What is the lightest 8x42mm roof prism made? My vote goes for the Nikon Monarch 8x42mm @21.5oz. If you know of one lighter let's hear about it. If you know of a lighter 8x42mm porro let's hear about that too. Please give weights in oz. This is a contest JUST for weight!
-
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.
What's the lightest 8x42mm Roof Prism made? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter [email protected]
- Start date
John Russell
Well-known member
I wouldn't rely too heavily on manufacturers' quoted weights. They can vary by +/-10%, usually plus!
I don't think a few more ounces are going to cause any serious discomfort and weight reduction may entail compromises in optical and mechanical quality.
IMO too many consumer products have their benchmarks dictated by marketing people instead of engineers so that the manufacturers can advertise an irrelevant superlative.
John
I don't think a few more ounces are going to cause any serious discomfort and weight reduction may entail compromises in optical and mechanical quality.
IMO too many consumer products have their benchmarks dictated by marketing people instead of engineers so that the manufacturers can advertise an irrelevant superlative.
John
xmeecosmic
Guest
A second vote for what is the point of the question???
The Nikon Monarch ATB is a candidate for one of the lightest, over-hyped/over-rated, becoming anachronistic (compared to lower-priced, optically advanced also Chinese- made albeit slightly heavier) 8x42 binoculars with a not so impressive FOV of 330 feet.
Les
The Nikon Monarch ATB is a candidate for one of the lightest, over-hyped/over-rated, becoming anachronistic (compared to lower-priced, optically advanced also Chinese- made albeit slightly heavier) 8x42 binoculars with a not so impressive FOV of 330 feet.
Les
Last edited:
kristoffer
Used Register
i think the point is to find out what bin is the lightest.
Surveyor
The more I understand, the more I understand why I
Dennis,
I have handled these, but never actually weighed them, so from listed data:
Nikon Monarch ATB ~21.3 oz. $250
Alpen Wings ED ~21 oz. $400
Alpen Apex ~20 oz. $270
I looked at these at different times and for a short period of time, so I have no
opinion about comparative optics/views. They belonged to other people.
I just remember them as being very light for 42's.
Ron
I have handled these, but never actually weighed them, so from listed data:
Nikon Monarch ATB ~21.3 oz. $250
Alpen Wings ED ~21 oz. $400
Alpen Apex ~20 oz. $270
I looked at these at different times and for a short period of time, so I have no
opinion about comparative optics/views. They belonged to other people.
I just remember them as being very light for 42's.
Ron
That might be true but they are LIGHT! The bigger FOV usually takes more lenses and a more complex eyepiece hence more weight. I say death to all the bricks. What is the lightest 42mm roof prism you know of?
Last edited:
Nice list Ron. We don't care about optics just how light they are. Alpen's sound interesting in an ED version. Surprising.
Last edited:
falcondude
Well-known member
All the best binoculars have one thing in common: relatively heavy. Probably because they use more glasses to get what they can deliver. It looks like 20oz is the about as low as a 42mm binocular can go.
Yes. To get the big wide FOV it takes more lenses in the eyepiece hence more weight. Eyepieces in astronomy are the same with the big Naglers delivering huge FOV's but they weigh as much as a hand grenade but in astronomy you really don't care because the telescope is holding the eyepiece for you. In birding you have to support all that glass with your arms. So everybody concurs that 20 oz. is about the lower limit for a 42mm roof prism binocular.
John Russell
Well-known member
xmeecosmic
Guest
Hi Dennis,
You have me convinced that you are a true believer in light weight 8x42's-more power or less power to you, as the case may be.
Could you explain why for you there is such a practical difference between a 20 ounce bino and one that weighs in the 26-27 ounce range?
For example, I recently did make a concession in terms of weight as after I purchased a 27 ounce 8x43 as my primary binoculars I decided I wanted a 10x42/50 as a special use back-up. Instead of buying a 10 x50 Porro that weighed in at 36 ounces, I opted for a 10x42 roof that weighed almost 27 ounces. One of reasons that I decided against the almost optically the same yet less expensive and heavier/bulkier Porro was that the back-up would be with me all the time along with the 8x43 and a field guide as I hike/bird between 2-5 hours daily over mixed terrain (not to mention the obsidian that I invariably pick up along the way).
So, why is close to absolute lowest weight your main priority?
Also, based on your question and some of the responses, the only listed light weight (21 ounces) 8x42 binoculars that I could find up to now with a decent but not great listed FOV (393 feet) is the Alpen Wings ED which is priced almost twice as much as the Monarchs.
Les
You have me convinced that you are a true believer in light weight 8x42's-more power or less power to you, as the case may be.
Could you explain why for you there is such a practical difference between a 20 ounce bino and one that weighs in the 26-27 ounce range?
For example, I recently did make a concession in terms of weight as after I purchased a 27 ounce 8x43 as my primary binoculars I decided I wanted a 10x42/50 as a special use back-up. Instead of buying a 10 x50 Porro that weighed in at 36 ounces, I opted for a 10x42 roof that weighed almost 27 ounces. One of reasons that I decided against the almost optically the same yet less expensive and heavier/bulkier Porro was that the back-up would be with me all the time along with the 8x43 and a field guide as I hike/bird between 2-5 hours daily over mixed terrain (not to mention the obsidian that I invariably pick up along the way).
So, why is close to absolute lowest weight your main priority?
Also, based on your question and some of the responses, the only listed light weight (21 ounces) 8x42 binoculars that I could find up to now with a decent but not great listed FOV (393 feet) is the Alpen Wings ED which is priced almost twice as much as the Monarchs.
Les
Last edited:
John M Robinson
Well-known member
Weight and compactness are big factors to me, and I feel I have found the ideal combination of size, weight and optical quality with my 8x32 SEs. They are not roofs or 42mm so don't qualify for this discussion, but I would put them up against any 42mm roof of approximately the same weight.
John
John
xmeecosmic
Guest
RJM,
It's the Minox BL 8x32 that has the specs that you mentioned.The 8x42 is listed at 22.9 ounces/636 grams.
Les
It's the Minox BL 8x32 that has the specs that you mentioned.The 8x42 is listed at 22.9 ounces/636 grams.
Les
To me 6 oz. is a HUGE difference in weight when you have to carry binoculars all day and hold them at arms length for extended periods of time. I would give up some FOV in fact to have a lighter and more compact pair of binoculars. I guess it is important to alot of other people because that in part explains the popularity of the Monarchs. I guess weight has become more important to me because I notice how much it adds to my enjoyment using binoculars when they are lighter.
John
Big reason I like Nikon 8x32 SE's too. At 21.5 oz. they are as light as the Monarch's and better optically. Very well balanced and they fit in my hands so nicely. Nice feeling rubber on them also. They are probably about as bright as most 42mm roofs also.The only disadvantage is their not waterproof so the Monarchs work better for a good cheap light all around I don't care about them very good optical set of binoculars.
I guess I should have said they have to meet a minimum level of optical performance.
The Alpen Wings ED look pretty nice but it sounds like they are lying about their weight specifications because here is review of guy who bought them and then weighed them on a postal scale. I weighed my 8x42 Monarchs and I confirm they are 21.5 oz.
Heavier than stated in Alpen's specs
By Lynn from Michigan on 6/25/2009
Pros:Close Focus, Quality Lenses, Strong Construction, Works Well With Glasses Cons:Heavy Best Uses:Bird WatchingDescribe Yourself:Casual/ RecreationalBottom Line:Yes, I would recommend this to a friendComments about Alpen 8x42 Wings ED Binoculars:
Alpen stated 21 ozs. on their web site specs. We purchased them for the light weight promised. They were actually 24.5 ozs. on a digital postal scale! That's almost 1/4 pound. Good for burgers, not for small people.
Last edited:
brocknroller
porromaniac
Les,
I can tell you how I "weigh in" on this issue. 20 ounce binoculars are too lightweight for me. They show more "shakes" than a similar bin in the 27-28 ounce range.
I'd rather use a wide neoprene strap or a binoharness with a less than 30 oz. bin than deal with the shakes from a 20 oz. roof, which doesn't have enough weight to dampen "bad vibrations".
Of course, ergonomics are also a factor. With Klingon hands, I find it hard to hold most roofs steady, unless they have an open bridge, or wide, shallow thumb indents underneath the barrels.
Even a 25-26 oz. midsized closed bridged roof with no thumb indents will give me the DTs.
Last edited:
