[John Dracon]

Frank- that 7x50 Bushnell looks like one imported in the 1950s/ The feather light and custom Bushnells are IMO better glasses. The Rangemaster is a wonderful wide field binocular, but it is all metal and glass. Heads up on the one currently on Ebay. Someone has relocated the strap attachments on the shelves. That alternation will lower its collector value, but the optics could be OK. I have a very early Rangemaster (IF) model, but one of the oculars is cracked. The good half will make a wonderful monocular. All the rest (objective and prisms are perfect)

Giorgio - Opticron makes a quality water proof porro. I saw a new 10x42 Leupold Cascade (Opticron clone) in a Montana sporting goods store for $180. Very good price, and Leupold gives life time guarantee to original purchaser.

John

[Giorgio]

Thanks John.
In one of my previous posts of this thread i evocated the eventuality of Opticron porri as quality porri. However their fov is always narrow, which is something i cannot really accept for quality materials above 250€.
It makes me feel as watching through a tunnel, and reminds me of a Pentax a tried. Which is a shame because the optics were pretty good for the price, around 180€.
Same goes for Opticron, great optics but the fov is not my kind.

[FrankD]

Originally Posted by John Dracon

Frank- that 7x50 Bushnell looks like one imported in the 1950s/ The feather light and custom Bushnells are IMO better glasses. The Rangemaster is a wonderful wide field binocular, but it is all metal and glass. Heads up on the one currently on Ebay. Someone has relocated the strap attachments on the shelves. That alternation will lower its collector value, but the optics could be OK. I have a very early Rangemaster (IF) model, but one of the oculars is cracked. The good half will make a wonderful monocular. All the rest (objective and prisms are perfect)

John,

Thank you for the information. One of these days I will get my hands on one of the Bushnell models you referenced. I have to admit though that I am satisfied with the optical performance of the IF 7x50. Maybe it is simply that it is a 7x50 instead of a 7x35 but I find the optical experience that it provides quite enjoyable. Relatively flat field, excellent brightness and apparent sharpness. Good sized sweet spot. Yes, the field of view is fairly narrow for a 7x in general but it isn't bothering me as much as I expected.

Still, I will see what I can do about one of those Featherlights or Customs.

Thanks again for shedding more light on the subject.

[John Dracon]

Giorgio - The somewhat narrow FOV of the Opticron bothers many people. It was the first thing I noticed when I looked through that model. Am curious why the designers didn't get a different eyepiece such as the Nikon SE 8x32. Am assuming that would drive the cost of manufacturing up too much. If Nikon upgraded the SE line to have sliding eye cups and be waterproof, it would even be better.

I have a theory (really just speculation) that the emerging female purchasing power worldwide and that the ladies have smaller hands are among the variables driving the dominance of the roofs today. In my experience, when woman are given choices of many binoculars to select from, they generally choose smaller models and roofs.

The following statement may bruise our fragile male egos, but women on the average have superior hand dexterity to men. They recognize unnecessary bulk.

John

[looksharp65]

The Nikon Tropicals arrived today and I've spent some time with cleaning it thoroughly.
Dunno whether it's deposits from diesel exhaust gas, cigarette tar or whale lard but it doesn't smell like any of it (happily).

Due to illness I'm not in the mood to assess it from an optical point of view. However, they're perfectly collimated and sharp. The AFOV is conservative, as expected from such a relic from a long gone era. It has some curvature of field but focuses to very good sharpness along the edges. But I will need to put in my contact lenses to be perfectly sure that my own astigmatism doesn't have impact on the image sharpness.

Surprisingly, the focus seems to be very critical. Surprisingly, because it should have a great depth of field. In the last minutes of dusk, before darkness was complete, they were apparently brighter than my Vortex Fury 6.5x32.
I know my pupils dilate to about 6 millimeters.

The lenses have no scratches and the color of the reflection from the ocular lenses is similar to that of the Jenoptem MCs. The objective's reflection is bluish.
They come with the original case which is in extremely good condition. The horrid hard eyecups are there, as are the winged rubber eyeshields. These are like new without any sign of desiccation of the rubber. The objective lens caps are there, but no rainguard.
The very thin strap is original, alive and well.

Aside from occasional owling excursions, I doubt I will use these for birding. They were made in the times when "men were men", so to speak. The optics seem to hold few compromises AFAICT but the IF , narrow FOV and excessive weight don't appeal.
This, however, was expected and I may not rush to part with them.

//L

[Hermann]

Originally Posted by looksharp65

The Nikon Tropicals arrived today and I've spent some time with cleaning it thoroughly. <snip>
Due to illness I'm not in the mood to assess it from an optical point of view. However, they're perfectly collimated and sharp. The AFOV is conservative, as expected from such a relic from a long gone era. It has some curvature of field but focuses to very good sharpness along the edges.

I'm more into the West German Zeiss porros (8x30, 8x30B, 8x50B and 10x50) myself, but the Nikon Tropicals are very nice binoculars. It's the one Japanese vintage porro I find fascinating, even though I full well know that a modern 7x50 porro like the Zeiss or the Hensoldt is somewhat better optically.

Hermann

[steve@37n84w]

Originally Posted by Hermann

I'm more into the West German Zeiss porros (8x30, 8x30B, 8x50B and 10x50) myself, but the Nikon Tropicals are very nice binoculars. It's the one Japanese vintage porro I find fascinating, even though I full well know that a modern 7x50 porro like the Zeiss or the Hensoldt is somewhat better optically.

Hermann

I've got three pairs of Zeiss and consider them great binos but didn't find the view in the 7x 50 Zeiss better than a Nikon Tropical. I've looked through a Zeiss 7x50GA T* recently and to my eye the 7x50 Nikon Tropical series is just as good optically.

I've found the Fujinon 7x50 FMTR SX and the Nikon 7x50 SP (Prostar) to actually be noticeably better optically than the Zeiss. The Nikon IF SP series and the Fujinon FMT/FMTR SX series are also vastly better for really wet conditions....big difference between splashproof/water resistant and being truly waterproof.

Steve

[looksharp65]

Nikon Tropical update:
Apparent sharpness: Very good - detail rendition is awesome.
3D-representation: Not as vivid as I expected. Could this be because of the conservative FOV?
Distortion: Mild pincushion distortion.
Sweet spot: Minimum 85%, the remaining part can mostly be refocused to full sharpness.
Streetlamp test: Faint tendencies of ghosting and when doing a vertical pan a faint, flat glare moves over the image (appears within less than a 5 degree pan. Looking at the full Moon I can see the blue reflection from the objective's lenses in the middle of the image, but no flare or ghosting from bright objects outside the FOV, as far as I can see)
Color representation: Decidedly warm. First I thought it was similar to the Zeiss Classic 10x40 but when doing a second look, I find it to be slightly more yellow.
Note - when switching to the Fury 6.5x it appears almost bluish, although considered to be slightly warm. In reality, it is extremely close to neutral.
CA: Virtually absent (less than the Fury and similar to the Zeiss FL)
Apparent magnification: Having no other 7x to compare with, I tried against the Fury 6.5x and the Papilio 6.5x. Despite the roof magnification illusion, the magnification is visibly larger than both, and I would not be surprised if it were around 7.2 to 7.4x.
Note: the comparison with the Papilio precludes the possible effect of FOV on perceived magnification, since it has the same FOV as the Nikon, or very near.

The view is quite easy thanks to the large exit pupils. Once you get inside the ER, it's possible to get closer and/or move around the bin without blackouts.
This binocular definitely requires that I use spectacles or contact lenses to achieve full sharpness. Probably due to the large exit pupils.
My Excursion 8x28 doesn't even seem to need any diopter adjustment.

[steve@37n84w]

Originally Posted by looksharp65

Nikon Tropical update:
Apparent sharpness: Very good - detail rendition is awesome.
3D-representation: Not as vivid as I expected. Could this be because of the conservative FOV?
Distortion: Mild pincushion distortion.
Sweet spot: Minimum 85%, the remaining part can mostly be refocused to full sharpness.
Streetlamp test: Faint tendencies of ghosting and when doing a vertical pan a faint, flat glare moves over the image (appears within less than a 5 degree pan. Looking at the full Moon I can see the blue reflection from the objective's lenses in the middle of the image, but no flare or ghosting from bright objects outside the FOV, as far as I can see)
Color representation: Decidedly warm. First I thought it was similar to the Zeiss Classic 10x40 but when doing a second look, I find it to be slightly more yellow.
Note - when switching to the Fury 6.5x it appears almost bluish, although considered to be slightly warm. In reality, it is extremely close to neutral.
CA: Virtually absent (less than the Fury and similar to the Zeiss FL)
Apparent magnification: Having no other 7x to compare with, I tried against the Fury 6.5x and the Papilio 6.5x. Despite the roof magnification illusion, the magnification is visibly larger than both, and I would not be surprised if it were around 7.2 to 7.4x.
Note: the comparison with the Papilio precludes the possible effect of FOV on perceived magnification, since it has the same FOV as the Nikon, or very near.

The view is quite easy thanks to the large exit pupils. Once you get inside the ER, it's possible to get closer and/or move around the bin without blackouts.
This binocular definitely requires that I use spectacles or contact lenses to achieve full sharpness. Probably due to the large exit pupils.
My Excursion 8x28 doesn't even seem to need any diopter adjustment.

I had a Tropical a few years ago and like you I was very impressed with it on axis sharpness and its performance out to about 85%+ in the fov.

I agree with you about the lack of the 3D effect with narrow fov porros. Like most people I think porro prisms have an inherent advantage in mimicking a 3D image IF the porro vrs roof are comparable (same magnification and fov). If the roof has larger fov it seems to me it overcomes the porros inherent advantage. As an example I get more sense of a 3D view in my 7x42 EDG than my 7x50 Prostar due to the EDG's larger fov.

Of course I get the greatest sense of a 3D view in a wide field porro, nothing quite like it.

Steve

[FrankD]

Of course I get the greatest sense of a 3D view in a wide field porro, nothing quite like it.

I have to agree with that one. Nothing quite like it. I just received a different EWA Wards model and it displays this to a very good effect.

[brocknroller]

Originally Posted by looksharp65

The Nikon Tropicals arrived today and I've spent some time with cleaning it thoroughly.
Dunno whether it's deposits from diesel exhaust gas, cigarette tar or whale lard but it doesn't smell like any of it (happily).

Due to illness I'm not in the mood to assess it from an optical point of view. However, they're perfectly collimated and sharp. The AFOV is conservative, as expected from such a relic from a long gone era. It has some curvature of field but focuses to very good sharpness along the edges. But I will need to put in my contact lenses to be perfectly sure that my own astigmatism doesn't have impact on the image sharpness.

Surprisingly, the focus seems to be very critical. Surprisingly, because it should have a great depth of field. In the last minutes of dusk, before darkness was complete, they were apparently brighter than my Vortex Fury 6.5x32.
I know my pupils dilate to about 6 millimeters.

The lenses have no scratches and the color of the reflection from the ocular lenses is similar to that of the Jenoptem MCs. The objective's reflection is bluish.
They come with the original case which is in extremely good condition. The horrid hard eyecups are there, as are the winged rubber eyeshields. These are like new without any sign of desiccation of the rubber. The objective lens caps are there, but no rainguard.
The very thin strap is original, alive and well.

Aside from occasional owling excursions, I doubt I will use these for birding. They were made in the times when "men were men", so to speak. The optics seem to hold few compromises AFAICT but the IF , narrow FOV and excessive weight don't appeal.
This, however, was expected and I may not rush to part with them.

//L

"The AFOV is conservative, as expected from such a relic from a long gone era."

Somethings never change, and one of them is the "conservative AFOV" of 7x50 binoculars. Prostars are the same and so is the Zeiss 7x50 B/GA. The former will cost you an arm, and the latter, an arm and a leg.

Other than the Miyauchi Binon, which is no longer made, I can't think of any quality modern 7x50 that has a WF. To me, that's their "Achilles Heel".

The other thing, of course, as you get older, most people can't utilize a 7mm exit pupil, so if your entrance pupils are 5mm, you end up with a very heavy pair of 7x35 binoculars. Many 7x35s have wide FsOV. In your case, the Tropicals would act as 7x42s, and there are a number of 7x42 roofs that have wider FsOV.

So to me, the 7x50 is the odd duckling outside of water. Used on a boat, it still makes sense no matter your age, because of the eye wiggle room it allows due to its large exit pupils. With a smaller exit pupil bin, you might get image blackouts as you ride swells or go through choppy water because of being moved around.

Except for lesser coatings and the lack of field flatteners, the Tropicals are otherwise supposed to be very close in quality, according to Bill Cook, formerly chief optical man at Captain's Nautical in Seattle, who occasionally posts on these forums.

It is strange that the focus is critical. That you expect on an 8x32 roof, not on a 7x50 porro. Something to check out more when you're feeling better.

Now that you own a manly man's bin, you add the title "Macho Man" above your avatar. :-)

I do like the looks of this rubber armored Tropical.

Brock

[looksharp65]

Caught the flu and am not over-performing. Anyway, you see that I made a decent optical assessment of them a few posts later.

The reason the focus was critical is that I hadn't tried them with contacts or spectacles.
Having a moderate astigmatism like me, their huge exit pupil doesn't allow for any optical compromise. This is accentuated by my current health status where most of my body disobeys the commands I give it.

Now, when I remove the torturous rigid eyecups it's easy to use spectacles, but they rest against a hard metal surface. With them I can better appreciate the fabulous sharpness of these binoculars.

In spite of the canonic dogma that light is wasted if the exit pupil is larger than the observer's, my eyes say something else.
It seems the large EP acts to reduce contrast between shadowed areas and highlights.
The aggregated brightness during daylight hours is similar to my 6.5x32, but the shadowed areas are definitely better illuminated.
The 10x32 FL seems even brighter but falls behind when looking into shadowed areas.

There is one possibility, namely that the warm color bias is helpful in the situation I describe, but I wouldn't bet on that.

//L

Re the rubber clothing - perhaps one could try liquid latex to achieve something similar. Maybe it could be found in the red light district?
Jokes aside, sweet pics.

[steve@37n84w]

Originally Posted by FrankD

I have to agree with that one. Nothing quite like it. I just received a different EWA Wards model and it displays this to a very good effect.

Frank

I picked up two more porros yesterday, a Pentax ZCF 8x30 7.5* and a Nikon Gold Sentinel 7x35 9.3*. I've acquired about a dozen of the older Nikon porros over the last couple of years and continue to be impressed with their optical performance. To date the real standout has been a Nikon J. Pat. 9x35 7.3*, easily as sharp as my SE's and EII's.

Of my EWA's the best optical performer so far is a Wards 7x35 11.5* (JB #191).

Steve

[steve@37n84w]

Brock

Three more "manly man" bino contenders. If weight and bulk are important specs in the manly man bino category the contender on the left will be hard to beat.

Steve

[FrankD]

Steve,

I just received a few binos yesterday myself. Three were a "package deal". The one I wanted out of the group was the one in the worst condition with a fractured prism. I am going to have to completely tear it apart and see if it is in some way salvagable. The other two are actually better performers than I expected but they will also likely need a complete overhaul.

The last bin was one I wanted to try for some time after owning the Nikon 7x35 WF and Gold Sentinels......the Nikon 7x50 configuration in the same series as the 7x35 WF. It isn't truly a contender with those 7x50s you posted above Steve but it is still a larger than average binocular so I am sure it would fit into the manly man club. I will reserve further comments until I have had more time to use it. Still, I had a great deal of fun at twilight last night watching Snow Geese fly over the full moon and down into the pond next to my house.

[steve@37n84w]

Frank

My two latest acquisitions are on the left and the other pic is of the two center focus 7x50's (Canon and Nikon) I've been comparing with each other and with some of my IF 7x50's. I've got about a dozen of the earlier CF Nikon porros and seven of the vintage CF Canons. The mechanical build and view provided is great on both series but I'd have to say I prefer the view in the Nikons just because of the excellent coatings Nikon applied to their lenses.

I find the Canons to be just as sharp as the Nikons (and probably even more rugged) but the Nikons have that "pop" in the image that stands out from other manufacturers. When I compare "apples to apples", i.e. vintage porros manufactured at approximately the same date, it seems like Nikon is always a step ahead of the others when it comes to the quality of their coatings.


Hate to hear about the fractured prism in one of your new batch of binoculars. May be able to help since I've acquired several "parts" binoculars, let me know what you need.


Steve

[FrankD]

Steve,

Those are some great models. I am jealous.

I had one of them, the Gold Sentinel, but recently parted with it because of financial reasons. The Pentax looks very interesting. I will have to keep an eye out for one in the future. It looks fairly modern compared to some of the Pentax porros I have seen come up recently.

7x50s have become a bit more of my focus recently after having acquired many in a variety of body styles and specifications. I actually had a bid in for a similar Canon model in recent weeks but, sadly, did not win the auction.

My focus now is more on the lesser known brands. As I was with roofs I tend to look for more of the unknowns as I like to be surprised by the quality I end up with. Will post some more recent acquisition pics as time allows.

...and will let you know about your offer. The model in question is a Sears bin that I have not seen listed previously. I have a several "part bins" that may work but if they don't then I will get in touch.

[Giorgio]

Originally Posted by steve@37n84w

Frank

My two latest acquisitions are on the left and the other pic is of the two center focus 7x50's (Canon and Nikon) I've been comparing with each other and with some of my IF 7x50's. I've got about a dozen of the earlier CF Nikon porros and seven of the vintage CF Canons. The mechanical build and view provided is great on both series but I'd have to say I prefer the view in the Nikons just because of the excellent coatings Nikon applied to their lenses.

I find the Canons to be just as sharp as the Nikons (and probably even more rugged) but the Nikons have that "pop" in the image that stands out from other manufacturers. When I compare "apples to apples", i.e. vintage porros manufactured at approximately the same date, it seems like Nikon is always a step ahead of the others when it comes to the quality of their coatings.


Hate to hear about the fractured prism in one of your new batch of binoculars. May be able to help since I've acquired several "parts" binoculars, let me know what you need.


Steve

Ah, how nice porros they seem to be...
I think i was not even born when they made these binoculars, period where the boxes were poor and the binocs extra, which is today the exact opposite.

[steve@37n84w]

Originally Posted by Giorgio

Ah, how nice porros they seem to be...
I think i was not even born when they made these binoculars, period where the boxes were poor and the binocs extra, which is today the exact opposite.

And the binoculars and boxes were made in the same country. Even some of the premium Nikon binoculars still made in Japan come in boxes made/printed in China. Nothing is as simple as it used to be.

Steve