They crop up on ebay from time to time and appear to have had a very short production run from 1958 to 1959. The same glass has appeared branded as Eikow Bull-Fight and under one or two other rarer labels.
Ed - were the 1959 Audubon, Neptune and Holiday definitely all made by Tamron? If so I think that lends significant weight to your theory.
Graham
There were several small aperture porroprism binoculars, which usually look neat.
Also 6x24 wide angles that I wish were made nowadays with full multicoating.
Minolta although aparently closed are apparently still making optics. I wish they would make me a set of Minolta Standard fully multicoated. Why they didn't do this originally I don't know.
I tried an 8x30 Nikon EII against 8.5x44 Swift HR5
No ghosts at all from streetlights on EII. Numerous on HR5. (Eventually two very faint point source ghosts detected with EII, but the EII is as good as some Leica roofs regarding ghosting). HR5 also veiling glare. EII none detected.
EII 8.85 deg, HR5 8.26 deg.
HR5 0.3 mag fainter stars away from street lights.
EII shows very faint detail where HR5 doesn't into streetlights.
I obviously still have pupil sizes about 5.5mm. About 60% larger diameter than so called average for my age, which I doubt is really well known.
Star images with EII very good. Better than HR5, which are quite good.
P.S.
The better star images in the EII may be because my eyes were stopped down to 3.75mm instead of 5.2mm with The HR5. I did not try stopping the HR5 down to 3.75mm exit pupil.
Graham,
Our database indicates that Audubon, Neptune and Holiday models were made by Tamron / Tokuhiro through 1965 or later. However, those were not Z-body models like the Altek. So until a maker's mark is found on one of them it will probably remain a mystery. (I'm backing off my theory.)
What was the basis of your observation "... they appear to have had a very short production run from 1958 to 1959." Why not further back?
Ed
Ed,
Only that I have never seen it advertised except in the 1959 catalogue - not in any previous advertisement (however I only have one or two previous Swift advertisements) and it seems to be a very rare glass indicating that it may have a had a very short run. Of course, this is hardly conclusive.
Graham
Hi George,
The eye relief is similar with the EII and HR5.
With correction glasses for long sight and the rubber eyecups folded down, the fields are reduced by about 8% for me.
With small glasses or short sight maybe the full field is available.
For me they are both better without glasses, which I am not used to wearing with binoculars.
My assessment of colour cast is not likely to be accurate as I am not a birdwatcher and this is not usually important for me.
Except with red coated or Pentax gold coated binoculars, which are horrible.
It would be best if you tried an HR5, when you could also make sure that it is completely clear optically and in alignment.
Graham,
On a different note, would you happen to have any pre-1959 advertisements of the Swift Audubon? My belief is that it was first issued in 1958, but I can't confirm it.
Thanks,
Ed
Binastro, Ed,
Thanks for the additional information. I wear close fitting glasses and I can see the whole field of view with the EII so from your comments I gather the Swift should be ok.
Now let's see if I can find a FMC ED to compare its colour to my EII...
Binastro: Good luck with your injury.
George