Good Nikon Porros? (1 Viewer)

Red_Shoulder · Feb 9, 2015

You might try your 12x50 SE for astronomy. I tried a cheap 12x50, and the higher magnification and larger aperture seemed to help. Comet C/2014 Q2 is bright.

http://cometchasing.skyhound.com

brocknroller · Feb 9, 2015

Red_Shoulder said:
You might try your 12x50 SE for astronomy. I tried a cheap 12x50, and the higher magnification and larger aperture seemed to help. Comet C/2014 Q2 is bright.

http://cometchasing.skyhound.com

My fav for handheld stargazing, or at least they were until developers clear cut 100 acres of forest near my house to build a shopping center, which killed the contrast in the night sky. Now, frankly, I don't give a dam, so they are Gone with the Wind.

Brock

OPTIC_NUT · Feb 10, 2015

brocknroller said:
My fav for handheld stargazing, or at least they were until developers clear cut 100 acres of forest near my house to build a shopping center, which killed the contrast in the night sky. Now, frankly, I don't give a dam, so they are Gone with the Wind.

Brock

One of the great things about the old single-layer coatings is
they are nowhere near as sensitive to night sky splash.
You can tune the coating by thickness, and they chose low green loss
and higher violet loss. There is more than just one number to light transmission.
I use old 10x50s to resist the Target parking lot splash 1 mile away,
or "Haze - 1A" filters tacked onto my modern Nikons. I see many more stars
in M42, and more distant detail in the haze on the pond or the beach sanctuary
in summer. Better contrast and saturation over 200 yds.

Elmer Fudd · Feb 13, 2015

Torview said:
I`v just bought a 7x35 7.3* nippon kogaku from an optics retailer all checked over, been after one for a while now.

Please would you mind to ask you how much you payed for it?

Thank you!

henry link · Feb 13, 2015

Steve C said:
No Arthur, mine are 1951 made in Rochester NY. They, if I understand (or recall) correctly possessed of multiple layers of MgFl. B&L called the process Balcote and applied it to all air glass surfaces. They advertised it as a hard coating. B&L said it is colorless, but there is a definite MgFl blue tinge to the lenses. I was not then prepared for the image they give. I still have to sort of pinch myself to realize these things are over 60 years old. They are 8x30 with an 8.3* (445') fov. I have all factory literature, case and box.

Dim they are not. They will fall off faster in twilight faster than multicoated types, but if that is a concern, I'll have a 5 mm EP binocular. Gray cloudy days they are not as bright as a multicoated glass, but I'd not ever call these dim. I suppose it depends on individual eyes and eyesight,, individual needs and perceptions as to how much one will like an older glass. One thing sure is that they have exceedingly limited eye relief.

I got these from an internet auction supposedly in "pristine" condition. Not so, not by a long ways. I was able to secure a substantial partial refund and sent them to Nicholas Crista. Nick does good work and it shows.

Steve,

I just ran across this very interesting Bausch & Lomb material from 1950.

http://mcnygenealogy.com/book/binoculars.pdf

The explanation of "Balcote" on page 13 is certainly describing what we would now recognize as normal single layer MgFl coating. The descriptions of the individual models at the end includes "average" light transmission specs. For models with 3 element, 2 group eyepieces the spec is 78%. For the two models with 5/6 element, 3 group eyepieces it's 72%.

So far I haven't seen any convincing evidence that there were any commercially available binoculars with multi-coating before Zeiss models with T* coating were introduced about 1978.

Henry

Steve C · Feb 14, 2015

henry link said:
Steve,

I just ran across this very interesting Bausch & Lomb material from 1950.

http://mcnygenealogy.com/book/binoculars.pdf

The explanation of "Balcote" on page 13 is certainly describing what we would now recognize as normal single layer MgFl coating. The descriptions of the individual models at the end includes "average" light transmission specs. For models with 3 element, 2 group eyepieces the spec is 78%. For the two models with 5/6 element, 3 group eyepieces it's 72%.

So far I haven't seen any convincing evidence that there were any commercially available binoculars with multi-coating before Zeiss models with T* coating were introduced about 1978.

Henry

Henry,

Thanks. There is a decent B&L manual with the binocular that says the same thing. Don't know where I got it in my head there was a multi coated process. I remember reading it somewhere, but now I don't know where.

bluespiderweb · Mar 9, 2015

Right on, Brother Brock!

brocknroller said:
Red,

I like older Porros, too, and I've owned a number of them over the years. It's been out of necessity, because while a good Porro is hard to beat (to quote a notorious roof convert), a good Porro is also harder and harder to find these days since roofs rule the roost.

What I have found is that modern AR FMC coatings are so much better that even an inexpensive Aculon will produce a brighter and more contrasty image than a good old Porro. I have a Nikon 7x35 WF from the 1980s that I like very much, but particularly on an overcast day, when compared to the 7x35 Aculon, the image is lackluster. The sweet spot is bigger in the WF, but the image has a bit of green cast to it since the lenses are coated with Nikon's bluish, single layer AR coatings.

They are, however, still better than roofs of the same vintage, whose leaky prisms lacking phase coatings and dielectric coatings couldn't touch the center sharpness and contrast of a $75 Aculon sold today.

If money is no object, find yourself an SE or EII. If you're on a budget, buy an Action EX or Aculon. I've tried them all, and they all produce bright, sharp images in the center, with varying degrees of field curvature at the edges, most of which can be refocused.

Brock

Wow, that's a good post, and right on in perception for what is available now at great prices, especially for the Nikon Aculon binoculars today-which echoes my experiences as well. They are amazing for the money, from what my eyes tell me too. They may fall a bit short on full field sharpness, but do deliver in center field performance for sharpness and contrast; they really impress me for value and view combined. No doubt the SE and EII might be better overall, but in consideration to the availability and price, these Aculons are the clear winners, unless of course you have been spoiled with alpha views, and only the best of the best will do, and you are very picky to what you want in your view. There I have no opinions or experience with the best available, because of my limited financial situation. Adjust my experience accordingly for your situation and funds available. At the moment, I have 3 Nikon Aculons that impress me to no end, considering what I did not spend on them!

The only other Porros that have impressed my for price and performance are the Vixen Forestas, though at a considerably higher price, along with the discontinued Minox BD BP porros (alternately Opticron clones, or vice versa-not sure what came first), also at much higher prices when found.

Anyway, thank you Brock for your insights on the Aculons, from your more broadly experienced database and eyes. I think sometimes we forget that sometimes less is more, and we don't all need the best of the best available, but we can still take advantage of the best technology available in today's bins, at very nice prices now, especially in the modern Porros with proper multi-coated lenses and other modern results, like Nikon's very smooth mechanics-the Aculon focusers are very nice, and only add to the package.

No, I don't work for Nikon-I'm just an impressed user! ; )

Tom Bombadil · Mar 10, 2015

Torview said:
I`v just bought a 7x35 7.3* nippon kogaku from an optics retailer all checked over, been after one for a while now.

I recently "found" one of those. In the bottom of my optics box in my closet. I moved about 3 years ago, after about 2 years of preparing for the move. Sometime a few years ago, I put several of my binoculars, scopes, and astronomy gear into a box and nearly forgot about it. I finally got around to going through those boxes and came across my Nikon Kogaku 7.3* in near new condition. Serial number puts it most likely from the early 70s. I can't even remember how I acquired it, probably about 15 or more years ago.

Most probably I picked it up at Eagle Optics, which is just a few miles from me. They used to take trade-ins and had a lot of used binos. I know I picked up a used Leica 7x20b and a used B&L Custom 10x40 there, at very good prices, back in the 90s. Perhaps I got the Nikon too. I still have a Bell & Howell WA 10x50 that I picked up there for around $25 and stuck it under the seat in my Corolla. It's still there (I've had the car for 18 years). It was tough to resist buying those used, very good condition binos. The B&H reeked of smoke, I had to wash it down a half-dozen times with Lysol and hung it in my garage for 6 months.

They still take trade-ins, but only if the bino is worth $250 or more. Ah, I miss those bargain basement deals.

peatmoss · Mar 12, 2015

It just struck me that there's a hole in Nikon's Porro product lines. Where is the affordable 8x30 or 8x32? None of the Action / Extreme / Aculon lines have ever had one. The last semi- affordable one they made was probably the 8x30E, which cost around $125 back in the '80s (which was still good money back then). After that the EII was at least 2x as expensive and the SE even more so; and now those two are gone too. Shouldn't Nikon have its own version of the yosemite?

ceasar · Mar 12, 2015

peatmoss said:
It just struck me that there's a hole in Nikon's Porro product lines. Where is the affordable 8x30 or 8x32? None of the Action / Extreme / Aculon lines have ever had one. The last semi- affordable one they made was probably the 8x30E, which cost around $125 back in the '80s (which was still good money back then). After that the EII was at least 2x as expensive and the SE even more so; and now those two are gone too. Shouldn't Nikon have its own version of the yosemite?

They stop with their 25mm reverse porros; either the Travelites or the more costly ATP Pro Staffs.

Their least expensive 8x30 is the Prostaff 7S at 189.00. It is a roof prism and probably more compact than the old 8x30 E porro was. A Yosemite porro clone would probably compete negatively with both their reverse porros and the Prostaff.

http://www.nikonsportoptics.com/Nikon-Products/Binoculars/PROSTAFF-7S-8x30.html

Bob

brocknroller · Mar 12, 2015

bluespiderweb said:
Wow, that's a good post, and right on in perception for what is available now at great prices, especially for the Nikon Aculon binoculars today-which echoes my experiences as well. They are amazing for the money, from what my eyes tell me too. They may fall a bit short on full field sharpness, but do deliver in center field performance for sharpness and contrast; they really impress me for value and view combined. No doubt the SE and EII might be better overall, but in consideration to the availability and price, these Aculons are the clear winners, unless of course you have been spoiled with alpha views, and only the best of the best will do, and you are very picky to what you want in your view. There I have no opinions or experience with the best available, because of my limited financial situation. Adjust my experience accordingly for your situation and funds available. At the moment, I have 3 Nikon Aculons that impress me to no end, considering what I did not spend on them!

The only other Porros that have impressed my for price and performance are the Vixen Forestas, though at a considerably higher price, along with the discontinued Minox BD BP porros (alternately Opticron clones, or vice versa-not sure what came first), also at much higher prices when found.

Anyway, thank you Brock for your insights on the Aculons, from your more broadly experienced database and eyes. I think sometimes we forget that sometimes less is more, and we don't all need the best of the best available, but we can still take advantage of the best technology available in today's bins, at very nice prices now, especially in the modern Porros with proper multi-coated lenses and other modern results, like Nikon's very smooth mechanics-the Aculon focusers are very nice, and only add to the package.

No, I don't work for Nikon-I'm just an impressed user! ; )

Thanks. Keep the good reviews coming, and Nikon might hire you. Look at Frank D., who was recently named Sightron Special Ambassador!

Which three Aculons do you own, and which do you like the best?

bluespiderweb · Mar 12, 2015

Yes, well, Brock-I'm available if Nikon wants me! ; ) I don't consider that I really "own" anything, but more a temporary user of all this stuff I have accumulated. In my possession regarding Aculons, I have the 7x35, 10x42 and just received a 16x50 the other day from bhphoto, one of my favorite web dealers.

I don't have a favorite of the 3 Aculons, as they all have their best uses depending on where and when. What I find amazing is how consistently I have been pleased with them-nary a bad one in the lot I've tried-all have really smooth focus, and very sharp centerfield performance, with excellent contrast. Though I tend to use the 10x at home more often just for the extended reach compared to a normal 8x for my view here. But, I have to say that I am really finding 16x kind of addicting-who wouldn't want to see 16 times better, and have your vision corrected (via the diopter) and probably enhanced a bit besides? Can you say Superman?!! I can now, and what it didn't cost me is just hard to believe too, for a new binocular that works so well.

Sure, you get a little shake with the 16x, but they are still very hand-holdable and usable. Haven't hooked them up to the tripod yet, but I imagine that will be even more impressive. It wasn't a good clear night here, but I did have the three stars in Orion's belt in full view in the 16x, and it seemed pretty sharp for most of the field of view from what I could tell handheld, with a brace against the window. No doubt on a tripod would be a better judge of the sharpness of the full field, but I think it's pretty good from what I saw. For just over a hundred bucks...I'm not kicking about anything I've seen yet!

breydon · Mar 23, 2015

Nikon 10x35 wf

Hi all. Just won a pair of these on the bay. Lovely view through them won for £113.00. + post are these as good as the 10x35 E11 is the question ? Not had the chance to look through a pair of them. Chris

NDhunter · Mar 23, 2015

breydon said:
Hi all. Just won a pair of these on the bay. Lovely view through them won for £113.00. + post are these as good as the 10x35 E11 is the question ? Not had the chance to look through a pair of them. Chris

Chris:

You made a great purchase, yours are the first version of the Nikon
E porros, which started in 1978. In 1988, the E Criterion model was
introduced with fully multicoated lenses, with updated green coatings.
That is the model I have pictured here.
The EII followed next starting in 2000, and some changes, to 7.0
degree FOV.
I've owned the 10x35 EII, and they are a step up over the others,
but all of them are very good.

Jerry

mooreorless · Mar 23, 2015

Jerry I had the Nikon 10x35 E Criterion for a while and it was very good, the fellow I sold it to was very happy. Not quite as good as the E2. It had that same circle C.

breydon · Mar 23, 2015

Thank you Jerry for the date info. They are in great condition for there age then. I have a pair of the 8x30 E11s they are superb binoculars cost me just over £300 new but a nice investment

Red_Shoulder · Mar 26, 2015

Steve C said:
As to some of the early Actions, to get somewhat back on the posted topic, I have a Nikon Action Naturalist II. It has an 8.6* field. Decent, quite usable image. However they evidently subcontracted the body work to Toys-R-Us. They were out of whack when I got them, I sent them to Nikon and they were fixed, but they are out of collimation again, and not just a little. I went into them the other day and there are no eccentric rings on the objective, the prism assemblies are without adjustment, and there appears to be no screws to tilt the prism assembly anywhere. What you would have to do to collimate these is anybody's guess (unless of course you know what you are doing).

The eyepieces are eccentric on my 7x20 travelites. You might look at those. Looks like on 6x18 Look, too.

The ep is glued to the side of a circular part that screws intothe body. Rotate the ep, and you might be in business.

The eps unscrew on the 7x20's, wound up taping in place with masking tape. Much better.

oetzi · Mar 26, 2015

brocknroller said:
What I have found is that modern AR FMC coatings are so much better that even an inexpensive Aculon will produce a brighter and more contrasty image than a good old Porro.

Brock

I got my Aculon 7x35, which is a very good "cheap" bino, for € 69,90 from this german mailorder company:
https://www.digitfoto.de/p-NIKON_7x35_Aculon_Fernglas-700BAA810SA-40.html
The 8x42 is selling for € 83,89:
https://www.digitfoto.de/df_produkt.php?&id=700BAA811SA

I am very satisfied with this shop, my old Action VII 7x35 is from them, too. They are about the cheapest here in germany with these binos. P&P within the EU is € 17,90, insured. With the weak Euro, this might be a cheap way to get an Aculon.

sarge1967 · Mar 27, 2015

We have a pair of Nikon Action VII 7x35's they are great bins!

John Dracon · Mar 28, 2015

Breydon - You have a quality binocular in that 10x35. The EII 10x35 as mentioned above has a slightly larger field and improved coatings. IMO it is not as robust as the earlier version which you have. I have owned and used both models and very satisfied with both. Currently, I have the EII model.

John

Good Nikon Porros? (1 Viewer)

Well-known member

porromaniac

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Great Grey Looking Out

Tender of Forests

Well-known member

Well-known member

porromaniac

Great Grey Looking Out

Well-known member

Attachments

Experienced observer

Attachments

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

John Dracon

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread