orbitaljump
Well-known member
Ill take a nice vintage binocular over a Nikon Action anyday.
-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Are 1960s & 70s glasses worth the money? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Talisker
- Start date
FrankD
Well-known member
So if I was in the market to pick up an older style porro with good to excellent optics (low-mid priced) then which models should I be keeping an eye out for. I see the B and L Zephyr get mentioned repeatedly and I remember John Dracon mentioning Bushnell Ultralites? but what others would be worth investing in?
Steve C
Well-known member
John also mentioned Canon porros. I bagged an apparently cherry Canon 7x35 for less than $50.00. I should have it by early next week.
You see Zeiss Deltrintem and Jenoptem for $100-150 pretty regularly. I might have to spend some curiosity there too.
Swift has a fair number of older binoculars that are usually pretty decent. Swift also was a master at very wide field binoculars
I smell a new thread here: Vintage binoculars, what is good?
orbitaljump
Well-known member
Ill share some advice, though I hate to drive the prices up. 
Tommorrow.
Tommorrow.
orbitaljump
Well-known member
Ive spent a lot of time and money acquiring a knowledge of especially the second hand vintage Japanese binocular market.
I might not have time to post some suggestions for a couple of days. Till then.
I might not have time to post some suggestions for a couple of days. Till then.
elkcub
Silicon Valley, California
Most of this discussion seems oriented to older binoculars that are still bird worthy today. In this respect, I would strongly agree with Chartwell99 (post #20) that modern coatings make a huge difference in worthiness.
I have a fairly large collection of Swift Audubons (and related models) that have all been reconditioned by Nicolas Crista to perform optimally. Combining the 804 and 820 series, they essentially retained the same basic optical design for 50+ years, but with evolutionary changes being made in materials, mechanics, adjustments, ergonomics, baffling, and lens coatings. Rate these changes in reverse order in terms of importance.
One of the most beautiful to look at and hold is the original (Type-0) made by Tamron for Swift-Anderson between 1957-1959. A real collector's item. They are quite rare at this point, much more rare, for example, than the 8x30 Nippon Kogaku, of the same vintage, that I also own. I believe they compare well with the large Zeiss porros of that era, but to be honest the N-Ks retain more usefulness. So, assuming you could find an early Audubon in excellent condition, I wouldn't recommend buying it for day-to-day birding. Decidedly not! They are too large, heavy, and cumbersome; too much lacking in contrast; too much flare; minimal eye relief, etc. By modern standards, the small body types with multi-coatings (e.g., the 804R, HR/5, 804ED, and 820) would be much more satisfactory in the field. These didn't show up until the mid-1980s. However, they are still comparable to the best modern porros, and even expensive roofs.
(I hasten to mention that if one already owns an older model, or inherited one from a relative, it certainly would be worth a modest investment to bring it back to its original performance level. Otherwise, my advise is to leave the really old guys for the collectors.)
Now the beautiful Nippon Kogaku 8x30 "Mikron," the predecessor of the Nikon A, E, E2, and SE, is an interesting case. IMO it is definitely bird worthy even today (if reconditioned), — and that is probably also true for the 6x30, 7x35 and 9x35 Mikrons. Comparing the 1958 (?) specimen I own to the 1958 Swift Type-0b, although both are fully coated, the Nikon walks away with the prize for glare suppression, baffling, and general handiness. In fact, armed with nothing other than a 8x30 Mikron one could probably become a world class birder. Oh, yes, it's not as bright, colorful, or flat a view as an 8x32SE, but it's no slouch either.
Hopefully, I haven't offended anyone's sensibilities. In conclusion, though, some of the older models are worth buying and reconditioning. Many others might be quite disappointing.
Ed
I have a fairly large collection of Swift Audubons (and related models) that have all been reconditioned by Nicolas Crista to perform optimally. Combining the 804 and 820 series, they essentially retained the same basic optical design for 50+ years, but with evolutionary changes being made in materials, mechanics, adjustments, ergonomics, baffling, and lens coatings. Rate these changes in reverse order in terms of importance.
One of the most beautiful to look at and hold is the original (Type-0) made by Tamron for Swift-Anderson between 1957-1959. A real collector's item. They are quite rare at this point, much more rare, for example, than the 8x30 Nippon Kogaku, of the same vintage, that I also own. I believe they compare well with the large Zeiss porros of that era, but to be honest the N-Ks retain more usefulness. So, assuming you could find an early Audubon in excellent condition, I wouldn't recommend buying it for day-to-day birding. Decidedly not! They are too large, heavy, and cumbersome; too much lacking in contrast; too much flare; minimal eye relief, etc. By modern standards, the small body types with multi-coatings (e.g., the 804R, HR/5, 804ED, and 820) would be much more satisfactory in the field. These didn't show up until the mid-1980s. However, they are still comparable to the best modern porros, and even expensive roofs.
(I hasten to mention that if one already owns an older model, or inherited one from a relative, it certainly would be worth a modest investment to bring it back to its original performance level. Otherwise, my advise is to leave the really old guys for the collectors.)
Now the beautiful Nippon Kogaku 8x30 "Mikron," the predecessor of the Nikon A, E, E2, and SE, is an interesting case. IMO it is definitely bird worthy even today (if reconditioned), — and that is probably also true for the 6x30, 7x35 and 9x35 Mikrons. Comparing the 1958 (?) specimen I own to the 1958 Swift Type-0b, although both are fully coated, the Nikon walks away with the prize for glare suppression, baffling, and general handiness. In fact, armed with nothing other than a 8x30 Mikron one could probably become a world class birder. Oh, yes, it's not as bright, colorful, or flat a view as an 8x32SE, but it's no slouch either.
Hopefully, I haven't offended anyone's sensibilities. In conclusion, though, some of the older models are worth buying and reconditioning. Many others might be quite disappointing.
Ed
Last edited:
chartwell99
Well-known member
elkcub;1465 In conclusion said:
Ed, as usual, is spot on. In that vein, I can't resist noting two of my oldies that amaze even with old timey mgl coatings. The oldest (I think) is a 1950's Zuiho 6 x 30 individual focus that superficially appears to be a Zeiss Silvamar wannabe. Optical performance for the Zuiho, however, is simply astounding by any standard, especially compared with the Zeiss Silvamar. The binocular is bright (as you would expect from a 6 x 30) but the flat field and totally sharp edges is what surprises everyone, even alpha users. Also from the 1950's (but I suspect somewhat later) is my Swift Mark II Neptune 7 x 35. Unlike the later grey model of the same designation, this Neptune is remarkably close in appearance to the same vintage Bausch & Lomb 7 x 35 Zephyr, but light years better optically. Ed will probably differ on this, but this is the sharpest Swift I have ever used, even better (albeit with a smaller field) than the later Audubons.
elkcub
Silicon Valley, California
Well, wadda ya know? Someone who appreciates the 7x35 Neptune Mark II. I never would have guessed. I was going to mention it as one to look for, but there are so many Swift models. In any case, I picked up a NOS one about a year ago, date marked 1988 but basically a miniaturized Type-2 Audubon of the early 1980s. It is a little gem, indeed, and very handy — 420 ft. FOV and 21 oz. of dynamite. Sharp as a tack. I think you own an earlier one, however, if it looks like a Zephyr.
Ed
Last edited:
orbitaljump
Well-known member
Ill 3rd the Neptune. However, not while denigrating the 7x35 B&L. I dont like the 7 degree 7x35s in general though. The extra degree is pleasing, without getting into the distortions of the wide angle 7x35s.
Steve C
Well-known member
To my never ending disgust, about three months ago, I missed a NIB Neptune on eBay. I fiddled around and did not get signed in in time before bidding ended, It sold for $27.80. The seller said that the box was only opened to examine the binocular before selling, and to take pictures for the auction.
I notice there are Several Swift 7x35 & 36 porros that look like miniature 804's. I'm probably going to spend a bit of curiosity cash on one of these to see what they are like. Some have fov up to 678', so the edge might be a bit soft.
I let a Swift 714 7x36 go one time, because bidding got a bit on the high side. I should say the bidding got a bit stupid. Somebody got on and bid against themselves at least six times. Not small bumps either. I bet they made the seller happy. I bumped whoever it was couple of times toward the end, but I had it figured I was bidding against an automatic bid that was higher than it was worth it to me to go.
I notice there are Several Swift 7x35 & 36 porros that look like miniature 804's. I'm probably going to spend a bit of curiosity cash on one of these to see what they are like. Some have fov up to 678', so the edge might be a bit soft.
I let a Swift 714 7x36 go one time, because bidding got a bit on the high side. I should say the bidding got a bit stupid. Somebody got on and bid against themselves at least six times. Not small bumps either. I bet they made the seller happy. I bumped whoever it was couple of times toward the end, but I had it figured I was bidding against an automatic bid that was higher than it was worth it to me to go.
Last edited:
Kevin Purcell
Well-known member
You sure there wasn't some automatic bidding going on?
If someone bids and your auto bid is larger then the other party comes back and bids higher than your auto bid then they will appear in the "regular" bid history. It will look like you bid against yourself because you don't see the other auto bids. If you show automatic bids in the bid history of the item it becomes a little more clear what the actual sequence of actions was
elkcub
Silicon Valley, California
When time permits I'll try to put together a better history of the 802 7x35 Neptune. For the moment, note that this model had very early origins, possibly earlier than the first Audubon, and appeared in several forms until the late 1980s. It was always a premium Mark II.
The 1959 Swift-Anderson catalog has it listed with FOV=395', weighing 17.9 oz. (It was also featured on the cover of the binocular selection booklet that year.)
The 1960 The Swift Instruments catalog shows it with FOV=425', weighing 22 oz.
The 1969 catalog shows it with FOV=425', but slimmed down to a svelte 21.5 oz.
By 1974 it only had FOV=420' and grew to 23 oz.
By 1981 the FOV=420', but it slimmed down to 21 oz.
I think mine is the last one, which at this point is 21 yrs. old from date of manufacture.
All of these models appear to have subtle mechanical/cosmetic differences, and no doubt realized successive improvements in AR coatings. I don't know if any got to the multi-coating stage, but I think not. In any case, if you find one expect to have it serviced up front so as not to disappoint.
Ed
The 1959 Swift-Anderson catalog has it listed with FOV=395', weighing 17.9 oz. (It was also featured on the cover of the binocular selection booklet that year.)
The 1960 The Swift Instruments catalog shows it with FOV=425', weighing 22 oz.
The 1969 catalog shows it with FOV=425', but slimmed down to a svelte 21.5 oz.
By 1974 it only had FOV=420' and grew to 23 oz.
By 1981 the FOV=420', but it slimmed down to 21 oz.
I think mine is the last one, which at this point is 21 yrs. old from date of manufacture.
All of these models appear to have subtle mechanical/cosmetic differences, and no doubt realized successive improvements in AR coatings. I don't know if any got to the multi-coating stage, but I think not. In any case, if you find one expect to have it serviced up front so as not to disappoint.
Ed
Last edited:
Steve C
Well-known member
Last edited:
Kevin Purcell
Well-known member
But you do see what you describe, Steve, with automatic bidding.
See this bid history on a Canon IS 12x36 from this morning showing this effect.
http://offer.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewBids&item=170323609432
Look at that "silly" l***u and then f***z bidding against themselves for extended stretches. Must be idiots.
and compare it to this one with the automatic bids turned on.
http://offer.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewBids&item=170323609432&showauto=true
and you can see what's happening: e***y is bidding (a single bid) then the auto takes over and bids l***u up to just more than e***y. Then you see that bid.
The eBay UI (and the default settings are a bit odd) and the description seems a bit odd in that they don't show all the bids they just show the sucessful bids (i.e. those ones that aren't immediately outbid by an automatic bid) in the history at the end of a proxy set of bids. And the bids you actually see in that history with "automatic bids hidden" contains bids that are the result of automatic bidding! The phrase should be "remove intermediate bids" or "show all bids" versus "show only successful bids".
It confused me the first time I saw it too.
Silly prices? Well that's ePay for you. The 12x36 went for $418 + $20 shipping. That's only $85 lower than the lowest retail I can find with a three year warranty. But seems about average for these bins (perhaps a little high).
See this bid history on a Canon IS 12x36 from this morning showing this effect.
http://offer.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewBids&item=170323609432
Look at that "silly" l***u and then f***z bidding against themselves for extended stretches. Must be idiots.
and compare it to this one with the automatic bids turned on.
http://offer.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewBids&item=170323609432&showauto=true
and you can see what's happening: e***y is bidding (a single bid) then the auto takes over and bids l***u up to just more than e***y. Then you see that bid.
The eBay UI (and the default settings are a bit odd) and the description seems a bit odd in that they don't show all the bids they just show the sucessful bids (i.e. those ones that aren't immediately outbid by an automatic bid) in the history at the end of a proxy set of bids. And the bids you actually see in that history with "automatic bids hidden" contains bids that are the result of automatic bidding! The phrase should be "remove intermediate bids" or "show all bids" versus "show only successful bids".
It confused me the first time I saw it too.
Silly prices? Well that's ePay for you. The 12x36 went for $418 + $20 shipping. That's only $85 lower than the lowest retail I can find with a three year warranty. But seems about average for these bins (perhaps a little high).
Last edited:
chartwell99
Well-known member
I think the idea of a complete history of the Swift Neptune would be a terrific idea as I continue to regard it as Swift's best model and, probably because of its 7 x 35 configuration, largely overlooked today. My example, Serial No. 271588, bears the inscription on the right dewcap "Trilar 7X RLE 413" , and looks exactly like a B & L Zephyr of the same late 50's period, right down to the size of the diopter markings on the right ocular. The black pebble grain faux morocco covering is also similar to the B & L standard and noticeably nicer than the grey thermoplastic used on the later Swift Neptune models.
Last edited:
Steve C
Well-known member
Recently I decided to satisfy my curiosity about the Carl Zeiss Jenna 8x30 porro prism binoculars. As far as I could determine, there seems to be little difference between the Jentopem and Deltrintem. I did find out the Jentopem was East German. At any rate, I did some research with google and came across the first link below on the Holger Merlitz site. There are some cheap Japanese made fake CZJ binoculars out there, so beware.
http://www.holgermerlitz.de/jenoptem.html
http://reviews.ebay.co.uk/Fake-or-N...enoptem-Binoculars_W0QQugidZ10000000009470351
I used the information and I think I avoided bidding on a couple on ebay that may well have been fakes. I got what I think was a decent deal on a very nice Jentopem 8x30. I have not received it yet, so I guess time will tell |:d|
http://www.holgermerlitz.de/jenoptem.html
http://reviews.ebay.co.uk/Fake-or-N...enoptem-Binoculars_W0QQugidZ10000000009470351
I used the information and I think I avoided bidding on a couple on ebay that may well have been fakes. I got what I think was a decent deal on a very nice Jentopem 8x30. I have not received it yet, so I guess time will tell |:d|
henry link
Well-known member
I wonder why there were fakes of the Deltrintems and Jenoptems? The genuine articles were quite cheap when I bought an 8x30 Deltrintem in the late 80's. My old Vic Odden's price list from about 1987 has the 8x30 Jenoptem at 39.95 pounds ($57.80 at the time) and the Deltrintem at 49.95 ($72.00). Very curiously, according to a CZJ catalogue from the time the only difference was that the Jenoptem was made with more modern and cost efficient methods.
Edit: here's the page from the 1985 CZJ catalogue with the 8x30 Deltrintem and Jenoptem:
http://www.holgermerlitz.de/czj_85/page09.jpg
Edit: here's the page from the 1985 CZJ catalogue with the 8x30 Deltrintem and Jenoptem:
http://www.holgermerlitz.de/czj_85/page09.jpg
Last edited:
orbitaljump
Well-known member
I think the deal was that they became quite popular at that price point and easing of cross iron curtain trade, and production couldnt keep up with demand, and hard Western currency was very desirable. So the Japanese were contracted to make them.
elkcub
Silicon Valley, California
Well, I'm not of the opinion that it was ever their "best model," but we might agree to disagree. 7x35s were quite common; the 8.5x44s were an innovation at the time.
The B&L Zephyr of the late 50s that I'm familiar with had a knurled black focusing wheel that differed from the Neptune's, which is faceted—as well as its EPs. Those were made by Tamron in the late 50s. Do you see a Japanese makers mark? If not it's Tamron. Otherwise Hiyoshi Kogaku. (I think you have a Tamron product.)
The objectives of my Audubons of that era are marked Quintar (Type-0a) or Ultrar (Type-0b), apparently the difference being coated vs. fully coated. The Type-1c made by Hiyoshi in the later 60s is also marked Ultrar. As was typical for the Type-2 models of the 1980s, my Neptune says "U.V. Coating. Amber Coated Optics."
When Swift introduced the smaller body 804R in 1985, it also introduced multicoating. My 1988 Neptune, however, did not have that feature so the image is inferior in contrast and brightness. With the advent of full multicoating in the HR/5 there was no longer a valid comparison, and Swift apparently discontinued its stalwart Neptune without further improvement.
Ed
Last edited:
