-
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? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter FrankD
- Start date
Steve C
Well-known member
Give us a photo of the objective end of the binocular. Typically with vintage Japanese porros, there are JB and JE numbers stamped on the end of the hinge. The numbers can identify which of the myriad of Japanese optical firms making glass and bodies in the JTTI heyday made the binocular. If there is just a JB #, then one firm (identified by the number) made the whole binocular. If there is a JE #, then that firm did the chassis and the JB source did the rest. The J is often tilted inward at an angle, then a dash, then the B or E designation, then a number. If not a photo, then list the numbers.
There can be some variation in the old vintage porros from the JTTI era, but mostly they were quite good, particularly those with 7.5* or wider fields, and corresponding afov values of 60* or more (which is the case with your Aktor). There were some plain garbage models with narrow fields of view. The triple tested slogan I think originated with David Bushnell. It was a marketing slogan which meant 1, he'd tested it, 2, the factory tested it, and 3, the consumer tested it.
I have seen lots of those old porros, but Aktor is not one I am familiar with.
There can be some variation in the old vintage porros from the JTTI era, but mostly they were quite good, particularly those with 7.5* or wider fields, and corresponding afov values of 60* or more (which is the case with your Aktor). There were some plain garbage models with narrow fields of view. The triple tested slogan I think originated with David Bushnell. It was a marketing slogan which meant 1, he'd tested it, 2, the factory tested it, and 3, the consumer tested it.
I have seen lots of those old porros, but Aktor is not one I am familiar with.
Last edited:
Gijs van Ginkel
Well-known member
vangelis7,
If I read the lettering correctly, the binocular is Japanese and made by Suzuki Kogaku Seiki Co. Ltd.
Gijs
If I read the lettering correctly, the binocular is Japanese and made by Suzuki Kogaku Seiki Co. Ltd.
Gijs
. If the magnification is genuinely 20 times and the field 3.5° I would think that there must be a lot of pincushion distortion or severely curved field or maybe both. As it seems to have simple three element eyepieces.
Perhaps 1960s.
I used some very good 20×50 Japanese binoculars similar to these but maybe 3° fields. They showed really faint stars because of the high magnification and I used them handheld very successfully. I'm not sure however, how good the Aktor are.
The number 1442 seems to be the serial number.
Perhaps 1960s.
I used some very good 20×50 Japanese binoculars similar to these but maybe 3° fields. They showed really faint stars because of the high magnification and I used them handheld very successfully. I'm not sure however, how good the Aktor are.
The number 1442 seems to be the serial number.
Last edited:
Gijs van Ginkel
Well-known member
vangelis7,
No I do not know anything about the production date.
Frank,
In addition to the many nice binoculars mentioned in the previous posts I like to mention the Hensoldt Nacht-Dialyts 7x56 and 8x56 and especially the 16x56 Tele-Dialyt with a weight of 670 grams. The image quality is very good and the handling comfort is excellent.
Hensoldt started production of the 16x56 Dialyt in 1936 and a newer series started in 1948 and it was produced until 1963 with Hensoldt E-coating.
Hns Seeger mentions in his first binocuar book, that the 16x56 Hensoldt was especaially liked for observations in the mountains and for birding.
Gijs
No I do not know anything about the production date.
Frank,
In addition to the many nice binoculars mentioned in the previous posts I like to mention the Hensoldt Nacht-Dialyts 7x56 and 8x56 and especially the 16x56 Tele-Dialyt with a weight of 670 grams. The image quality is very good and the handling comfort is excellent.
Hensoldt started production of the 16x56 Dialyt in 1936 and a newer series started in 1948 and it was produced until 1963 with Hensoldt E-coating.
Hns Seeger mentions in his first binocuar book, that the 16x56 Hensoldt was especaially liked for observations in the mountains and for birding.
Gijs
Steve C
Well-known member
Where there is a JE # there should be a JB # as well. Gijs is correct with his identification (or else we both misread the JE # 
).
There probably is not a way to precisely identify the year of manufacture. With some makes, notably Swift there is a serial number that is coded to the year of manufacture.
My best guess for the Aktor binocular you have is from 1965-1970. And that is just that, a guess.
).There probably is not a way to precisely identify the year of manufacture. With some makes, notably Swift there is a serial number that is coded to the year of manufacture.
My best guess for the Aktor binocular you have is from 1965-1970. And that is just that, a guess.
. Yes Gijs,
The 16×56 Hensoldt is indeed an amazing binocular. Amazingly light and in my experience almost unequalled resolution. The quality of the optical workmanship seems better than anything made nowadays.
I was not aware that it is called a Tele-Dialyt, thanks for telling me that.
The 16×56 Hensoldt is indeed an amazing binocular. Amazingly light and in my experience almost unequalled resolution. The quality of the optical workmanship seems better than anything made nowadays.
I was not aware that it is called a Tele-Dialyt, thanks for telling me that.
james holdsworth
Consulting Biologist
If I may ask, how does a non-phase coated roof achieve such high resolution? I thought that would be quite impossible with the phase shift.
Speaking strictly from a technical POV, oversized prisms and using other elements
to compensate could cover that. Not without trading off some other properties,
though. The phase-coating just beats one kind of trouble at the source (still the best
way if money is to be thrown). Going oversize can be used to alter the angles,
but the barrels swell up and get heavier..
Binocular tweeking at the high end is amazing these days..
Hermann
Well-known member
So do I. I only had a chance to look through a pair once, and at the time I wasn't terribly impressed. I thought the Zeiss 15x60 porro was better. The Zeiss is a lot bigger and heavier though.
Hermann
henry link
Well-known member
It's not oversized prisms, but a large exit pupil that can occasionally accidentally cancel the destructive interference from the roof prism, but only when the pupil of the eye is small and offset within the exit pupil in a direction that removes the roof edge from the part of the light cone accepted by the eye.
I've been around long enough to remember when most everyone thought the image from un-phase corrected Leitz and Zeiss roof prism bins was completely sharp. Oddly, in those days the softness of high dollar roof prism bins was mostly not noticed even when they were compared to cheaper sharper Porros.
Holger Merlitz makes an observation similar to Binastro's in regard to the Hensoldt Dialyt's 10X50 center of field resolution: "Image sharpness: The central resolution of all three binoculars is fine enough so that stars are imaged as proper point-like structures. It may well be the case that a most critical investigation using resolution charts would reveal a certain deficiency of resolution with the Dialyt as a result of a missing phase-shift correction coating (which was invented in the late 1980s only), and it might be that ambitious bird watchers were able to see the difference to Zeiss or Ross (which, being of Porro design, do not suffer from such a phase shift). In my field tests and without using resolution charts I was unable to make out any significant difference in center resolution..." (see http://www.holgermerlitz.de/ross10x50.html )
I have had the same experiences with the Hensoldt 6X42 Jagt Dialyt pre-war, uncoated), 7X56 Dialylt (WWII military, uncoated), 8X56 Nacht Dialyt (post-war, coated), and 10X50 Dialyt (post-war, coated). I've consistently found (without doing formal resolution tests, however) the center of field resolutions of all these binoculars to say nothing of their general optical performance is equal to or better than that of the best Porro I's being made during the same period. I understand that theoretically this should not be the case, and suspect their lack of phase coating is in large part compensated for by optical design and quality of glass.
I also have an 8X30 Dialyt (uncoated pre-war) in almost mint condition and its center of field resolution is, in fact, rather mediocre lacking the crispness one finds in the best 8X30's of the period possibly supporting Henry's comment, "It's not oversized prisms, but a large exit pupil that can occasionally accidentally cancel the destructive interference from the roof prism, but only when the pupil of the eye is small and offset within the exit pupil in a direction that removes the roof edge from the part of the light cone accepted by the eye."
Last edited:
. The 16×56 binocular was found in a charity shop as new although the beautiful case is a bit marked.I think it is from about 1955 and single coated and of extremely high quality basically handmade.
It was I think occasionally used for watching horseracing.
I mainly use binoculars for astronomy and my resolution tests are actual double stars.
My other tests are large clocks on distant towers often at night where I use the minute marks for very fine resolution tests.
I don't use test charts.
Undoubtedly with a low contrast object the 16×56 binocular may not perform so well.
I've tested it against top-quality 13×56 and 15×58 roof prism binoculars. Also 12×56 roof prisms two types. 15×60 Zeiss Porro prism but not in good condition. 18×50 Canon.
15×50 and 16×50 Soviet binoculars. 20×60 Soviet the very best. 20×70 Japanese 20×80 Japanese, all the latter are porro prism binoculars
taking into account the slightly different magnification I'm quite satisfied that the 16×56 hensoldt is the equal or better to any of these. At least on the stars. Also both star images are immaculate and only beaten by the 18×50 Canon which is a seriously underrated binocular at least if you get a good example maybe I was lucky 10 years ago.
The 16×56 does lose 0.5 magnitude in the faintest stars seen compared with if it had been multicoated to the best standards.
Frankly I don't think that phase coating makes much difference or any difference in the resolution of double stars which are high contrast objects.
Another surprise is the 30×50 Yukon binocular that uses mirrors instead of prisms. The
Example that I have gives amazing results with close double stars. Again I may be lucky to have a good example. It does however lose out because of the basic coatings although the glass used is quite good. It is a little bit heavy. The transmission is not high.
I think that now there is also a 20×50 similar Yukon binoculars but I don't have one of those.
In addition the lightweight Yukon six times to 25 times to 100×100 mm folded refractor Yukon spotting scope is remarkable if you get a good one.
However, there is a lot of variation in the quality of Yukon brand optics so you need to get a good one. In this case I would say it is remarkable because of the light weight and that it is not expensive. I would not.like to drop it however. It works very well at 100 times.
It is nice to get surprises and the 16×56 hensoldt was one of the best.
It would be nice to test it against 15×56 Swarovski or Zeiss roof prisms but I don't have access to these.
It was I think occasionally used for watching horseracing.
I mainly use binoculars for astronomy and my resolution tests are actual double stars.
My other tests are large clocks on distant towers often at night where I use the minute marks for very fine resolution tests.
I don't use test charts.
Undoubtedly with a low contrast object the 16×56 binocular may not perform so well.
I've tested it against top-quality 13×56 and 15×58 roof prism binoculars. Also 12×56 roof prisms two types. 15×60 Zeiss Porro prism but not in good condition. 18×50 Canon.
15×50 and 16×50 Soviet binoculars. 20×60 Soviet the very best. 20×70 Japanese 20×80 Japanese, all the latter are porro prism binoculars
taking into account the slightly different magnification I'm quite satisfied that the 16×56 hensoldt is the equal or better to any of these. At least on the stars. Also both star images are immaculate and only beaten by the 18×50 Canon which is a seriously underrated binocular at least if you get a good example maybe I was lucky 10 years ago.
The 16×56 does lose 0.5 magnitude in the faintest stars seen compared with if it had been multicoated to the best standards.
Frankly I don't think that phase coating makes much difference or any difference in the resolution of double stars which are high contrast objects.
Another surprise is the 30×50 Yukon binocular that uses mirrors instead of prisms. The
Example that I have gives amazing results with close double stars. Again I may be lucky to have a good example. It does however lose out because of the basic coatings although the glass used is quite good. It is a little bit heavy. The transmission is not high.
I think that now there is also a 20×50 similar Yukon binoculars but I don't have one of those.
In addition the lightweight Yukon six times to 25 times to 100×100 mm folded refractor Yukon spotting scope is remarkable if you get a good one.
However, there is a lot of variation in the quality of Yukon brand optics so you need to get a good one. In this case I would say it is remarkable because of the light weight and that it is not expensive. I would not.like to drop it however. It works very well at 100 times.
It is nice to get surprises and the 16×56 hensoldt was one of the best.
It would be nice to test it against 15×56 Swarovski or Zeiss roof prisms but I don't have access to these.
James,
the phase shift doesn't have an effect on resolution but on contrast. That means that a virtual perfectly (= zero centerfield aberrations) crafted vintage roof bin with perfect lenses and prisms is able to outperform in respect of resolution a recent sample with the newest coatings but less than perfect optics.
BTW, that 16x56 Hensoldt is also very good at the stars. It's so amazingly lightweight that one really has to wonder why nobody produce something like this nowadays.
See here what was under the christmas tree last year: http://www.birdforum.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/477916/limit/recent The Hensoldt 16x56 is in the front with a Leica Ultravid 8x32 for comparison behind.
Steve
Last edited:
question on canon binocular
Just saw it today, I bought one 8x30 on ebay since i gave up on the 7x50. why the 8x30 is not so good? could you explain for me? thanks. I really want that 7x50 but it bidding too high (90) including shipping and missing cap. I got my 8x30 for 85 dollars including shipping. i see there isn't a lot of vintage canon bins out there on ebay. what u think?
Just saw it today, I bought one 8x30 on ebay since i gave up on the 7x50. why the 8x30 is not so good? could you explain for me? thanks. I really want that 7x50 but it bidding too high (90) including shipping and missing cap. I got my 8x30 for 85 dollars including shipping. i see there isn't a lot of vintage canon bins out there on ebay. what u think?
Last edited:
John Dracon
John Dracon
Responding to your question about the 8x30 Canon "not being so good." Before Canon went mainly into stabilized binoculars, they marketed some roofs and porros. The roofs were of middling quality and so were their initial porros. Interestingly, the first Canon porros coming with a high polished black leather case don't match up with the latter porros coming with a polished brown leather case, as strange as that may sound. All one has to do is compare them side by side to understand the difference.The proof of the pudding is in the eating.
The latter porros came in 7x50, 7x35, 8x30, and 6x30, all CF. When the 8x30
Canon is compared to other makes in 8x30 such as Zeiss, B&L, Nikon, and Bushnell, the Canon lacks the resolution and contrast found in those lines. My comment of course is subjective. But I'll stick with it. The latter Canon 7x35 is superb comparing it with any other 7x35 of that vintage. It will come as no surprise that not all models found in a line are of equal quality, particularly in mass produced instruments put together from a host of vendors. Again, one has to make side by side comparisons to make those judgments.
John
The latter porros came in 7x50, 7x35, 8x30, and 6x30, all CF. When the 8x30
Canon is compared to other makes in 8x30 such as Zeiss, B&L, Nikon, and Bushnell, the Canon lacks the resolution and contrast found in those lines. My comment of course is subjective. But I'll stick with it. The latter Canon 7x35 is superb comparing it with any other 7x35 of that vintage. It will come as no surprise that not all models found in a line are of equal quality, particularly in mass produced instruments put together from a host of vendors. Again, one has to make side by side comparisons to make those judgments.
John
