• 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.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Close-focusing alpha field glasses (1 Viewer)

Dr Owl

Dude ... and proud of it
Hello everyone,

May I introduce myself; defend (or at least explain) my use of “alpha” field glasses; and ask some questions about using field glasses for both birds and butterflies.

I’m a retired mathematician and amateur musician who goes (not nearly often enough) onto the Downs of Hampshire and into the New Forest, usually taking either a camera (I’m something of a Nikon geek who has recently started using a Leica) or field glasses for wildlife observation and (inexpert) birding and butterflying.

In the late 1990s, our children started graduating from university, and good optics started being affordable. The Pussycat and I bought a modest pair of Nikon 10x50 porroprism glasses. Then I made my mistake. At an RSPB gig, I looked through a pair of glasses that cost about 3x the price of the Nikons ... and they were much sharper, clearer and more comfortable. Then, at a photographic trade show, I looked through Nikon EDG and Leica glasses that cost about 5x the price of the porroprism Nikons ... and they were noticeably clearer and more comfortable still!

This was very much a case of diminishing returns. The first £N on the porroprism Nikons made distant objects visible. The extra £2N on the RSPB glasses did not give images that were 3x as good, but they were definitely sharper. The further £2N on the alphas gave the smallest improvement: greater clarity and comfort, but not, I think, significantly greater sharpness.

I yielded to temptation; and in 2002 went to a store which stocked the grand brands (looking for 8x42 glasses – the 10x50 experience had showed me I would prefer glasses that weighed less and didn’t jiggle so much) leaving with Swarovski ELs; which I slightly preferred to the then new Leica Ultravids and the long-established Zeiss Dialyt 7x42 BGATs. A decision which I’ve never regretted.

Though I do wish that the Swarovskis would focus closer. Mine focus down to about 2.5 metres (8 feet), so I have to take a pace back when viewing a butterfly. I rejected the Bausch & Lomb Elites, quite rightly, because they seemed less clear than the alphas, but they did focus down to about 1.5 metres (5 feet).

(Digression: It is my perception that between the launch of the Bausch & Lomb Elites in 1987, and the launch of the Swarovski ELs in 1999, there was a massive improvement in the clarity of the best field glasses, largely the result of much improved multicoating.)

Now, I have the need/opportunity to buy another pair of good glasses. Our ten-year-old grandson wants to learn astronomy, so we have given him the 10x50 Nikons. And when the Owl and the Pussycat go out for a walk together, each needs to have his or her own field glasses.

The market has changed since 2002, and there are now two alphas that focus down to 1.5 metres: the Swarovision ELs and the Zeiss Victory SFs. One option would be to go back to the store and buy whichever I like more. I doubt whether there is a wrong answer to that decision.

My questions are:

(1) Is this the right solution for both birding and butterflying? Or does one need different glasses for each purpose?

(2) Are there are other glasses I should be considering as well as the ELs and the SFs?

(3) The Pussycat is more stable than I, and has no great difficulty with handling 10x power glasses. Is 10x42 too much magnification for butterflies?

Later,

Dr Owl

----------------------------
John Owlett, Southampton, UK
 
Hi Owl,
First of all, congratulations on your grandson, it is wonderful to have such a gift!
He must be a strapping lad, a 10x50 Nikon is no featherweight, especially for astronomy, where longer observations are common. A Canon 10x30IS would be a much more astronomy friendly glass, it is not egregiously expensive and the stabilization really transforms the experience.

For butterflying, close focus and wider field are more critical than power.
The Pentax Papilios are still the leaders in that market, very light and very close focus, decent optics, at an affordable price. That said, I believe that the newer versions of the Swaro and Zeiss will focus down to 5 feet and butterflies probably get skittish if you come closer than that. So if your purse will support it, they will serve your needs.
 
Hello Dr. Owl,
I think that the improvement in roof binoculars,after 1987, was the introduction of phase coatings. Mult-coating was introduced, earlier, and has been frequently improved.

It may be more cost effective to add the Papillo, for the sole purpose of butterflying, rather than upgrading.

Happy nature observing,
Arthur Pinewood
 
Last edited:
Hello Dr. Owl,
I have a pretty wide collection of binoculars, including Alpha, Zeiss, Leica, Swaro, but as Arthur and etudiant say, the Pentax 6.5 x 21 Papilios are the tool for close focus, despite the moderate price, I find nothing I have can beat them for watching insects and butterflies in the garden, fantastic close detail, and they are pretty good for general use as well.
Best wishes.
 
Last edited:
Dr. Owl,

The Pentax Papilios are unique in being able to focus down to about .5 meters, and are great fun for examining insects and plants, but they are no alphas. I know this, as I gave a pair to my daughter several years back, and tried them out again as recently as today.

Since you say that you readily saw sharpness differences between a 10x50 Nikon porro and premium 8-8.5x42 binoculars, it seems certain that you would find the sharpness, brightness and contrast of the Pentax unsatisfying. On the other hand, the Papilio is very inexpensive and worth having for its unique qualities.

As far as the options you mention, in my view you have narrowed it down to the best options. In my trials and with my somewhat far-sighted eyes, the 8x42 SF focused down to 1.65m and the 8.5x42 EL SV to 1.6m. They would both meet your requirements very well. They have different color balance in the view, with a slight yellow-green bias in the Zeiss and a slight cold blue bias in the Swaro. Not much, but it could be enough to swing your preference one way or the other. Both have a very wide sharp area around the center, but while the EL SV stays very sharp to the very edge, the SF image does soften noticeably, although even at the very edge I believe it is sharper than your pre-SV EL.

In the SF, there is more reduction of magnification at the field edges, and when panning the image twists more. I would not be bothered by this, but it is worth checking out for yourself.

My favorite alpha binocular, and the one I own, is the Canon 10x42 IS L, which would add excellent image stabilization into the feature set. However, it does not focus closer than about 2.5m, and weighs a tad over 1kg, so you might not like it. I do encourage you to try the stabilization, though.

Kimmo
 
when looking at a bug/flower/other at 18" with the papillios,
alpha is far from my mind
they are economical, a great value, a compliment to other optics
and a lot of fun

edj
 
Buy the Pentax Papilios, John, and with the two grand change buy your Pussycat beautiful flowers once a month for the next seven years. You can sit in the kitchen with your Papilios watching your wife looking at the beautiful flowers and when your grandson posts pictures of his Grandad looking like a right nugget on YouTube or Facebook your excuse will be that you picked up some bad habits on Bird Forum !

Best wishes,
 
Thank you, everyone.

What a clear-cut recommendation! The Pentax Papilios (Papiliones?) are enormous fun, open up a world that goes even smaller than butterflies, and should be tried, even by an alphaphile.

Six consecutive replies in broad agreement ... unprecedented in Bird Forum history! :eek!:

Given the vast price difference between Papilios and alphas, I should probably just check the eye relief, buy a pair of Papilios in the near future, and use them through the early weeks of the butterfly season. We shall need a second pair of good birding glasses anyway; if the Papilios meet our needs for butterflying, then these alphas don’t have to be close focus.

I must admit that, up till now, my reaction to the Papilios has been ...
... 3mm exit pupils !?
... not waterproof !??
... plastic !???

In my trials and with my somewhat far-sighted eyes, the 8x42 SF focused down to 1.65m and the 8.5x42 EL SV to 1.6m. They would both meet your requirements very well.

That’s useful to know, Kimmo. I believe those distances would be suitable for butterflying.

My favorite alpha binocular, and the one I own, is the Canon 10x42 IS L, which would add excellent image stabilization into the feature set.

That’s an option that hadn’t occurred to me. If the Papilios work out, I must consider them too, though their weight will be against them. (In 2002, I rejected the Nikon EDGs because I found them too heavy.)

I think tat the improvement in roof binoculars, after 1987, was the introduction of phase coatings.

Good point, Arthur.

He must be a strapping lad, a 10x50 Nikon is no featherweight, especially for astronomy, where longer observations are common. A Canon 10x30IS would be a much more astronomy friendly glass, ...

You’re right about the weight: the 10x50 Nikons weigh getting on for a kilo (just over 2 lb). But a light bucket with 5mm exit pupils is a great help for looking at stars. (7x50 glasses, when we still had them, were quite wonderful for my young eyes looking at the Pleiades.) 10x30 IS Canons, if we had them, would have their place; I’d imagine they would be super for looking at the Moon.

There used to be 7x35 binoculars, which small people used for stargazing. Whatever happened to them?

Later

Dr Owl

----------------------------
John Owlett, Southampton, UK
 
...
There used to be 7x35 binoculars, which small people used for stargazing. Whatever happened to them?

Later

Dr Owl

----------------------------
John Owlett, Southampton, UK

Hello John,

They were peculiar to the American market, although Leitz made a couple of 7x35 'noculars. 7x35 was a popular item from Bausch & Lomb, and for many years from Nikon, which was very tied to the American market. I think that Zen-Ray may still be producing a 7x36 and Meopta, and other manufacturers had or have 6.5x32 or thereabouts. I did not care for the Zen-Ray, and use the Meostar 6.5x32, almost daily. 7x35 was never popular in the European markets.

Happy nature observing,
Arthur :hi:
 
. Nikon 7×35 binoculars are still available, mainly in the low-priced versions.
However, for astronomy they are quite adequate although the transmission is not that good because they only have coatings on some surfaces.

It may be that 7×35 binoculars were made for the US market, but they have always been available in Britain from many makers.
For instance the Minolta 7×35 Standard binoculars have a 11.05° field.

In my experience the Canon 10×30 image stabilised binocular outperforms standard 10×50 binoculars.
This may seem an odd but the star images are very small and with the stabilisation on you gain at least one magnitude in the faintest star visible.

It may be that a 10×50 with very good coatings might perform better on diffuse objects, but I would certainly consider that the Canon 10×30 image stabilised binocular is most suitable for both daytime and night use.

I also have the Pentax Papilio. Just because something is low price and made of plastic does not mean that it is no good.
 
Last edited:
I too like butterflying, birding, and optically excellent binoculars. Thus far, no one has optimized an alpha for butterflying plus birding. In my opinion, the perfect bin would be x32 or x42 size, have a very flat and astigmatism free field (like SV or SF) to reduce importance of overlap of the center of the view at very close distances, focus down to ~3.5 ft, and have variable-ratio focus to allow quick but precise focusing between the close limit and infinity. No single bin, much less with top-end optics, can do that. I've tried carrying two bins, but I find it irritating to the point of being impractical. So it's all about finding the bin that represents the best compromise of the qualities I most appreciate. With respect to close focus, I find anything that can't get under 8 feet unacceptable and I'm much much happier when I can get down to 5 or 6 feet. Less than that is very useful, especially for aesthetic viewing, but for making IDs, when I need to get very very close to clinch a critical one, I'm torn between reaching for the Pentax Papilio bins and my digital camera, and I generally end up opting for the latter, so I don't miss having sub 5 ft focusing much.

I love the the Pentax 6.5x21 Papilio for watching butterflies up close. The comfortably stereo close view from ~16" is unmatched, and the optical quality is excellent for close-range butterflying. The Papilio has variable ratio focus, so it focuses very nicely from close to far, but being that it is a relatively inexpensive and small reverse-porro, it isn't the sort of bin one would choose for no compromises birding, or, for that matter, watching butterflies at distance (e.g. scanning flower heads or other likely perching spots in grassland or marsh settings) or at mid-range distances in tricky light (e.g. on branches/tree trunks in the patchy light of temperate woodlands or in dark tropical forests).

My favorite nearly no-compromises bin for butterflying+birding (and as a single travel bin) is the Zeiss 8x32 FL. It close-focuses for me down to 5 ft, and though the focus isn't variable ratio, I find it both rapid and precise. The optical quality is superb overall, so it is very capable for birding and distant butterflies. The field is wide and flat, and the minimum IPD narrow (52 mm) so getting good field overlap is easy. I do wish it had less astigmatism off-axis, but the optical quality is so good that I've never been bothered by aberrations when using the bin for butterflies, even at its close limit where the optical centers may not overlap. With lesser bins, among which you will find a number of close-focusing models, I often find the optical quality of the overlapping portions of the view unacceptable (e.g. of the Eagle Optics 8x32 Ranger with its 3ft close focus), though some are quite good in that respect (e.g. my Browning 8x32 with its 4 ft close focus), and such bins are never the best choices for birding.

I love full-sized bins for birding, but I don't miss them much for butterflying (much of it done in sunny bright conditions) or when travelling and juggling camera and other gear, so my other primary birding+butterflying bin is the Leica 8x20 Ultravid BL. For me, it focuses down to 6 ft. The focus knob is better designed than on other pocket roofs, so I find it the best choice when needing to rapidly cover the focus range.

I'm still waiting for the perfect full-sized bin for birding+butterflies. In its day, the B&L 8x42 Elite (waterproof version of the late 1990s) with its 4.5 ft close focus was the best available and is still very capable, though not as good optically (contrast, color fidelity, brightness) as the latest roofs, and its rapid focus made focusing precisely at distance difficult. I don't use mine anymore because I like the Zeiss 8x32 FL better. The full-sized Brunton Epoch bins, with their variable-ratio focus down to 3.5 ft were interesting, but they weren't absolutely tops optically (lots of CA) and they had a narrow FOV so the fields didn't overlap well. My favorite to date was the recently discontinued Zeiss 8x42 FL because it has the rapid but precise focus of the x32 model, but the close limit is a bit further out, about 6 ft for me. The Zeiss 8x42 HT is its nearest current equivalent, focusing under 6 ft for me, and it has better optics, but the focus ratio is slower than the FL. I haven't tried the SF yet, but I know from others that its focus ratio is not as fast as the FL. It might be the best full-sized birding+butterflying alpha to date. As for the Swarovski 8.5x42 SV, I find the focus ratio unacceptable--it just takes too long to get from nearby butterflies to distant birds and back again. I had the same problem with the original slow-focus version of the Swarovski 8.5x42 EL, which gets down to 7 feet, just very very very slowly. Put the variable-ratio focus of the Brunton Epoch in the SF or the SV and it would be the bin I've long dreamed of. Hasn't happened yet, but I'm hoping some day it will.

--AP
 
7x35 binoculars: whatever happened to them?

They were peculiar to the American market, although Leitz made a couple of 7x35 'noculars. 7x35 was a popular item from Bausch & Lomb, and for many years from Nikon, which was very tied to the American market.
Thank you for that, Arthur. Yet another thing I didn't know that I am learning this week.

When I wrote, "Whatever happened to them?", I was lamenting a lost age --

Mais où sont les neiges d'antan

-- a phrase for which we don't seem to have a smiley.

I had a particular pair of field glasses in mind: the Nikon 7x35E. They were very good porroprisms, if extremely traditional in appearance, and cost about £300 in the days when the very new Swarovski EL cost about £850. They appear in Nikon's 1999 catalogue, but by 2001 the 8x30E and the 10x35E had been upgraded to E II, and the 7x35 had been dropped.

Sigh.

Dr Owl

----------------------------------
John Owlett, Southampton, UK
 
. Nikon 7×35 binoculars are still available, mainly in the low-priced versions.
However, for astronomy they are quite adequate although the transmission is not that good because they only have coatings on some surfaces.

It may be that 7×35 binoculars were made for the US market, but they have always been available in Britain from many makers.
For instance the Minolta 7×35 Standard binoculars have a 11.05° field.

In my experience the Canon 10×30 image stabilised binocular outperforms standard 10×50 binoculars.
This may seem an odd but the star images are very small and with the stabilisation on you gain at least one magnitude in the faintest star visible.

It may be that a 10×50 with very good coatings might perform better on diffuse objects, but I would certainly consider that the Canon 10×30 image stabilised binocular is most suitable for both daytime and night use.

I also have the Pentax Papilio. Just because something is low price and made of plastic does not mean that it is no good.

I have a 10x50 Nikon Action EX porro I bought to use for astronomy, but have given up using it because the image is just too shaky. Nowadays I grab my Nikon Monarch 7 8x42, or increasingly my Zeiss Victory 8x42 SF, if I'm doing astronomy. Less shake, wider field of view, and much better glass! :t:

I think image stabilised binoculars are the way to go for astronomy, but I would never bird with them because of the size and weight.

By the way Binastro, do you happen to know how well the Canon IS series preforms in cold climes?
 
Canon 10x30 IS outperforms standard 10x50

In my experience the Canon 10×30 image stabilised binocular outperforms standard 10×50 binoculars.
This may seem an odd but the star images are very small and with the stabilisation on you gain at least one magnitude in the faintest star visible.
Thank you.

It seems I have wildly underestimated etudiant's suggestion of the Canon 10x30 IS.

Sorry about that, everyone. In particular, sorry, etudiant.

When I were a lad, the standard advice to a juvenile astronomer (me) was to start with field glasses which had an exit pupil of between 5mm and 7mm. The rule of thumb was to begin with 10x50, and change down to 8x40 or 7x35 if that was too heavy.

Accordingly to Nikon, the 7x35E was fully multicoated; it seemed to be preferred to roof-prism glasses. (Its field, at 7.3°, was far less than the Minolta you mention, which is perhaps why it was discontinued.)

The World has changed, and I have failed to notice it. The only benefit is that, by not following the forums carefully, I am still using the same glasses as I bought 13 years ago!

Later,

Dr Owl

----------------------------------
John Owlett, Southampton, UK
 
. Hi HighNorth,
. Unfortunately, I don't have any experience of using the Canon image stabilised binoculars in low temperatures.
Kimmo is the one to ask.
I do think they would be good down to -20°C but maybe not colder.
Anyway, I always use lithium AA throwaway batteries, which gives vastly improved user time in cold temperatures.
I can't remember if Canon recommend whether these binoculars are okay at -10°C or -20°C.

I do know that some of the old Kodak colour negative film broke hopelessly below -30°C, whereas Konica film was quite okay. Also plastic straps and plastic cases became so brittle they would fall to pieces if you hit them. Although the good quality mechanical cameras still worked.
 
. Hi HighNorth,
. Looking at a 1998 instruction book for the Canon 10×30 I S.
Major specifications.
Ambient conditions -10°C to 45°C/14°F to 113°F, 90% humidity
weight 600 g/21.2 ounces (excluding batteries)
focus range approximately 13.8 feet to infinity
eye relief 14.5 mm
real field of view 6°
apparent field of view 60°
type Porro prism binoculars with centre focusing.

Power source and continuous operation time
size AA alkaline batteries 25°C/77°F approximately 4 hours -10°C/14°F approximately 20 minutes.
Size AA lithium batteries 25°C/77°F approximately 12 hours -10°C/14°F approximately 5 hours.
Size AA nickel cadmium batteries 25°C/77°F approximately 4 hours -10°C/14°F approximately 3 hours.
(Data based on Canons standard test method)

When the binoculars are to be used in cold weather, AA lithium batteries are recommended

Never look at the Sun or a bright light with the binoculars. Doing so can cause loss of vision.

Hope that helps.

The current 10×30 IS may do better as I recall that the stabilisation was changed to increase operation time, but I'm not sure if it also improved the stabilisation.
 
.
Size AA nickel cadmium batteries 25°C/77°F approximately 4 hours -10°C/14°F approximately 3 hours.
(Data based on Canons standard test method)

Thanks Binastro!

I am afraid the operating temperature of -10°C would be insufficient during most of the winter up here...
 
HighNorth,

Down here in Helsinki, I have birded with Canons in temperatures down to -20°C with no problems. Focusing works and the stabilizer works. Nickel Cadmium batteries are not good, but NiMH rechargeables or Lithium disposables work just fine. One spare pair in your pocket for peace of mind is good to have.

Kimmo
 
Buy the Pentax Papilios, John, and with the two grand change buy your Pussycat beautiful flowers once a month for the next seven years. You can sit in the kitchen with your Papilios watching your wife looking at the beautiful flowers and when your grandson posts pictures of his Grandad looking like a right nugget on YouTube or Facebook your excuse will be that you picked up some bad habits on Bird Forum !

Best wishes,

They are about the only ones made for the close-up job.
Porros lose alignment first as you get closer, then roofs, then reverse-Porros.
But the Papillios shift their offset. They beat the rest a few feet away.

Any 8x32s will get annoyingly-pigeontoed at 8 ft.
but you can close one eye. I use a short-focus monocular at museums.
Brush-strokes, tool-marks, etc.

If you want really close and Alpha, the Leica 8x20 silverline even has a closeup lens. ($550)
I'd probably only go as far as the Minox 8x25 Macroscope for museums or bugs($125)
 
Last edited:
They are about the only ones made for the close-up job.
Porros lose alignment first as you get closer, then roofs, then reverse-Porros.
But the Papillios shift their offset. They beat the rest a few feet away.

Any 8x32s will get annoyingly-pigeontoed at 8 ft.
but you can close one eye. I use a short-focus monocular at museums.
Brush-strokes, tool-marks, etc.

If you want really close and Alpha, the Leica 8x20 silverline even has a closeup lens. ($550)
I'd probably only go as far as the Minox 8x25 Macroscope for museums or bugs($125)

Thank you.

I hadn't realized I would need to take alignment into account (another thing of many). I haven't noticed any problems using the original-EL 8.5x42 Swarovskis at about 2.5 metres (about 8 feet), but I may be favouring one eye without realizing it.

Is the Leica you mention the monocular Leica Monovid 8x20?

http://uk.leica-camera.com/Sport-Optics/Compact-Field-Optics/Leica-Monovid/Details

If I cannot find a single do-everything pair of binoculars, a small monocular would be a far easier supplementary item to carry than a second pair of binoculars.

In fact, a new-found friend on the Forum has suggested, via private message, that the Zeiss 6x18 monocular could play a similar role.

Later,

Dr Owl

----------------------------------
John Owlett, Southampton, UK
 
Warning! This thread is more than 9 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top