-
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.
Vintage binoculars, what is good? (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter FrankD
- Start date
John H.-S.
Member
ronh,
If the reticle bothers you, just have your local friendly binocular technician take it out!
He will have the necessary tools and know how to do it and he will then be able to reassemble the instrument and renew the sealant.
For my part, it doesn't bother me at all and, as you say, it does keep you in touch with the military heritage.
If the reticle bothers you, just have your local friendly binocular technician take it out!
He will have the necessary tools and know how to do it and he will then be able to reassemble the instrument and renew the sealant.
For my part, it doesn't bother me at all and, as you say, it does keep you in touch with the military heritage.
John H.-S.
Member
hover,
The local friendly binocular technician to whom I refer is:
Optrep,
16 Wheatfield Road,
Selsey, W. Sussex,
PO20 0NY.
Tel. 01243 601365.
email: [email protected]
The technical director is Antony L. (Tony) Kay, who is very friendly and a thoroughly nice man. I recommend him without reservation.
When I have something for his attention, after telephoning him I go by train to Chichester then No. 51 bus to Selsey, get off at Beach Road from where it is about 5 - 10 minutes walk. The Pagham Harbour nature reserve is not far away.
The local friendly binocular technician to whom I refer is:
Optrep,
16 Wheatfield Road,
Selsey, W. Sussex,
PO20 0NY.
Tel. 01243 601365.
email: [email protected]
The technical director is Antony L. (Tony) Kay, who is very friendly and a thoroughly nice man. I recommend him without reservation.
When I have something for his attention, after telephoning him I go by train to Chichester then No. 51 bus to Selsey, get off at Beach Road from where it is about 5 - 10 minutes walk. The Pagham Harbour nature reserve is not far away.
looksharp65
Well-known member
I have a Swift Newport Mk II 10x50.
Its image has a quite heavy blue tint, and the sweet spot is ...uhm, tiny.
But is has one quality one will not find in a modern binocular...A truly wide FOV.
The cover claims 420 ft/1000 yds which should translate to 140 m/1000 m, which is very impressive for a 10x bin.
However, when I compare it to my Minox 8x33 that has 131 m/1000 m FOV, it seems to be exactly the same.
This translates to an AFOV of 75 degress and let me tell you, it is like standing by a window. Now and then I look through it, and it is amazing and great fun.
Its image has a quite heavy blue tint, and the sweet spot is ...uhm, tiny.
But is has one quality one will not find in a modern binocular...A truly wide FOV.
The cover claims 420 ft/1000 yds which should translate to 140 m/1000 m, which is very impressive for a 10x bin.
However, when I compare it to my Minox 8x33 that has 131 m/1000 m FOV, it seems to be exactly the same.
This translates to an AFOV of 75 degress and let me tell you, it is like standing by a window. Now and then I look through it, and it is amazing and great fun.
hover
Well-known member
John H.-S. many thanks, i will contact said friendly optics technician the next time i need. have made that journey before, when i guiltily twitched the white-billed diver that was languishing off the bill. the smudgy blob that i subsequently 'saw' may well have been no more than some dirt within my fieldscope for all i know.
thanks again
thanks again
ksbird/foxranch
Well-known member
I am back for a short time before the pear harvest.
I own a pair of the above mentioned 9x35 Stellar brand porros and they are very good. They actually made my grab-&-go shelf by the back door because there aren't many small-ish 9xs (9x63s don't count), and they have a very wide FOV. The old Pentax roofer 9x30s are surprisingly good for tiny bins I can put in my jeans pocket when I'm running out to the back pasture with a shovel because so fool let his stallion pony loose, it's in one of my pastures (thus the bins) trying to get to my quarter horse mares, and my Arabian stallion will kill the little SOB pony. See below a big reason why this Pentax roofer is nice for me.
The 10x50 W I like is either the Yukon 10x50W or the Zeiss Jena Dekaren 10x50 MC 1Q if you can find them and afford them. But it is the 7x35 and 8x30 sizes (+ a few 8x40s) that have huge fields of view.Speaking of Canons and wide views, check out the Canon 6x30 with the magenta classic Canon coatings. The size of the image really starts to get small-ish for me at 6x (although my 6x30 FMTR Fujinon is fabulous for astronomy, because a star should be a point and so a 6x point is just as good as a 7x, 8x, 9x or 10x point). Did I mention the older Fuji Meijis because they are super nice too.
As far as vintage bins and image quality goes, I find that most of the Nikon porro bins like the recent SEs are much better than any roofer ever made and I'm not alone in that judgment. Coatings aren't everything either. For viewing birds in arboretums or aviaries I don't find a huge difference between single and MC. Sometimes old craftsmen took allot of time grinding lens sets that worked incredibly well. Even the vintage Baigish 8x30s are super sharp and according to Holger Merlitz the KOMZ 7x30/10x42-10x40s are about the sharpest bins he's ever seen, so don't discount the Russian bins.
I have always been surprised how well SARD views were when they used nice coatings on their 7x50s in the late 40s and 50s. Usually light transmission isn't a big problem for birding during the Spring/Summer/Early Autumn seasons so coatings aren't always important and less light transmission is sometimes easier on the eyes. Speaking of which, the polarizing filters that came in the kit with the Pentax 9x30 roofers I mentioned above are sheer genius. This filter set improves the view dramatically on bright/glare-y days. I'm used to yellow filters that help the view on overcast (too-blue) days, and Hensoldt NDX4 filters from Hensoldt for desert bins, but polarizers designed for a bin are very helpful on over-bright days.
I recently bought a pair of Russian Fotem 15x50 bins with literature marked 1972. The yellow glass problem is there, and the literature was for the German market. Remarkably the bins came from a group found in the old East Germany, and were all NIB. They are made extremely well, razor sharp and lightweight with magnesium housings. The image is as sharp as the KOMZ 10x42. They have CF and a nice grippy pebble coating. The 3 inch long (75mm) main center bridge seems like it could withstand dropping without coming out of alignment. I am surprised that these bins are so light and sharp and in winter when glare and over-blue-ness is a problem, I will switch out my Yukon 16x50x for this bin. Clearly they are vintage even if they are like new, so I recommend them here. The seller on eBay had 10-12 pairs when I bought mine.
I don't know if I recommended the D&D Czech bins in 6x30 format that were used along the Iron Curtain in years past. Many of these came on the market in the last 4 years and they may be vintage but they often have 1980s MCs on the lenses. The Czech Republic Meopta brand bins are made by many of the previous D&D employees.
I do like many modern porro bins from Zeiss (7x50 Marine), Steiner (9x40 and 7x50), and Nikons SEs. But the vintage porro bins that were made well often had huge FOVs (great for sports), and the center field was very sharp, due to hand polished lenses. Although Leica Trinovids were not phase coated, the Leica Kern porros of the late series were stupendous (as one of the employees who retired from the microscope company currently owning Kern discussed on this forum). The 10x40 habicht was so good and well liked that Swarovski brought it back. Maybe I am one of the 10% of the population who have 4 color peaks instead of 3 peaks of highest color sensitivity and so roofers cannot be made to ever make a view as good as a porro for me, but the lack of really super and ultra wide field bins, I think is very much due to the stampede to roofers that seems unwarranted.
I have the new Kruger waterproof, CF 10x30 porro bin in my hands many days now. It is pretty sharp, low weight, rubberized in a good way, CF, and has excellent MCs. The bin sells for about US$120. If Kruger made a Nikon Se knockoff in a waterproof version (or better with LD glass) and then an ultrawide, so they had 3 different 10x choice (with maybe a 4th in a 10x60 or 10x70 size, as a waterproof model for astronomers with Low Dispersion glass), then I'm sure that all of these bins would sell for hundreds of dollars less than Leica, Swaro or Zeiss roofer models of comparable magnification, sharpness and objective light-gethering.
Maybe the Zeiss 7x50 IF is the best ever astronomy bin ever (or maybe it's the Nikon Prostar or Fujinon FMT), so there seem to be enough 7x50 IFs out there. But a superb 7x50 CF porro would be nice for low light situations (though Pentax makes one the IP distance is way too tiny for my and my friends, but women I know like them). Kruger has a Yosemite competitor now too, so why no waterproof high end 8x30s with LD glass, or ultra-wide 8x30s (like the Hensoldt DF FOV) in CF porro versions.
It is not impossible to make waterproof 7x35 and 8x40 multicoated, wide angle bins with aspherical eyepieces because Nikon does this now. Why not an ultra high end version of the Extreme Action 7x35s and 8x40s (or an 8x30 UW Extreme Action). Roofers are greatly over rated and over priced from what I can see in testing them here at the ranch. This was incredibly obvious before phase coatings came along and so manufacturers looked far other niches to fill with porro bins (like ultra0wides). But since it is very very difficult to make a roofer with an 11 degree FOV we lost the entire super and ultra wide bin group when manufacturers felt compelled to tell consumers that roofers are more expensive so they HAVE to be better, which is absolutely untrue.
ANY 7x50 non-ED roofer will look lousy compared to the Zeiss 7x50 Marine, and when Zeiss puts ED glass into the Marine then it will be better than any roofer 7x50 ever. If the new Habichts get the same multicoatings and ED glass as the roofers Swaro make, then the Habichts will produce a better image and be less expensive (and probably have a wider field of view).
So this sums up my recommendations of vintage bins, and why they make allot of sense. First of all, vintage porros are the only way to get a true 11 degree FOV bin or wider. Second, some of the multicoated Zeiss Jena 1Q MC models, Dokter porros, Jenoptiks, Habichts/SLCs and some others from the USSR and Japan are still nearly as good as anything else made today. And third the rush to roofers has made the cost of many vintage bins so low, they represent incredible values compared to new models.
I find my friends buying model after model of newer bins (95% roofers) and then becoming dissatisfied with them after a few months (or weeks) because they just aren't as sharp as their Nikon SEs or older vintage bins, and the new purchases are expensive. Roofer sellers promise everything and inexperienced buyers laud these new models to the skies on forums. But the real shock comes when my friends buy a 10x30 Kruger porro or an 8x30 Leupold porro that's so good for so little money. Then it becomes obvious that the real problem is this: people are hypnotized (for some reason, like retailer profits per item) by advertising whose logic is "Roofers are more expensive for a given magnification and objective than porros, SO roofers MUST be better." It's a shame this ruined the porro market, because porros are always going to be less expensive whenever a roofer and porro of similar quality are sold.
I own a pair of the above mentioned 9x35 Stellar brand porros and they are very good. They actually made my grab-&-go shelf by the back door because there aren't many small-ish 9xs (9x63s don't count), and they have a very wide FOV. The old Pentax roofer 9x30s are surprisingly good for tiny bins I can put in my jeans pocket when I'm running out to the back pasture with a shovel because so fool let his stallion pony loose, it's in one of my pastures (thus the bins) trying to get to my quarter horse mares, and my Arabian stallion will kill the little SOB pony. See below a big reason why this Pentax roofer is nice for me.
The 10x50 W I like is either the Yukon 10x50W or the Zeiss Jena Dekaren 10x50 MC 1Q if you can find them and afford them. But it is the 7x35 and 8x30 sizes (+ a few 8x40s) that have huge fields of view.Speaking of Canons and wide views, check out the Canon 6x30 with the magenta classic Canon coatings. The size of the image really starts to get small-ish for me at 6x (although my 6x30 FMTR Fujinon is fabulous for astronomy, because a star should be a point and so a 6x point is just as good as a 7x, 8x, 9x or 10x point). Did I mention the older Fuji Meijis because they are super nice too.
As far as vintage bins and image quality goes, I find that most of the Nikon porro bins like the recent SEs are much better than any roofer ever made and I'm not alone in that judgment. Coatings aren't everything either. For viewing birds in arboretums or aviaries I don't find a huge difference between single and MC. Sometimes old craftsmen took allot of time grinding lens sets that worked incredibly well. Even the vintage Baigish 8x30s are super sharp and according to Holger Merlitz the KOMZ 7x30/10x42-10x40s are about the sharpest bins he's ever seen, so don't discount the Russian bins.
I have always been surprised how well SARD views were when they used nice coatings on their 7x50s in the late 40s and 50s. Usually light transmission isn't a big problem for birding during the Spring/Summer/Early Autumn seasons so coatings aren't always important and less light transmission is sometimes easier on the eyes. Speaking of which, the polarizing filters that came in the kit with the Pentax 9x30 roofers I mentioned above are sheer genius. This filter set improves the view dramatically on bright/glare-y days. I'm used to yellow filters that help the view on overcast (too-blue) days, and Hensoldt NDX4 filters from Hensoldt for desert bins, but polarizers designed for a bin are very helpful on over-bright days.
I recently bought a pair of Russian Fotem 15x50 bins with literature marked 1972. The yellow glass problem is there, and the literature was for the German market. Remarkably the bins came from a group found in the old East Germany, and were all NIB. They are made extremely well, razor sharp and lightweight with magnesium housings. The image is as sharp as the KOMZ 10x42. They have CF and a nice grippy pebble coating. The 3 inch long (75mm) main center bridge seems like it could withstand dropping without coming out of alignment. I am surprised that these bins are so light and sharp and in winter when glare and over-blue-ness is a problem, I will switch out my Yukon 16x50x for this bin. Clearly they are vintage even if they are like new, so I recommend them here. The seller on eBay had 10-12 pairs when I bought mine.
I don't know if I recommended the D&D Czech bins in 6x30 format that were used along the Iron Curtain in years past. Many of these came on the market in the last 4 years and they may be vintage but they often have 1980s MCs on the lenses. The Czech Republic Meopta brand bins are made by many of the previous D&D employees.
I do like many modern porro bins from Zeiss (7x50 Marine), Steiner (9x40 and 7x50), and Nikons SEs. But the vintage porro bins that were made well often had huge FOVs (great for sports), and the center field was very sharp, due to hand polished lenses. Although Leica Trinovids were not phase coated, the Leica Kern porros of the late series were stupendous (as one of the employees who retired from the microscope company currently owning Kern discussed on this forum). The 10x40 habicht was so good and well liked that Swarovski brought it back. Maybe I am one of the 10% of the population who have 4 color peaks instead of 3 peaks of highest color sensitivity and so roofers cannot be made to ever make a view as good as a porro for me, but the lack of really super and ultra wide field bins, I think is very much due to the stampede to roofers that seems unwarranted.
I have the new Kruger waterproof, CF 10x30 porro bin in my hands many days now. It is pretty sharp, low weight, rubberized in a good way, CF, and has excellent MCs. The bin sells for about US$120. If Kruger made a Nikon Se knockoff in a waterproof version (or better with LD glass) and then an ultrawide, so they had 3 different 10x choice (with maybe a 4th in a 10x60 or 10x70 size, as a waterproof model for astronomers with Low Dispersion glass), then I'm sure that all of these bins would sell for hundreds of dollars less than Leica, Swaro or Zeiss roofer models of comparable magnification, sharpness and objective light-gethering.
Maybe the Zeiss 7x50 IF is the best ever astronomy bin ever (or maybe it's the Nikon Prostar or Fujinon FMT), so there seem to be enough 7x50 IFs out there. But a superb 7x50 CF porro would be nice for low light situations (though Pentax makes one the IP distance is way too tiny for my and my friends, but women I know like them). Kruger has a Yosemite competitor now too, so why no waterproof high end 8x30s with LD glass, or ultra-wide 8x30s (like the Hensoldt DF FOV) in CF porro versions.
It is not impossible to make waterproof 7x35 and 8x40 multicoated, wide angle bins with aspherical eyepieces because Nikon does this now. Why not an ultra high end version of the Extreme Action 7x35s and 8x40s (or an 8x30 UW Extreme Action). Roofers are greatly over rated and over priced from what I can see in testing them here at the ranch. This was incredibly obvious before phase coatings came along and so manufacturers looked far other niches to fill with porro bins (like ultra0wides). But since it is very very difficult to make a roofer with an 11 degree FOV we lost the entire super and ultra wide bin group when manufacturers felt compelled to tell consumers that roofers are more expensive so they HAVE to be better, which is absolutely untrue.
ANY 7x50 non-ED roofer will look lousy compared to the Zeiss 7x50 Marine, and when Zeiss puts ED glass into the Marine then it will be better than any roofer 7x50 ever. If the new Habichts get the same multicoatings and ED glass as the roofers Swaro make, then the Habichts will produce a better image and be less expensive (and probably have a wider field of view).
So this sums up my recommendations of vintage bins, and why they make allot of sense. First of all, vintage porros are the only way to get a true 11 degree FOV bin or wider. Second, some of the multicoated Zeiss Jena 1Q MC models, Dokter porros, Jenoptiks, Habichts/SLCs and some others from the USSR and Japan are still nearly as good as anything else made today. And third the rush to roofers has made the cost of many vintage bins so low, they represent incredible values compared to new models.
I find my friends buying model after model of newer bins (95% roofers) and then becoming dissatisfied with them after a few months (or weeks) because they just aren't as sharp as their Nikon SEs or older vintage bins, and the new purchases are expensive. Roofer sellers promise everything and inexperienced buyers laud these new models to the skies on forums. But the real shock comes when my friends buy a 10x30 Kruger porro or an 8x30 Leupold porro that's so good for so little money. Then it becomes obvious that the real problem is this: people are hypnotized (for some reason, like retailer profits per item) by advertising whose logic is "Roofers are more expensive for a given magnification and objective than porros, SO roofers MUST be better." It's a shame this ruined the porro market, because porros are always going to be less expensive whenever a roofer and porro of similar quality are sold.
Hermann
Well-known member
What I'd like to see are new production runs of the old Zeiss Oberkochen 10x50 (with modern multicoatings and the eyepiece Zeiss used for their 15x60 BGAT) and the last version of the 8x30B. The 10x50 in particular was well ahead of its time. Zeiss called it a "semi-apochromat", and it does indeed show less CA than most 10x porros I've seen, including the Nikon 10x42 SE. It was also much better sealed than most other porros.
Unfortunately, even when Zeiss produced a short run of the 10x50 in the 1980's they stuck to the original single-layer coatings. When I spoke to one of their representatives at the time he said the glass types that were used in the 10x50 couldn't be multicoated. Go figure.
Given that Zeiss will probably never do another production run of one of these great porros, we'll have to stick to what's still available. There's been some talk of the military surplus Hensoldt 8x30 IF on this board, a nice porro, but the much newer Hensoldt Fero-D16 8x30 IF is in some ways a lot better with better coatings an so on. Well worth getting, especially if you can get hold of one without laser filters. It's IMO better than the Leica/Kern 8x30. Unfortunately it's got a fairly narrow field of view (56 degrees, 124m/1000m), presumably because they wanted to save some cost by using a simple eyepiece design.
Hermann
Last edited:
ksbird/foxranch
Well-known member
Thanks to Hermann,
I did get a reply via birdforum email from someone who was unhappy with a current bin FOV for a Nikon Action Extreme 7x35. IMO Nikon is just afraid tey will sell fewer roofers if they make a wide angle version of the Extremes. The eyepiece needed is not that mush more expensive but they could easily make many of Nikon's expensive roofers look really bad.
On the other hand, going through my collection of bins for vintage seekers, I have 2 pairs of Nikon 9x25 Travelites(?) that are completely different so I hope to sort them out via serial numbers. One is a later series Travelite w/serial # 167920 (multicoated) and another Nikon Travelite Ser # 508545 (single coated, blue). The serial numbers don't seem to jibe with what I am looking at as I write this post, because the early number is multicoated. They have no model number or item name on the bins themselves. They are both great bins for sharpness. The FOVs are identical at 5.6 degrees. If you can get these cheap they are well worth the money, although I'd appreciate it if one of you out there know what models these bins really are.
I also searched through my Spindler bins (not Spindler and Hoyer, just Spindler), and found a pair of 7x35 Lightweight Wide Angle bins. They are very sharp and wide angle (likely 9 degrees), I recommend these as well.
I did get a reply via birdforum email from someone who was unhappy with a current bin FOV for a Nikon Action Extreme 7x35. IMO Nikon is just afraid tey will sell fewer roofers if they make a wide angle version of the Extremes. The eyepiece needed is not that mush more expensive but they could easily make many of Nikon's expensive roofers look really bad.
On the other hand, going through my collection of bins for vintage seekers, I have 2 pairs of Nikon 9x25 Travelites(?) that are completely different so I hope to sort them out via serial numbers. One is a later series Travelite w/serial # 167920 (multicoated) and another Nikon Travelite Ser # 508545 (single coated, blue). The serial numbers don't seem to jibe with what I am looking at as I write this post, because the early number is multicoated. They have no model number or item name on the bins themselves. They are both great bins for sharpness. The FOVs are identical at 5.6 degrees. If you can get these cheap they are well worth the money, although I'd appreciate it if one of you out there know what models these bins really are.
I also searched through my Spindler bins (not Spindler and Hoyer, just Spindler), and found a pair of 7x35 Lightweight Wide Angle bins. They are very sharp and wide angle (likely 9 degrees), I recommend these as well.
Simon S
Well-known member
Here is my list
Zeiss jenoptem 8x30 7x50 10x50
Swift Audobon, and model if it is in good condition.
Ross Stepnada, Stepron, Stepruva.
Kershaw Olympic 8x30
Yashica 8x30
All the A series Nikons.
Barr and Stroud CF24
Mirador 8x40
B&L 7x50
Pentax Marine all models
Early Russian 7x50 with hard eye caps
Early Russian 12x40 (bloody amazing)
Leitz (E) Wetzlar Binuxit 8x30
G.Fournier Champax 8x32 83925
The MK1 Swift Skippers and Newports.
The list goes on, but these are a few of my goodies.
Have a look on my site, it is not meant to be a technical review more an idea of what to expect.
Zeiss jenoptem 8x30 7x50 10x50
Swift Audobon, and model if it is in good condition.
Ross Stepnada, Stepron, Stepruva.
Kershaw Olympic 8x30
Yashica 8x30
All the A series Nikons.
Barr and Stroud CF24
Mirador 8x40
B&L 7x50
Pentax Marine all models
Early Russian 7x50 with hard eye caps
Early Russian 12x40 (bloody amazing)
Leitz (E) Wetzlar Binuxit 8x30
G.Fournier Champax 8x32 83925
The MK1 Swift Skippers and Newports.
The list goes on, but these are a few of my goodies.
Have a look on my site, it is not meant to be a technical review more an idea of what to expect.
Hello ksbird/foxranch,
I agree about your comments on the Porro vs. Roof prism binoculars. I have not an extensive collection now, but I have had some Porros Zeiss 8x30 B, Leits 8x30, Nikon 7x35 and 9x35 and, for me, the best of all in these powers, the Swarovski Habicht 8x30 and 10x40. I have had 5 of these Habicht since 1975. Now I keep one S Habicht, a 10x40 WGA of the last, 2 years old. This is the first, for me, Habicht that have true colours in the view, without that characteristic "yellow" tint in the old Habicht and in almost all vintage Austrian optics, by the way! This new Habicht have exelent optics, better than a Nikon SE I see recently and almost in par with my roof Zeiss FL 10x42. And its construction seems to be good to last forever, not too common today... But, I must said actually, this Zeiss FL have the best optics I have seen in a binocular...! Porro or Roof.
Regards
PHA
I agree about your comments on the Porro vs. Roof prism binoculars. I have not an extensive collection now, but I have had some Porros Zeiss 8x30 B, Leits 8x30, Nikon 7x35 and 9x35 and, for me, the best of all in these powers, the Swarovski Habicht 8x30 and 10x40. I have had 5 of these Habicht since 1975. Now I keep one S Habicht, a 10x40 WGA of the last, 2 years old. This is the first, for me, Habicht that have true colours in the view, without that characteristic "yellow" tint in the old Habicht and in almost all vintage Austrian optics, by the way! This new Habicht have exelent optics, better than a Nikon SE I see recently and almost in par with my roof Zeiss FL 10x42. And its construction seems to be good to last forever, not too common today... But, I must said actually, this Zeiss FL have the best optics I have seen in a binocular...! Porro or Roof.
Regards
PHA
mooreorless
Well-known member
Hi Jump, Welcome to Birdforum. You asked about someone to work on your binoculars. This fellow comes highly recommended.
http://www.cloudynights.com/ubbthre...view/collapsed/sb/5/o/all/fpart/1#Post4040252
Regards,Steve
Simon has had better luck with Swift Mark I's than I have. I think the real sleeper for Swift is the Neptune Mark II 7x35 of 1963-1968 It's a modest wide angle. One just made $100 on the bidding site so maybe it's not a sleeper anymore.
Earlier this summer I picked up a pair of 1965 Commodore Mark II 7x50's for astronomy. Whoo-ee! I think for static civilized viewing (where you're not lugging them around, or birding in the rain), these old 7x50's are magnificent. Even then, though, the BaK4 was significantly brighter than a BK7 equivalent (e.g. my Swift z-body Nighthawk 7x50 of a few years earlier, which is a fine daylight binocular but no galaxy quester).
Earlier this summer I picked up a pair of 1965 Commodore Mark II 7x50's for astronomy. Whoo-ee! I think for static civilized viewing (where you're not lugging them around, or birding in the rain), these old 7x50's are magnificent. Even then, though, the BaK4 was significantly brighter than a BK7 equivalent (e.g. my Swift z-body Nighthawk 7x50 of a few years earlier, which is a fine daylight binocular but no galaxy quester).
Well, as this thread has come to life again, speaking as an binocular addict, at the right price they are nearly all worth pursuing.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/95019762@N07/
Last edited:
On my top-most oldies shelf:
---A "Carl Wetzlar" 7x35 ultrawide (no relation to Zeiss or Germany but a super view)
---3 slightly different Binolux 7x35 wides, 1950s-1960s
(perfect alignment, very little film buildup)
---7x35 Swift NightHawks (love these: they are a stubby size but are wide view,
and the prisms are pristine, the focuser is rock-steady)
---A pair of Sans+Streiffe (~early 60s) 8x30s. Sharp, clear, wide.
S+S does have trouble in shipping sometimes, and often needs cleaning on the
field lens of the eyepiece, but has excellent 'best case' performance. They had
BAK4 prisms, mag.Flouride full coatings, very solid focuser, etc..
The easiest hi-quality antiques to find are the Binolux, or Empire sometimes (the ones
with heavy-duty focusers). Bear in mind, Binolux now is a name stamp put on
really cheap stuff.. not like the old stuff.
--------------------
There are some awesome K-Mart units. I look at the running gear and coatings in
photos to ID the super ones.
JC Penny had some great optical ones, but they mostly had chintsy end-covers
and hardware...a shame.
Sears was good....built like a tank.... but their "amber coating" (all the rage at
one point) seems to produce slightly hazy, lower contrast results now. I'm not sure
how that happens...maybe it didn't age well. Fun, but not the best.
Selsi's usually have incredibly deep contrast and clarity. They get bumped out of
alignment over the years or in the vans, though. I'm 1 for 3 on those. Haven't learned
prism alignment yet, just front/back lens cleaning.
Empire or Jaspn/Empire has great ones. The later the less solid the construction though.
Look for thick die-cast focuser arms.
And, a biggie:
I avoid all "fast focus" binocs. That carves a big hole out of the 70s and 80s,
but those focusers are so loose that the sharpness and left/right focus tracking
are almost impossible to get perfect. A shame: a lot of good glass is in front
of some really sloppy running gear.
---A "Carl Wetzlar" 7x35 ultrawide (no relation to Zeiss or Germany but a super view)
---3 slightly different Binolux 7x35 wides, 1950s-1960s
(perfect alignment, very little film buildup)
---7x35 Swift NightHawks (love these: they are a stubby size but are wide view,
and the prisms are pristine, the focuser is rock-steady)
---A pair of Sans+Streiffe (~early 60s) 8x30s. Sharp, clear, wide.
S+S does have trouble in shipping sometimes, and often needs cleaning on the
field lens of the eyepiece, but has excellent 'best case' performance. They had
BAK4 prisms, mag.Flouride full coatings, very solid focuser, etc..
The easiest hi-quality antiques to find are the Binolux, or Empire sometimes (the ones
with heavy-duty focusers). Bear in mind, Binolux now is a name stamp put on
really cheap stuff.. not like the old stuff.
--------------------
There are some awesome K-Mart units. I look at the running gear and coatings in
photos to ID the super ones.
JC Penny had some great optical ones, but they mostly had chintsy end-covers
and hardware...a shame.
Sears was good....built like a tank.... but their "amber coating" (all the rage at
one point) seems to produce slightly hazy, lower contrast results now. I'm not sure
how that happens...maybe it didn't age well. Fun, but not the best.
Selsi's usually have incredibly deep contrast and clarity. They get bumped out of
alignment over the years or in the vans, though. I'm 1 for 3 on those. Haven't learned
prism alignment yet, just front/back lens cleaning.
Empire or Jaspn/Empire has great ones. The later the less solid the construction though.
Look for thick die-cast focuser arms.
And, a biggie:
I avoid all "fast focus" binocs. That carves a big hole out of the 70s and 80s,
but those focusers are so loose that the sharpness and left/right focus tracking
are almost impossible to get perfect. A shame: a lot of good glass is in front
of some really sloppy running gear.
I only recently discovered the Empire "stubby 11 degree" design and the stubby
10-degree (525 ft @ 100 yd) design. The 525-ft's are super sharp. They carried a little
into Jason/Empire days. That's very rare type. Not as bulky. K-Mart had reprise models
for both Binolux and Empires. since they're more recent, they are typically more
pristine inside. Focusers at least Empire-grade.
I'm hoping a nice modern pair (maybe 8x42 Monarch 5's) will end my vintage habit.
Those monster 11-degree views of the heyday are hard to put away, though.
The competition for full-field perfection has pretty much crushed the ultras.
I can except a little fuzzing.
10-degree (525 ft @ 100 yd) design. The 525-ft's are super sharp. They carried a little
into Jason/Empire days. That's very rare type. Not as bulky. K-Mart had reprise models
for both Binolux and Empires. since they're more recent, they are typically more
pristine inside. Focusers at least Empire-grade.
I'm hoping a nice modern pair (maybe 8x42 Monarch 5's) will end my vintage habit.
Those monster 11-degree views of the heyday are hard to put away, though.
The competition for full-field perfection has pretty much crushed the ultras.
I can except a little fuzzing.
I went to a Salvation Army Thrift store and picked up a pair of Aktor binoculars. I tried to research them before I bought them online, and found absolutely nothing about them. They come in a pigskin leather case, and the optics are surprisingly good, I got a 20x50 model 1442. The attention to detail seems to belie german manufacturing, but when I listed it, someone said they are Japanese. Any information or clues about this product would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.
