & KOMZ 8x30, When focusing the swifts, it could be seen through both eyepieces that the image of a star focussed in from the side rather than from all around, the others were not perfect but better, I the tried splitting a double star(Alberio), Hand held, the 20x60 was easy,7x50 just about, 8x30, there was a hint & Swifts, not at all.
One other thing I noticed was when I was trying to asses the edge sharpness, when looking at the centre of the field of view, the edge was well defined, but when you tried to look at the edge, the field went dark & the object disappeared, this was very much more noticeable in the swifts than the others.
Finally they didn't have the terrible yellow cast of the 8x30.
Hope this is of use to you,
Good luck


Planetester,

It's valuable information to me, although disappointing to confirm that Swift marketed several "Mark II" binoculars that obviously were not as advertised. I quote from the 1980 Catalog Swift Mark II Binoculars incorporate lenses and prisms of the finest center-pot Barium Crown glass. ... I know the 804 Audubon and 823 Commodore—Wide Angle met this criterion, but the 766 Holiday did not (although it has an Erfle eyepiece), and your 801 didn't either. :(

What you described about blacking out when looking at the very edge of the field can probably be explained by the geometry of the particular eyepiece-eye interface design. Essentially, light rays are cut off because the lens of the eye presents an eliptical shape to the exit pupil rather than a circle. The wider the field, the more this "problem" would occur with eye rotation.

It's all a learning experience.

Enjoy the view,
Ed

[planetester]

Planetester,

It's valuable information to me, although disappointing to confirm that Swift marketed several "Mark II" binoculars that obviously were not as advertised. I quote from the 1980 Catalog I know the 804 Audubon and 823 Commodore—Wide Angle met this criterion, but the 766 Holiday did not (although it has an Erfle eyepiece), and your 801 didn't either. :(

What you described about blacking out when looking at the very edge of the field can probably be explained by the geometry of the particular eyepiece-eye interface design. Essentially, light rays are cut off because the lens of the eye presents an eliptical shape to the exit pupil rather than a circle. The wider the field, the more this "problem" would occur with eye rotation.

It's all a learning experience.

Enjoy the view,
Ed

Hi again Ed, I may be wrong on the exit pupils, when you look closely you can see that there is a round exit, but what appears to be square reflections on this side & what i can only describe as a square mask on the far side, have a look at the attached photo & see what you think (very difficult to photo), you have to study it very closely

[elkcub]

Hi again Ed, I may be wrong on the exit pupils, when you look closely you can see that there is a round exit, but what appears to be square reflections on this side & what i can only describe as a square mask on the far side, have a look at the attached photo & see what you think (very difficult to photo), you have to study it very closely

I did a double take on mine too, but they are clearly lower cost crown glass prisms. Here is picture to help you make the distinction. I can't really tell from your photo either, so let me know.

Thanks,
Ed

[planetester]

I did a double take on mine too, but they are clearly lower cost crown glass prisms. Here is picture to help you make the distinction. I can't really tell from your photo either, so let me know.

Thanks,
Ed

Yes, Mine look like the one on the right, Luckily they were given to me by my Neighbour, don't laugh, but I'll stick with my £15 7x50 ZOMZ for my astronomy, they do produce pin point star images.

What you may be able to explain to me is how the type of glass affects shape of the exit pupil, I would expect the size of the prism to be the major factor, maybe you know a good website that reveals all,

thanks again

[bosun]

I recently bought, on e bay, a pair of 8X40 Swift binoculars manufactured, I guess in the '70's for a shop called Greens. They are similar in appearance to Aerolites. They were OK but no better than other cheap binoculars which I own which was disappointing considering the reputation that Swift has. It wasn't until I found this site this week that I realised that the Aerolites are of poorer quality.

This week, I was in a charity shop where they were selling a pair of Swift Saratoga 8X40's model 801. Field of view is 393ft at 1000yds and serial (not phone)No is 44 - 702125. When I looked through them, I couldn't believe the superb brightness and clarity or the fine detail of the image. I bought them for £25 (approx 50$ US). They are obviously earlier than the mark II saratoga's described above. They have the older chrome striped focus knob and eypiece adjusters and no visible tripod bush (although there is one at the front of the focus adjuster). It does not say MkII on them. There is no coloured stripe and the lenses are fully coated. I assume that they are MkI although it does not say so. The exit pupil is round so I think that it has the better prisms and there is screw up eye relief adjustment. The bridge is markedJ-B21.

I still can't believe how superior these glasses are to the cheaper ones which I own.

What would be the difference in the optics of the Mk II and would they be any better?

[elkcub]

I recently bought, on e bay, a pair of 8X40 Swift binoculars manufactured, I guess in the '70's for a shop called Greens. They are similar in appearance to Aerolites. They were OK but no better than other cheap binoculars which I own which was disappointing considering the reputation that Swift has. It wasn't until I found this site this week that I realised that the Aerolites are of poorer quality.

This week, I was in a charity shop where they were selling a pair of Swift Saratoga 8X40's model 801. Field of view is 393ft at 1000yds and serial (not phone)No is 44 - 702125. When I looked through them, I couldn't believe the superb brightness and clarity or the fine detail of the image. I bought them for £25 (approx 50$ US). They are obviously earlier than the mark II saratoga's described above. They have the older chrome striped focus knob and eypiece adjusters and no visible tripod bush (although there is one at the front of the focus adjuster). It does not say MkII on them. There is no coloured stripe and the lenses are fully coated. I assume that they are MkI although it does not say so. The exit pupil is round so I think that it has the better prisms and there is screw up eye relief adjustment. The bridge is markedJ-B21.

I still can't believe how superior these glasses are to the cheaper ones which I own.

What would be the difference in the optics of the Mk II and would they be any better?

Hi,

The only Swift binoculars I thought I had a reasonable handle on were the Audubons — and even there surprises occur all the time. In 1980, the Swift catalog referred to the Aerolite series as a "low end budget line," so it's not too surprising that yours performed poorly.

Unfortunately, I don't have a catalog reference for the early 8x40 Saratoga you described, but they were probably made in 1970 with a large body manufactured by Tamron Optical, J- E-45. Take a close look for that mark as it can be quite faint. The J-B21 mark is for Kokisha Co. Ltd. Tokyo, who apparently was the finished product manufacturer. (Which is a new historical factoid for me, incidentally.) The thing here is that even the Tamron large body Audubons made in 1970 were not stenciled "Mark II", so it would take a catalog reference to confirm how your Saratoga was actually advertised. It turns out, however, that the Mark II designation didn't alway guarantee BaK-4 prisms or Erfle oculars, as I sadly discovered recently with an old pair of 7x35 "Holiday" Mark IIs. (Being a historian can have its disappointments. ;))

So, enjoy your find and use it in good health. It's probably as good as it gets for the original Swift series.

Ed

[bosun]

Hi,

The only Swift binoculars I thought I had a reasonable handle on were the Audubons — and even there surprises occur all the time. In 1980, the Swift catalog referred to the Aerolite series as a "low end budget line," so it's not too surprising that yours performed poorly.

Unfortunately, I don't have a catalog reference for the early 8x40 Saratoga you described, but they were probably made in 1970 with a large body manufactured by Tamron Optical, J- E-45. Take a close look for that mark as it can be quite faint. The J-B21 mark is for Kokisha Co. Ltd. Tokyo, who apparently was the finished product manufacturer. (Which is a new historical factoid for me, incidentally.) The thing here is that even the Tamron large body Audubons made in 1970 were not stenciled "Mark II", so it would take a catalog reference to confirm how your Saratoga was actually advertised. It turns out, however, that the Mark II designation didn't alway guarantee BaK-4 prisms or Erfle oculars, as I sadly discovered recently with an old pair of 7x35 "Holiday" Mark IIs. (Being a historian can have its disappointments. ;))

So, enjoy your find and use it in good health. It's probably as good as it gets for the original Swift series.

Ed
Thanks for all the info. I have read with interest your historical notes on the Audobons and it looks as though my Saratogas are an early parallel product. I have looked at them more closely and the square masking does appear, very faintly, in the exit pupil but the image quality does seem much better than my other (admittedly low quality) binoculars. I cannot find a J-E Number anywhere though.

Thanks for your good wishes. I will enjoy using them and the info which you have supplied will enhance my enjoyment. Having read your history, I will now be looking for other examples on e bay and other places and will buy any that seem to be cheap enough.

Regards
Mike
p.s. Would it be of any interest to see some photographs if I can manage to post them? The eye pieces on the Saratogas look completely different from any of the examples in your history.

[elkcub]

Thanks for all the info. I have read with interest your historical notes on the Audobons and it looks as though my Saratogas are an early parallel product. I have looked at them more closely and the square masking does appear, very faintly, in the exit pupil but the image quality does seem much better than my other (admittedly low quality) binoculars. I cannot find a J-E Number anywhere though.

Thanks for your good wishes. I will enjoy using them and the info which you have supplied will enhance my enjoyment. Having read your history, I will now be looking for other examples on e bay and other places and will buy any that seem to be cheap enough.

Regards
Mike
p.s. Would it be of any interest to see some photographs if I can manage to post them? The eye pieces on the Saratogas look completely different from any of the examples in your history.

Mike,

Yes, I'd love to see pictures of your treasure. If the exit pupils aren't obviously squared off (diamond shaped), then the prisms are doing what they should regardless of the glass that was used. Uniform illumination is what we're after.

Now I'm curious what the oculars might look like. :scribe:

Ed

[bosun]

Mike,

Yes, I'd love to see pictures of your treasure. If the exit pupils aren't obviously squared off (diamond shaped), then the prisms are doing what they should regardless of the glass that was used. Uniform illumination is what we're after.

Now I'm curious what the oculars might look like. :scribe:

Ed
I hope these pictures work.

[elkcub]

Mike,

Well, they do look to be in very fine condition, and clearly the original large body type — I still think made by Tamron. The metal ribbing of the eyepieces is somewhat different than the Type 1 Audubons shown in our article, but all in all the similarity is quite evident. Also there are those interesting metal eyecups that twist out only 3mm or so. It's quite a nice piece. From the pictures it would appear that the exit pupils are somewhat squared off, so this model probably didn't use BaK-4 glass — but that really doesn't matter if the whole instrument works well, which you said it did. So, I think you got a great bargain for $50. Now try to wear it out looking at birds. ;)

I recently missed out on an early Swift catalog on eBay that could have told us the story about this instrument — assuming it was also marketed in the US. There is still a lot to learn about these things.

Thanks for the pictures,
Ed

[bosun]

Mike,

Well, they do look to be in very fine condition, and clearly the original large body type — I still think made by Tamron. The metal ribbing of the eyepieces is somewhat different than the Type 1 Audubons shown in our article, but all in all the similarity is quite evident. Also there are those interesting metal eyecups that twist out only 3mm or so. It's quite a nice piece. From the pictures it would appear that the exit pupils are somewhat squared off, so this model probably didn't use BaK-4 glass — but that really doesn't matter if the whole instrument works well, which you said it did. So, I think you got a great bargain for $50. Now try to wear it out looking at birds. ;)

I recently missed out on an early Swift catalog on eBay that could have told us the story about this instrument — assuming it was also marketed in the US. There is still a lot to learn about these things.

Thanks for the pictures,
Ed
Thanks for all the info. I will enjoy using these binoculars and as I said before, the information which you have supplied will enhance my enjoyment.

Regards

Mike

[bosun]

Thanks for all the info. I will enjoy using these binoculars and as I said before, the information which you have supplied will enhance my enjoyment.

Regards

Mike
I have just bought another pair of Swift Saratogas on e bay! How many do I need to qualify as a collector?

These are Mark IIs and are very different from my older pair. The body is much bigger and heavier. In fact, reading your history, my older pair is more like the small bodied 804R in that the focus wheel is much easier to reach because of the somewhat slimmer design. The eypiece diameter is much greater on the newer model (at least 1.5 times bigger). The serial number is 761454. The casting No. on the body is JL B56. There is a tripod bush on the Right hand body. FOV is 488ft@1000yds. The eye cups are rubber and the focus wheel is of metal construction.

I cannot discern any difference in the optical performance but the newer pair will not focus down below about 20yds (I wondered whether the focusing screw needs adjusting?). The older pair focuses down to about 15ft without spectacles. The focusing distance shortens with spectacles, but I never wear specs when using binoculars. The exit pupils on the newer model have a much more definite square mask.

[elkcub]

Why, Bosun, I do believe you have all the makings of a Swift Saratoga collector. In fact, you now are a collector! Congratulations!

By way of contrast, your two finds seem to be quite different. The first is tall and slim, the second short and squat. Obviously, they are quite different optical designs, since the first has an apparent FOV of 60 deg. while the latter has a huge 75 deg. field.

Based on my limited knowledge, I can't really say that the older one was made by Tamron, so you might wish to pursue that historical avenue a bit further. Your new one was made by Hiyhoshi Kogaku, and corresponds with the Type 3 European body shown in our article, blue ribbon and all. I'd be very surprised if this wide a FOV was not supported by a five-element Erfle eyepiece and BaK-4 prisms. At least in the photos I don't see any indication of vignetting.

A near focus of 20 yds. is not all that useful for birding tasks, but it might be for horse racing. I would advise caution in attempting adjustments yourself. Now that you're a collector, though, it might be time for you to contact Pyser and see if they have a good rapair tech. to work with. I have a 7x50 Type 2 Commodore Mk II that can focus to 12 ft., so I tend to agree that yours is out of adjustment.

Many of the older instruments, unfortunately, were not given expert repair. Quite often collimation was not balanced over the full range of IPD settings, so everything might be fine for one person and very bad for another. Nicolas Crista will need to work on those 7x50 Commodores of mine. After looking through then, my eyeballs feel like they were sucked on by a giant squid. |:S|

Looking forward to a treatise from you on Swift Saratoga's in the next year or two.

Blue skies,
Ed
PS. Note Planetester's 1970 Saratoga in post #1, made about the same time as your older model. His is marked more like an American model would be, but I don't think this body style was distributed in the US. Yours retains the same FOV. Very interesting ...

[bosun]

I think that your history of the Audubon is an impossible act to follow but I would be happy to send you any pics, which I might have, that would help you to expand your history at a later date.

The close focus adjustment on my new pair was achieved by removing the cover at the bottom of the focus adjuster and giving the internal axial screw a couple of turns. The close focus distance is now fine.

[elkcub]

I do love compliments, particularly from a bino collector with handy repair skills. So how close will it focus now?
Ed

[stabor]

The close focus adjustment on my new pair was achieved by removing the cover at the bottom of the focus adjuster and giving the internal axial screw a couple of turns. The close focus distance is now fine.

Boy, thanks for this trick. I adjusted my Saratogas (serial 4-6310301) until the barrel almost pulls clear of the central shaft, and they now focus down to about 20 feet. Still not too good for birding, but at least now I can spend a little less time hanging out at the horse-races. |:d|

[elkcub]

Bosun/Stabor,

Could you attach a picture showing the close-focus adjustment on the Saratoga, — that is, if you're not off to the races?

Ed :D

[stabor]

Could you attach a picture showing the close-focus adjustment on the Saratoga, — that is, if you're not off to the races?


I can't do this easily, but I followed Bosun's instructions from yesterday. Find the binocular hinge and locate the cap at the objective end. Unscrew that, and deep inside you'll see a groove. Get a long, thin screwdriver and insert it there. This adjusts the stop on the "piston" to which the eyepieces are attached. If you turn it too far the piston comes out of the shaft and then dust can get in, or maybe the whole thing comes apart. When you've got it right, replace the cap.

No guarantees, but I took them out at lunch and they seem happy.

[bosun]

From Stabor's comments, maybe the Saratogas aren't meant to close focus but the adjustment seemed to have worked. The only thing is that the screw is loosened and may work its' way out with time. I did wonder about trying to put some loctite on the thread with some sort of long spill, maybe a drinking straw?

I adjusted it to a guestimated 15 ft.

My older pair of Saratogas already focus down to a guestimated 15ft. When I get time, I'll actually measure the distance & let you know. I'll also see what I can do with a camera but illumination inside the shaft may be difficult. I'll try it anyway & let you know how I got on.

[elkcub]

Well, I get the idea now. I've also noticed that different models have "pistons" that extend different distances, but didn't know there might be a close-focus adjustment inside. Makes sense.

Thanks,
Ed

[bosun]

Please note that I'm not a binocular technician and I am not advising any body else to follow my lead in case there are unforseen consequences. I merely reported something which I tried. I was playing with an old pair of binoculars, bought cheaply on e bay and would not dream of gambling with my skills on a modern expensive pair.

[Simon S]

I to own a pair of Saratoga's. They are very bright and have a super wide field of view, much greater than the Audubon range. The prisms are however BK7 and not BAK4 as in the Audubons. You would never know when looking through them though.
If you want a great pair of bins for around £40 you know where to look!

[elkcub]

I to own a pair of Saratoga's. They are very bright and have a super wide field of view, much greater than the Audubon range. The prisms are however BK7 and not BAK4 as in the Audubons. You would never know when looking through them though.
If you want a great pair of bins for around £40 you know where to look!

Simon,

There are several Saratoga models listed above, and from what I gather everyone likes them. The use of BK7 glass is not as detrimental as it's made out to be, and you may be one of the few clear thinkers who base their conclusions on what they actually see rather than what others say. Outstanding! :t:

Blue skies,
Ed

[Simon S]

Simon,

There are several Saratoga models listed above, and from what I gather everyone likes them. The use of BK7 glass is not as detrimental as it's made out to be, and you may be one of the few clear thinkers who base their conclusions on what they actually see rather than what others say. Outstanding! :t:

Blue skies,
Ed
Thanks for your kind comments elkcub. I have the MKII versions and although heavy and not hermetically sealed, are a treat to use. The huge field of view amazed a friend of mine with his roofs.

[MacGee]

The use of BK7 glass is not as detrimental as it's made out to be. EdZ of Cloudy Nights (http://www.cloudynights.com/ubbthreads/postlist.php/Cat/0/Board/binoculars) had this to say:

These from my notes on Roland Christen's discussion on BaK4 and BK7 glass used for prisms:

BaK4 (Barium crown) has no advantage over BK7 (Borosilicate) when used in in a situation where the incoming light beam angle is very narrow. However in wide field applications such as low power binoculars there are advantages - increasing the brightness of the edge of field while having no effect on the on-axis image. There would be no advantage to BaK4 over BK7 to any part of the image for instance in a Binoviewer because of the narrow beam angle where generally they are slow systems without wide fields.

The disadvantages of BaK4 is that it introduces more spherical aberration into the optical path than BK7. BaK4 also introduces more chromatic aberration than BK7. You may not notice this if your telescope optics are poor to begin with.

BK7 is the clearest, most defect-free optical glass available for prisms. BaK4 is close, but not quite as good. That's ok for low power applications of a typical binocular, but not for high power low contrast situations seen in telescopes. For a high powered high f# telescope, with a very narrow light beam, BK7 would be a better choice for a prism. Similar applications are found in binoviewers.

So why is BaK4 glass normally found in binoculars. It's cheaper.

edz

Michael.

[Simon S]

Now that is interesting! Thanks a lot for that Michael.

[elkcub]

It's very interesting but not entirely accurate, IMO. For one thing, I'm fairly certain that Barium Crown (BaK-4) is more expensive that commmon crown (BK7); a number of reputable books say so. Decomposing the 6-digit glass numbers, there is a small tradeoff between refractive index and absolute dispersion of the two types, but I forget how that produces more uniform illumination with BaK-4 prisms. It has something to do with the prism geometry causing more vignetting with BK7. The thing that tweeks my curiosity, though, is the presence of greater CA in the optical path with BaK-4 (about 25% in terms of absolute dispersion, I figure), and what percentage difference that might make taking into account the CA induced by the objective and eyepiece. I've yet to find a good treatise on how all the parts interact to produce the total aberrations presented to the eye. One thing's for sure, though, optical design is more complicated than might be imagined.

Blue skies,
Ed

[bosun]

I have now acquired 4 pairs of swift porroprism binoculars. The 2 Saratoga's described above, a pair of 8X42 Saratoga's from the 1990's and an old (1960's) 10x50 Swift Newport.

My experience with the Saratoga's is surprising. In my view, the oldest binoculars have the best optics!!! Colors are brighter and images are sharper. Couple this with Bill W's comments about tougher construction and "bomb proof" collimation on the older binoculars and the conclusion is clear. Buy the earliest Swift binoculars you can. You will save a huge amount of money ( my oldest ones cost the equivalent of 50 and 30 USD respectively) and you will get better glasses.

This is not based on scientific testing, but on my own experience of comparing them side by side in ordinary use.

[elkcub]

bosun,

It's wonderful that you enjoy the old ones so much. Do you use them for birding or horse racing? :eek!: :eek!:

Ed

[chartwell99]

My experience with the Saratoga's is surprising. In my view, the oldest binoculars have the best optics!!!

Very interesting observation. I have a Swift Neptune Mk I 7 x 35 and in my opinion it is noticeable sharper and crisper than any other Swift binocular I have used, including the same configuration Neptune Mk II and the next to latest model 8.5 x 44 Audubon. I wonder whether Elkcub would agree?

[bosun]

I have 2 main uses for binoculars. I love the sea and like to watch ships & boats, either from the shore or from cruise ships on which I spend many of my vacations.

I live inland on top of a hill and have a conservatory which looks out over the valley. There is a lot to see from my high vantage point. Recently, I have started to notice the birds and there seem to be many different varieties visible from here.

I've never been to a horse race, although I have been saying for many years that it might be interesting.

Incidentally, my oldest Saratogas have the square vignetting which previous posts suggest indicates cheaper BAK 7 prisms but the newer (1990's pair) has circular exit pupils suggesting that it has BAK 4 prisms. However, I still think the older ones have superior optical performance.

I think that the Newport 10x50's give the best, most detailed image but they are very heavy indeed and I would not want to carry them around all day.

[elkcub]

Well, I deleted my earlier post because I remembered having a Model 766 7x35 Holiday Mark II. It was made in 1978 by Hiyoshi Kogaku and has an enormous 600 ft. fov. It also uses BK7 glass and displays diamond shaped exit pupils. The Model 802 7x35 Neptune Mark II of that vintage is considerably lighter but with a 420 ft. fov. I take it that's Chartwell's Mark II Neptune, which probably uses BaK-4. Please confirm, and also when was it made (first two digits of serial #)?

I don't use the Holiday for anything much because it has such bad prism reflections, but it does give me a chance to compare BK7 glass with a Model 823 7x50 Commodore Mk II of the same period that has BaK-4.

More when I have an opinion ...

Blue skies,
Ed

[elkcub]

That was fun, and I learned a lot.

I compared the 7x35 (600') Holiday with the 7x50 (525') Commodore, both made in 1978 and marked fully coated optics. I also included the standard and ED versions of the 8.5x44 (430') 804 Audubon, which were made in the mid 1990s with fully multi-coated optics.

Holger Merlitz' rank order method of comparison makes the most sense to me (see .pdf file). Ratings are averaged for tied scores. The column totals should always equal 10 (i.e., 1+2+3+4) in this case, and the row totals become the final "score" for the binocular, weighting the importance of each of the seven factors equally.

I found the dead-center sharpness to be equal except for the 804ED, which is in a class of its own for this and color contrast. I define lateral sharpness as ±20 deg from center (sweet spot) within the apparent field, and here I felt that the older models were not quite as good. This judgement could be argued. Color contrast was also lower for the older models, in general, and vignetting was a super big problem for the Holiday as well as prism mirror reflections. The Commodore had very slight reflections at the lateral edges.

So, all in all, I'd pretty much favor the newer Swift binoculars, which are also ergonomically superior. The older models might get a nod for sheer bulk and durability.

With regard to the use of BK7 glass, it seems to me this was done with the Holiday to keep down lateral CA, which would be quite large over such a wide field. This was quite a success as it was minimal even at the edges. On the other hand, this came at the expense of severe vignetting, which is evident at all times and particularly when one looks at a clear sky. The edge reflections from the prism may also result from BK7, but I don't understand the geometry. I'd never buy a binocular like this for anything but my Swift collection and experimentation. Now I know what bad vignetting does to the view.

Do any of you have similar experiences with BK7 glass?

Blue skies,
Ed

[bosun]

My experience also suggests that the Saratoga MkII binoculars from 1976 are optically inferior to that from 1990 and are also not as easy to use because of their bulk. However the pair from 1970 is virtually the same size as that from 1990 and the image appears to me to be brighter with more vivid colours than either of the newer pairs, although that is only my non expert oppinion. Bill W's comments about the toughness of the earliest models seems to be another reason to prefer the older ones. All are, however extremely good and all were bought very cheaply (I'm a real cheap skate!) in comparison to brand new models. I think that the fact that all three are the same model but from different eras provides a good basis for comparison.

Audubons are probably superior but I have been looking out for a pair at the right price and they always seem to fetch much higher prices and I get outbid.

The 10x50 Swift Newport binoculars from 1967 seems to be optically better then any of the Saratogas but are too heavy for carrying around for long periods.

[elkcub]

Audubons are probably superior but I have been looking out for a pair at the right price and they always seem to fetch much higher prices and I get outbid.

The 10x50 Swift Newport binoculars from 1967 seems to be optically better then any of the Saratogas but are too heavy for carrying around for long periods.

I haven't seen many (any!) Type 4 804 Audubons on eBay of late, which is disconcerting. I wonder where they went? Of the ones you missed, how much did they go for? My impression was that an HR/5 in great condition would fetch about $200, and an 805R about $150. But that was some time ago. An 804ED can go for $350-400 in the US, but rarely shows up.

There's nothing wrong with being frugal, and I suspect that you get much more value per dollar that I do. ;)

Blue skies,
Ed

[bosun]

They come up regularly on e bay's UK site and invariably sell for $200 minimum, regardless of age.

[elkcub]

I'd appreciate if you'd let me know of any Swift "Supreme" 10x50 or 8x40 that show up beyond your price range. if I were in the UK I'd be looking for SWPA bins dated in the mid-80s. (Swift-Pyser Wide Angle) These look to be quite comparable to the Audubon of th era. They came in 9x42, 10x42, and 8x36 configurations. The 9x has a 8 deg fov = 72 deg AFOV.

Blue skies,
Ed

[bosun]

My most recent aquisition, the 8x42 Saratogas referred to above were SPWA Serial No 902841 FOV 435ft at 1000yds. They also carry the mark J-B56 and the swift blue spot. I paid £45 including postage (about $90 US).

[Simon S]

Well I think my MKII Saratoga's are still slightly sharper than the originals. They do give a cooler image although a friend bought a pair from ebay and there colour rendition in neutral?

[elkcub]

Well I think my MKII Saratoga's are still slightly sharper than the originals. They do give a cooler image although a friend bought a pair from ebay and there colour rendition in neutral?

Some perceived sharpness is due to coating improvements, I think, certainly differences in general color rendition. The original Swifts used "amber" coatings, with little else, which might account for the warmer tones. I adapt to color tone very quickly, and hardly even notice the strong yellow-green in Russian BPOs after a while.

Ed

[Simon S]

Just to finish this topic off nicely, I did some comparisons between the MKII Saratoga's and my MKII Audubon's.
In bright daylight The Audubon is slightly brighter that the Saratoga, and relays better colour fidelity. On high contrast images such as twigs and branches of trees against the sky, the Audubon is prone to some CA, where the Saratoga is completely clear of this defect.
Then I turned the test towards picking out objects deep in the depth of a tree of hedge where the light is not so good. This time the clear winner is the Audubon with much more detail seen in the gloom.
Night viewing is again clearly cut. The Saratoga,s performance is OK I suppose, but the Audubon is very good. Considering these binoculars use the same coatings, the only difference is one pair are a 8x40 and the others 8.5x44, which in my mind would have a similar amount of light transmission. The CA seen in the Audubon is no doubt caused by the BaK4 prism as is the brighter image in low light levels.
The Saratoga MK1 and MKII are great binoculars and still among my favorites.

[elkcub]

Hi Simon,

Thanks for the pictures and evaluation. After having my 804R (c. 1986) cleaned by Nicolas Crista, I'm now much more aware of how a thin layer of dust can degrade the image. Apparently, there is a tendency for the cement used in the older Swift bins to powder over time. This might be worth checking out.

Regards,
Ed

[Simon S]

Hi Simon,

Thanks for the pictures and evaluation. After having my 804R (c. 1986) cleaned by Nicolas Crista, I'm now much more aware of how a thin layer of dust can degrade the image. Apparently, there is a tendency for the cement used in the older Swift bins to powder over time. This might be worth checking out.

Regards,
Ed
Thanks for that elkcub. I strip all my binoculars down if there is a hint of dust on the prisms or lenses. The difference is amazing after a clean. It's the collimation that takes the time afterwards though.

[elkcub]

Very interesting observation. I have a Swift Neptune Mk I 7 x 35 and in my opinion it is noticeable sharper and crisper than any other Swift binocular I have used, including the same configuration Neptune Mk II and the next to latest model 8.5 x 44 Audubon. I wonder whether Elkcub would agree?

Tom,

I just acquired a mint Swift 7x35 Neptune MK II, dated 1988. Beautiful optic with fully coated lenses. Neptune models may have pre-dated the Audubons starting in the late 1950s, and there are at least three later models that I can find. But they are all MK II. Are you sure yours is MK I, and what date is it? (First two digits of s/n.)

Regards,
Ed

[chartwell99]

Tom,

I just acquired a mint Swift 7x35 Neptune MK II, dated 1988. Beautiful optic with fully coated lenses. Neptune models may have pre-dated the Audubons starting in the late 1950s, and there are at least three later models that I can find. But they are all MK II. Are you sure yours is MK I, and what date is it? (First two digits of s/n.)

Regards,
Ed

You're right, by gum - mine is also a Mark II although it is quite different from the late 80's grey gutta percha model Mark II I sold some years ago. This one - Serial No. 27**** - is designated Model 802 (a model number which probably remained unchanged) black gutta percha, marked "Coated Optics Feather Weight" and is the Bausch & Lomb Zephyr B & L only dreamed of making. Prisms are BAK4 and eyecups and diopter markings are a shameless copy of the best of the B & L Rochester production. I bought mine from John Cota and I still marvel at why he sold it - stunningly sharp and a reminder of just how nice the once standard 7 x 35's can truly be.

[elkcub]

You're right, by gum - mine is also a Mark II although it is quite different from the late 80's grey gutta percha model Mark II I sold some years ago. This one - Serial No. 27**** - is designated Model 802 (a model number which probably remained unchanged) black gutta percha, marked "Coated Optics Feather Weight" and is the Bausch & Lomb Zephyr B & L only dreamed of making. Prisms are BAK4 and eyecups and diopter markings are a shameless copy of the best of the B & L Rochester production. I bought mine from John Cota and I still marvel at why he sold it - stunningly sharp and a reminder of just how nice the once standard 7 x 35's can truly be.

Nice hearing from you. I got interested in the Neptune models after finding the attached Swift brochure from 1958. An Audubon is not on the cover, but rather a Model 802 Neptune. Does it look like yours? I believe it was made by Tamron, but they were not conveniently dated like the subsequent Hiyoshi Kogaku models.. In 1965 and 1968 two additional 802 models appeared, also by Tamron, but I have no indication of gutta percha being used. The 1965 model is quite beautiful, and made for attachment to cameras. Is this the one you own? Lucky fellow if it is.

My 1988 Neptune 802 is marvelous. It's almost a scaled down miniature of the Type 2 Audubon, and works beautifully.

Regards,
Ed

[chartwell99]

Nice hearing from you. I got interested in the Neptune models after finding the attached Swift brochure from 1958. An Audubon is not on the cover, but rather a Model 802 Neptune. Does it look like yours? I believe it was made by Tamron, but they were not conveniently dated like the subsequent Hiyoshi Kogaku models.. In 1965 and 1968 two additional 802 models appeared, also by Tamron, but I have no indication of gutta percha being used. The 1965 model is quite beautiful, and made for attachment to cameras. Is this the one you own? Lucky fellow if it is.

My 1988 Neptune 802 is marvelous. It's almost a scaled down miniature of the Type 2 Audubon, and works beautifully.

Regards,
Ed

Ed,

Thanks for posting the Neptune photo and description. Fascinating. I suspect my Neptune is an even earlier model. Mine has none of the brightwork on the focusing wheel, eyecups or objective rings, and has a smaller field of view (394 at 1000 yards as I recall). Physically, it is indistinguishable in appearance from a 1947 Bausch & Lomb 7 x 35 Zephyr, although noticeably lighter. My later model Neptune which I concluded was redundant and reluctantly sold, and likely dated from the early 80's, also avoided any of the brightwork shown in your photo, but retained the wider field of view. The faux leather covering was grey and described in a Swift brochure of the period as a hardwearing thermoplastic. It lacked the high quality feel and appearance of the earlier version (i.e., more plastic and simpler bridge) but was also amazingly sharp and satisfying. It's a shame the Neptune, unlike the Audubon, is no longer made. Nice to hear from you, too, BTW.

[Simon S]

My latest addition is a pair of Swift Supeme's in great condition. A flea bay buy it now for £35! Jumped at the chance.
They are almost the same as the Audobon but 10x50 with Bak4 prisms and the gold band. They will be compared with my Bushnell 10x50 Customs this weekend to see which is the better optically.

[elkcub]

My latest addition is a pair of Swift Supeme's in great condition. A flea bay buy it now for £35! Jumped at the chance.
They are almost the same as the Audobon but 10x50 with Bak4 prisms and the gold band. They will be compared with my Bushnell 10x50 Customs this weekend to see which is the better optically.

Simon,

I almost missed this post. They are quite a buy at £35! Often the best ones are buy-it-now. I'm sure we'll be hearing more soon.

Didn't you buy another Supreme some months ago for a low price?

Ed

[Simon S]

Simon,

I almost missed this post. They are quite a buy at £35! Often the best ones are buy-it-now. I'm sure we'll be hearing more soon.

Didn't you buy another Supreme some months ago for a low price?

Ed
Yes sorry it was the same one. I thought I put a post on this forum 3:-)

[elkcub]

Yes sorry it was the same one. I thought I put a post on this forum 3:-)

Well, I'm not going daft quite yet. One reason I value collecting and refurbishing older Swift products, Audubons in particular, is that they provide a comparative basis for optical technology development over the last half of the 20th Century. It's really nice, for example, to have a way to compare binoculars with similar designs, or the same design with different degrees of coating. Our recent "discovery" of Audubons dating back to the early 1950s is an eye-opener. I'm coming to see that some of the later designs compromised the original quality and beauty of the product. It's similar to what many say about Leitz/Leica's Trinovid series.

I've also become interested in the development of binocular eyecups. Again, the Swift product line reveals how much of a struggle it must have been, going from fixed, to removable, to threaded metal, to rubber, and finally twist up, and then locking. Fascinating evolution!

Ed

[Simon S]

I am looking for info on the Swift Neptune 7x50 MK1. Anyone know this model?

[orbitaljump]

I think I have them here in more Parkers catalog. Ill get back to you.

[elkcub]

The only information I have is for a Model 802 7x35 Neptune. It's an outstanding small and handy instrument. I own one in mint condition made in 1988. It's like a miniature Audubon. (Note that 7/8.5 = .82, and .82 * 44 = 36.2, so the proportions are pretty close.)

Are you sure there is a 7x50 Neptune Mk I? Do you have a picture or s/n? None of my catalogs show it, — but they are incomplete.

Ed

[Simon S]

See here Elkcub!
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&item=160301967105

[elkcub]

Ok. It's a Swift-Pyser offering with a body similar to (but not the same as) Type 3 Audubons from SP. The red ribbon is a tip-off. Not distributed in the US. Most likely it was made by Hiyoshi Kogaku in the mid 1970s. The sequel may have been the 7x50 Red Label "Skipper," that has a Type 4 body and similar FOV.

Note that the FOV is only 376', which makes for a rather narrow 50 deg. apparent field, vs. the 68 deg. apparent field of an Audubon. It probably doesn't use a 5-element eyepiece for this reason. One thing to consider is that a "tunnel effect" is somewhat more pronounced with a narrow field Porro than a wide one. I assume it's fully coated, but too early for multicoating. It probably also has considerable heft.

My experience is that sellers usually don't realize the need for cleaning, and may even state it's "clean as a whistle" with pure sincerity. Proper (professional) cleaning, alignment, and collimation, however, can often make a dull instrument into a gem.

Good luck,
Ed

[orbitaljump]

All Im showing is a 7x35 Neptune Mark II.

[elkcub]

All Im showing is a 7x35 Neptune Mark II.

Correct. That's the US model that was called a "Neptune." (There are at least two.) Swift-Pyser imported and distributed somewhat different models in the UK and Europe, one of which was the 7x50 Neptune Mk I. I don't think we got any on this side of the big pond.

Ed

[orbitaljump]

Yeah, Im not up on the European models.

The one Im showing is in a 1969 catalog.

[elkcub]

It's all somewhat confusing. Except for the Audubon, the European and American lineups were not exactly the same. In fact, even with the Audubons, Type 2 was distributed in North America, and Type 3 was distributed in Europe. The optics were the same but the focus knob location was different. In addition, the manufacturer, Hiyoshi Kogaku, made binoculars for other companies that looked very similar. I have an 8x40 Linet Fieldmaster, for example, with 12 deg. FOV that looks just like a Type 2 Swift. That's a extra-wide-angle apparent field of 8 * 12 = 96 deg., — and it has big Bak4 prisms.

Ed

[Simon S]

Thanks very much for the information everyone Elkcub, I think I will give them a miss as they look the same as my Swift Ranger's and they too are narrow and fairly poor performance.

[ADE30867]

Hi there,

I own a pair of Swift Saratoga (Mk1) 8x40 binoculars - Model No.801 No.4-6810525

Is it possible to accurately date these? Late 60's I'd imagine.

Any further info gratefully appreciated.

Adrian

[elkcub]

Hi Adrian,

Your Saratoga was made in 1968, as indicated by the first two digits of the s/n. The 1969 Swift catalog says it has a FOV=393', close focus of 25', and weighs 24.7 oz. It was marketed for $63.95 (vs. $132 for the Audubon). That would be $370.28 today, which isn't too shabby.

Hope that helps,
Ed

[ADE30867]

Hi Elkcub,

Thanks for the fast reply and the information, was interesting to read.

Adrian