[Marc Callaghan]

Folks,

I've been offered a new set of Pentax DCF SF 8x43 binoculars as what seems a very cheap price. Unfortunately the codes and letters are alien to me so can't really tell how well these would compare to say Minox HG BR 8x43s, Meopta Meostars, etc.

Has anyone owned or used these binoculars and can offer an honest opinion?

Thanks

[Tero]

Not this?
http://www.optics4birding.com/dcfsp-...lars-1465.html

it is similar to a Monarch 8x42. FOV etc. Right now the Monarch would be very cheap here. The build is good on the SP series.

[trekrem]

Originally Posted by Marc Callaghan

Folks,

I've been offered a new set of Pentax DCF SF 8x43 binoculars as what seems a very cheap price. Unfortunately the codes and letters are alien to me so can't really tell how well these would compare to say Minox HG BR 8x43s, Meopta Meostars, etc.

Has anyone owned or used these binoculars and can offer an honest opinion?

Thanks

I have a pair of Pentax DCF SP 8x32 and a pair of Pentax DCF ED 8x43... The specs are the same for the DCF SP 8x43 as the DCF ED 8x43 apart from a tiny bit more weight for the DCF ED, more brightness for the DCF ED and a tiny bit more CA for the DCF SP (and I mean TINY BIT MORE for both!).

The only real negative (which I don't find bothers me at all) is the relatively narrow FOV (although the image is very good even close to the edge of the entire FOV). The 8x43s have a nice long eye relief of 22mm. Here is a link to Allbinos.com comparison of the Pentax DCF SP 8x43 and the Minox HG 8x43 BR MIG.

http://www.allbinos.com/porownaj.php...=675&add1=1211

And just in case it is of use to anyone else, the only negative complaints I have for the Pentax DCF SP 8x32 is the excessive rolling ball effect when panning and the objective covers can be a slight pain to put on. The DCF SP/ED 8x43 have neither of these issues!

[lilcrazy2]

I have the Pentax 8x32 SP's and have never noticed rolling ball. They have enough pincushion to eliminate it in my eyes. I would agree with the very tiny bit of CA though.

Tom

[trekrem]

I did say excessive, but thinking about it now it's only excessive when compared to the 8x43. (In my eyes at least).

[trekrem]

Wow, I appologize, I just rechecked my 8x32s, there is no rolling ball, for me there is excessive pincushion though. (Serves me right for relying on my memory!)

[brocknroller]

Originally Posted by trekrem

....

And just in case it is of use to anyone else, the only negative complaints I have for the Pentax DCF SP 8x32 is the excessive rolling ball effect when panning and the objective covers can be a slight pain to put on. The DCF SP/ED 8x43 have neither of these issues!

Trekkie,

"Rolling Ball"! Did someone say "ROLLING BALL"??? If there's one thing the world could do with less of, besides politicians, it's "rolling ball"! :-)

The effect of excessive pincushion is very similar except the image rolls over a negatively curved surface (hence my terminology - "rolling bowl"). So I can understand how you became dyslexic with the terms.

Brock Pinochet, Société pour la prévention de la boule de roulement et de la cuvette de roulement

[ceasar]

Originally Posted by brocknroller

Trekkie,

"Rolling Ball"! Did someone say "ROLLING BALL"??? If there's one thing the world could do with less of, besides politicians, it's "rolling ball"! :-)

The effect of excessive pincushion is very similar except the image rolls over a negatively curved surface (hence my terminology - "rolling bowl"). So I can understand how you became dyslexic with the terms.

Brock Pinochet, Société pour la prévention de la boule de roulement et de la cuvette de roulement

Some people can eventually escape it's effects. But others are doomed forever.

http://www.imdb.com/media/rm2224131328/tt0082971

Bob

[brocknroller]

Originally Posted by ceasar

Some people can eventually escape it's effects. But others are doomed forever.

http://www.imdb.com/media/rm2224131328/tt0082971

Bob

That's pretty much how I felt the first time I looked through an 10x42 Nikon LX. It was a bit scary. Wherever I looked the "rolling ball" followed me. Ahhhhhhhhh!

If not for that, I would have gotten another unit (first unit had uneven coatings- one side was missing a layer or two of coatings), and the LXL, while lighter, wasn't as good optically, IMO. Not that it mattered, it had the same level of "rolling ball".

What I'm hinting at is now that Swaro has introduced a mid-tier roof (CL), Zeiss has updated its mid-tier Conquest with HD glass (and improved it in other ways, according to what I've read so far), and even one-trick pony Leica has introduced a new line of mid-tier Trinnies, isn't it time for Nikon to update the old LX/HG/L/Premier (a bin by any other name would "roll" as steep).

I'll start another thread on the Nikon forum so this doesn't get buried here since I think it merits discussion.

Brock