Hoping to get an opinion on older binos (1 Viewer)

I have a pair of Bausch and Lomb 10x42 Rubber Armored Elite (black) that I purchased back in 1989. The are in outstanding condition, have no scratches on the lenses, etc. as I'm fanatical about caring for equipment. The focusing wheel is just a tad soft in the middle, with some play in it, but by no means unusable, or even overly annoying. You can just feel the play in it a bit. They were about $1,800 new, as I remember.

My question involves upgrading. Given the quality of the binoculars, and their condition, if I upgrade to a high-end modern set (top-of-the-line Swarovskis, Zeiss, Leica, etc.) will I notice a significant enough improvement to make the money spent worthwhile? Have optics, coatings, etc. improved enough to make the difference distinct and noticeable?

I was hoping that someone with experience with both older and newer equipment might have an opinion. I don't know of any shops nearby where I can try out the newer equipment, and I would probably purchase on-line anyway.

Anyone have any suggestions?

typhonus said:

I have a pair of Bausch and Lomb 10x42 Rubber Armored Elite (black) that I purchased back in 1989. The are in outstanding condition, have no scratches on the lenses, etc. as I'm fanatical about caring for equipment. The focusing wheel is just a tad soft in the middle, with some play in it, but by no means unusable, or even overly annoying. You can just feel the play in it a bit. They were about $1,800 new, as I remember.

My question involves upgrading. Given the quality of the binoculars, and their condition, if I upgrade to a high-end modern set (top-of-the-line Swarovskis, Zeiss, Leica, etc.) will I notice a significant enough improvement to make the money spent worthwhile? Have optics, coatings, etc. improved enough to make the difference distinct and noticeable?

I was hoping that someone with experience with both older and newer equipment might have an opinion. I don't know of any shops nearby where I can try out the newer equipment, and I would probably purchase on-line anyway.

Anyone have any suggestions?

Click to expand...

Most definitely. I think you would be shocked if you saw the improvement in the newer binoculars. Go for the Zeiss 8x32 FL's or the Swarovski Swarovsion's 8x42's. It will be like night and day!

Thanks!

Thanks! That's good information to have. In the interest of being as economical as possible, I've been reading reviews for the Pentax DCF SP 8x43 Binocular, which many reviewers feel seems to offer performance close to the high-end models, but at a much lower price point. Any feelings on whether this would also be superior to what I'm using now, or do I really need to cough up for the big boys to make it worthwhile?

typhonus said:

Thanks! That's good information to have. In the interest of being as economical as possible, I've been reading reviews for the Pentax DCF SP 8x43 Binocular, which many reviewers feel seems to offer performance close to the high-end models, but at a much lower price point. Any feelings on whether this would also be superior to what I'm using now, or do I really need to cough up for the big boys to make it worthwhile?

Click to expand...

I have never looked through the Pentax but I think you would have to go new alpha to get an improvement on what you have which is an older alpha. If that's your price point I would consider a top porro-prism like a Nikon 8x32 SE or 8x30 EII if you don't need waterproof or you might try one of the newer Chinese ED binoculars which are close to alpha in their optics like the Zen Ray 8x43 ED. Any one of these would be superior to the Pentax I am sure.

Based on much practical experience w/roof prism birding bino evolution since 1988, I'd agree w/Dennis that you'd likely be amazed at the superiority of current alpha roofs in comparison to a B&L Elite of that vintage. In comparison, newer bins are phase correction coated, have more efficient reflective coatings on the prisms (dialelectric rather than silver), and more efficient and color correct lens coatings. In comparison to your Elite, you should also expect full waterproofing and more durable as well as water/oil-shedding lens coatings, and a wider field of view and better close-focus. These are all important considerations if you are doing serious birding that pushes the limits of your cognitive and your bin's optical abilities (i.e. trying to ID all birds, including unfamiliar species, and often under challenging conditions of lighting, distance etc). If your need is just to observe familiar species in nice conditions and at moderate ranges, then your old Elites should be plenty good since they have a pleasing view and nice ergonomics.

When it comes to budget picks, I'll second Dennis's suggestion of the Zen Ray 8x43 over the Pentax. You might also look at the Atlas Intrepid (sold by Eagle Optics).

--AP

Alexis Powell said:

When it comes to budget picks, I'll second Dennis's suggestion of the Zen Ray 8x43 over the Pentax. You might also look at the Atlas Intrepid (sold by Eagle Optics).

--AP

Click to expand...

A third vote for that. The SP line doesn't have ED glass which makes a significant difference. I have the Pentax 8x32 ED which is really nice, and doesn't have the narrow field of view (330') of the 8x43. It's something like 393'. If you want full-size 8x42/3's then you can't beat the Atlas and Zen Ray for the money ($350-400). They don't feel like an alpha in terms of focusing (they don't feel as nice as the Pentax SP/ED for that matter), but the view is certainly alpha territory. If you'd like to try mid-size, the Pentax 8x32 ED is great for the price of $700-800. Bargains pop up from time to time. I got mine for $560 as I recall.

Beyond that, alphas away! You can snag some good deals on Zeiss from time to time, moreso than Leica and Swarovski (I don't know why). I can vouch for the Zeiss 8x32 FL, which is my favorite all-rounder. For me, the Nikon 8x32 SE is still the best thing I've ever looked through, but try before you buy because it isn't for everyone. The eyecups, for one, are outdated and can be unfriendly to some users. It's also not waterproof if that makes a difference.

If cost is not critical, then check out the Swarovski 8.5x42 Swarovision, which is probably the best full-size, period (although some will disagree). The new SLC is probably nice as well, although I haven't seen it.

typhonus said:

Thanks! That's good information to have. In the interest of being as economical as possible, I've been reading reviews for the Pentax DCF SP 8x43 Binocular, which many reviewers feel seems to offer performance close to the high-end models, but at a much lower price point. Any feelings on whether this would also be superior to what I'm using now, or do I really need to cough up for the big boys to make it worthwhile?

Click to expand...

I'm not so sure I agree with the information. I still have (and use) the next to last model Bausch & Lomb 8 x 42 Elite (the model reviewed by Stephen Ingraham in Better View Desired and pronounced at the time a "Reference Standard") and find its performance noticeably better than the Pentax DCF SP for flatness of field, edge sharpness, CA and overall clarity of the image. Lens coatings have improved for many brands in the intervening years and the B & L is admittedly not as bright as the Pentax but it remains an effective birding tool over a wide range of lighting conditions. To say that its image quality differs from the Alphas by a "night and day" margin is very much an overstatement. Is the WOW factor higher with the Aphas - you bet, but acquisition cost for a new Zeiss, Swaro or Leica is staggering, and other birders looking trhough the B & L Elite for the first time are always surprised and amazed. The real issues with the B & L Elite are its lightning fast coarse focus, fold down rubber eyecups and its assymetrical gripping indents in the rubber armor. If those three factors are not a problem (and they are not for me), I would think twice before I spent $2k on a new Alpha. If you really want (rather than need) a new binocular with better performance, try the Leupold 8 x 42 Gold Ring HD.

chartwell99 said:

I'm not so sure I agree with the information. I still have (and use) the next to last model Bausch & Lomb 8 x 42 Elite (the model reviewed by Stephen Ingraham in Better View Desired and pronounced at the time a "Reference Standard") and find its performance...

Click to expand...

I'll not argue with anything you say about your B&L Elite, but it is an _entirely_ different design from the Elite of 1989 which the original poster owns, with radically different ergonomics and very different optics. The Elite wasn't even phase coated in 1989.

--AP

Alexis Powell said:

I'll not argue with anything you say about your B&L Elite, but it is an _entirely_ different design from the Elite of 1989 which the original poster owns, with radically different ergonomics and very different optics. The Elite wasn't even phase coated in 1989.

--AP

Click to expand...

You're right - my mistake. I remember the late '80s Elites as being well made but not waterproof, with an awkward focus knob at the end of the hinge like the current Swaro SLC 8 x 32 and soft and dim images similar to the Nikon Classic Eagle of the same period. The later Elites are indeed a very different binocular and vastly underrated in my view.

Chartwell, I have the Swarovski 8x30 SLC neu and use my ring finger to focus one handed with no trouble. My strong pointing finger and rest of my hand is holding the binocular while I focus. With focuser in the "rear" you are focusing with your strong pointing finger and it is awkward one handed. If you wear a hat it is easier to focus with the focuser in the front. Some of this might be a moot point if you always use both hands while holding a binocular. But if you have your coffee mug in one hand this comes in handy.
Regards,Steve

chartwell99 said:

You're right - my mistake. I remember the late '80s Elites as being well made but not waterproof, with an awkward focus knob at the end of the hinge like the current Swaro SLC 8 x 32 and soft and dim images similar to the Nikon Classic Eagle of the same period. The later Elites are indeed a very different binocular and vastly underrated in my view.

Click to expand...

That's right, but I don't find the focus knob position awkward because the longer barrels of the B&L (in comparison to the Swarovski 8x30) allow one to wrap one hand around the barrel in front of the knob and focus with the index or other finger if desired. In fact, I rather like that arrangement--for me it is more stable, and it's nice to get the focus knob away from face, glasses, and hat brim.

--AP

Alexis Powell said:

That's right, but I don't find the focus knob position awkward because the longer barrels of the B&L (in comparison to the Swarovski 8x30) allow one to wrap one hand around the barrel in front of the knob and focus with the index or other finger if desired. In fact, I rather like that arrangement--for me it is more stable, and it's nice to get the focus knob away from face, glasses, and hat brim.

--AP

Click to expand...

Hear! Hear!

I'd like to see more bins with this design, especially in full sized alpha's.
I've tried the old style B&L 10x42 once and found the ergonomics quite charming. Couldn't pay the price, though.
Once owned an Optolyth Royal 7x42 with double focus wheel, front and rear end of the hinge, typically meant to be used by hunters, very very nice to hold and focus under the bill of a baseball cap. Image though was on the soft side, I returned them after two weeks. That was in 1986.

Best regards,

Ronald

chartwell99 said:

You're right - my mistake. I remember the late '80s Elites as being well made but not waterproof, with an awkward focus knob at the end of the hinge like the current Swaro SLC 8 x 32 and soft and dim images similar to the Nikon Classic Eagle of the same period. The later Elites are indeed a very different binocular and vastly underrated in my view.

Click to expand...

I have owned both the model you are referring and the 2nd generation Elite's and I certainly don't agree.

The 1st gen. Elite's were called [by Pete Dunne] the sharpest binocular he had even seen and were considered as good or better than anything out there at the time. They also had great DOF, far better than the 2nd gen.s and a very flat field with sharp edges. ''Soft and dim'' would never be uttered if you looked through a pair. In fact, to my eyes, they were as good as the 2nd gen. [PC glass] Elite's.

That said, I have compared my newer Elite's to all the current alpha's, spending over an hour with the FL's, SV's, UV's...........to my eye, there are TINY, INCREMENTAL differences, with all models having certain trade-offs and compromises. I would not say the newest bins have really changed all that much. And this is from experienced eyes......I use binoculars almost every day [in my work] and have done so for over thirty years. I know what a good bin looks like.

Everyone is talking about edge sharpness, DOF, field flatness.......well my 1980-ish Bushnell 10 x 40 Custom's had all of that and an image that would surprise alot of folks if viewed today besides the alpha's. I think upgrading is a question of want more than need, as a really good bin from the 80's or 90's is [generally] still a really good bin, even in todays world.

Oh, and those Elite's never had cripplingly slow or coarse, juddery focus, rolling ball or extensive edge distortion.

The first generation Elites were very functional, and of course they still are, but I'm surprised that you find the differences between them and current roofs "tiny" (porros are an entirely different matter; they were already so good that have had less room for improvement over the last couple decades, and effort has been made to improve them).

I was a lover of the original Elite in their day, and Pete Dunne was right to be enthusiastic about them when they were first released (though _not_ for their sharpness, but rather their overall birding friendly specs and design), and I was a devotee of the Nikon Classic Eagle as well, but these nonPC roofs really do lack the sharpness (especially as determined by contrast), color rendering, and brightness of current offerings. The differences are not slight, especially in situations with strong back lighting or deep shadows.

--AP

Alexis Powell said:

The first generation Elites were very functional, and of course they still are, but I'm surprised that you find the differences between them and current roofs "tiny" (porros are an entirely different matter; they were already so good that have had less room for improvement over the last couple decades, and effort has been made to improve them).

I was a lover of the original Elite in their day, and Pete Dunne was right to be enthusiastic about them when they were first released (though _not_ for their sharpness, but rather their overall birding friendly specs and design), and I was a devotee of the Nikon Classic Eagle as well, but these nonPC roofs really do lack the sharpness (especially as determined by contrast), color rendering, and brightness of current offerings. The differences are not slight, especially in situations with strong back lighting or deep shadows.

--AP

Click to expand...

It's strange, as the Elite [in it's day] was considered as good [or better] than any of the similar offerings from Leitz and Zeiss, with only the Nikon SE considered a bit better overall.

Now, the SE's are still revered, and considered still as good as the very best roofs and the Elite's are thought of as ''dim and soft.'':-O

BTW - the thread starter is referring to the rubber-armoured Elite's, and it WAS that model that Dunne said was the sharpest binocular [as well as very bright and contrasty] he had ever seen, in an issue of Birding mag.

james holdsworth said:

It's strange, as the Elite [in it's day] was considered as good [or better] than any of the similar offerings from Leitz and Zeiss, with only the Nikon SE considered a bit better overall.

Now, the SE's are still revered, and considered still as good as the very best roofs and the Elite's are thought of as ''dim and soft.'':-O

BTW - the thread starter is referring to the rubber-armoured Elite's, and it WAS that model that Dunne said was the sharpest binocular [as well as very bright and contrasty] he had ever seen, in an issue of Birding mag.

Click to expand...

Nothing strange here at all, it's just that you are confusing different products and comparisons. Here's what I think I know/can recollect:

The original B&L Elite, of the late 1980s, with the focus knob at the far end of the hinge, came in leather, and later in rubber armor. It was not phase-coated, and so while it was as good or better than the Zeiss and Leica competition optically, and better than them w/respect to close focus, focus ratio, and eye-relief, it was (I am claiming) a mediocre binocular in comparison to modern roofs (as are all roof-prism bins of that era). That is the binocular, if bought in 1989, that the original poster owns.

Later, in about 1992, phase-coating was added to the Elite, with no other changes in optics or styling (except it was only available in rubber armor). I really liked that vintage of Elite, and though modern alphas have better contrast, wider FOV, better color, are quite a bit brighter, and are waterproof, it's not as obvious that they are much superior except in the most difficult lighting conditions.

In about 1996, B&L introduced a new Elite. The body was radically sculpted to enforce a particular grip, the focus knob was moved to the near end of the hinge, it was waterproof, and close-focus was about 4.5 feet. That Elite was, in my opinion, one of the best butterflying bins ever made, and Steve Ingraham considered it the best full-sized roof of its day. I never understood his love for that bin as a birding bin--it didn't seem, to me, to be any better than its Leica and Zeiss competitors (Actually, I much preferred the Zeiss 7x42). In comparison to today's roofs, it is a noticeable step down in contrast, color, and brightness, and the FOV is smaller, but it is still a very fine binocular. The biggest gripe most have had w/that Elite is with the too zippy focus ratio (nice for close-up butterflying) which makes precise distance focus difficult and which has lead to the erroneous conclusion that it has narrow DOF. It also has rather delicate lens coatings. It was that Elite which was compared to the Nikon 8x32 SE, but the SE was WAY WAY superior optically--much better contrast, better transmission, much better sharpness off axis (much less astigmatism), much better color balance, better FOV.

--AP

You may be right Alexis, as I didn't know that the 1st generation Elite's were ever rubber armoured.

Do you [or anyone else] have a good reference site for facts and figures for older B and L binoculars? I remember lusting after the Discoverers and Elites as a kid, after using someone's 9 x 36's [I think?]