• 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.

7x50 vs 8x42 (1 Viewer)

I already own a nice and stable Nikon Aculon 7x50. I have just recently got into birding and this was the first decent pair of binoculars I got. It was at a very reasonable price of 100$ and had great reviews. Im thinking I may upgrade in the future and I just wanted to hear your guys opinions.


At the low-budget end, Porros still hang on to some added value.
When you add the gigantic best-eye-placement
(both in distance and in exit pupil, thus a big comfortable egg),
it's easy to see how that stands out from others in the same product line.

The Aculons are a dramatic demonstration. The7x50s have far more
eye relief than other Aculons, no forced eye relief, easy eye placement,
and better field edges than the other Aculons. At the premium end,
it's easy to forget what a great bang-per-buck 7x50 offers.
I clean up old 7x50s,
sometimes blackening the lenses edges in the EPs. The clarity can
take your breath away. The edges of a well-built Kelner at 7x50
play sharp just like the edges of a precision Erfle (also around 7-Deg)
at 8x42. The corollary to field depth out front is field (sharp) width in back.
Extra-wide 7x50s are behemoths. The appeal of a 7x50 is owning a
standard-width, high-precision-field, long relief pair for far less money.

At my little shop shelf, a lot of the takers for 7x50s are older kids,
believe it or not.
Despite the weight, they can place their eyes well, and their
kid's super-acuity says these things are like nothing else they try.
Kids find big binos cool. You look like an senator or a general.
 
Last edited:
I have decided to upgrade to either 8x42 or 7x35 for bird watching because they are lighter. With that being said, I have used my 7x50 for stargazing and was very pleased. Should I use an 8x42 or 10x50 for astronomy or just stick with my 7x50?
 
I have decided to upgrade to either 8x42 or 7x35 for bird watching because they are lighter. With that being said, I have used my 7x50 for stargazing and was very pleased. Should I use an 8x42 or 10x50 for astronomy or just stick with my 7x50?

10x50 is best, but it's hardest to hand hold.
 
At the low-budget end, Porros still hang on to some added value.
When you add the gigantic best-eye-placement
(both in distance and in exit pupil, thus a big comfortable egg),
it's easy to see how that stands out from others in the same product line.

The Aculons are a dramatic demonstration. The7x50s have far more
eye relief than other Aculons, no forced eye relief, easy eye placement,
and better field edges than the other Aculons. At the premium end,
it's easy to forget what a great bang-per-buck 7x50 offers.
I clean up old 7x50s,
sometimes blackening the lenses edges in the EPs. The clarity can
take your breath away. The edges of a well-built Kelner at 7x50
play sharp just like the edges of a precision Erfle (also around 7-Deg)
at 8x42. The corollary to field depth out front is field (sharp) width in back.
Extra-wide 7x50s are behemoths. The appeal of a 7x50 is owning a
standard-width, high-precision-field, long relief pair for far less money.

At my little shop shelf, a lot of the takers for 7x50s are older kids,
believe it or not.
Despite the weight, they can place their eyes well, and their
kid's super-acuity says these things are like nothing else they try.
Kids find big binos cool. You look like an senator or a general.

ON,

I have the 7x35 Aculon, and while the center sharpness is impressive due to the aspheric optics, and the FOV is expansive at 9.3*, the edges can only be described as "crummy" at best.

So I took a look at the specs on the 7x50 Aculons since you mentioned they have the best edge performance in the series, and now I see why! The 7x50s only have a 6.4° FOV (42.7° AFOV). I think that would cause claustrophobia for terrestrial use but probably work okay for stargazing. I prefer the 7x50 Vixen Foresta with its 7.1* FOV (still moderate but with good sized sweet spot). Also very nice color saturation and contrast for nature observing. I was really surprised how good it was, worth the extra cost, and at 30 oz., no hernia belt needed.

OFF
 
Does the nikon monarch 5 8x42 have a good field of view? Im very close to purchasing it. I will soon only own the 7x50 and the 8x42. Which of the 2 Should be used for stargazing, the 8x42 or 7x50? Once again, thank you for your responses
 
Last edited:
ON,

I
... I prefer the 7x50 Vixen Foresta with its 7.1* FOV (still moderate but with good sized sweet spot).

OFF

Hello Brock,

WWII U.S. Navy 7x50 binoculars generally had a 7.1º FOV, although the Spencer 7x50 had 7.25º [7º15'], in a smaller package. The current Zeiss 7x50 also has a 7,1º FOV, IIRC. I imagine that the specification must hit a sweet spot in the design compromise. Perhaps it has to do with the size of the prisms required by a larger FOV,

Happy bird watching,
Arthur :hi:
 
I really like precison 7-degree 7x50s.
Both the 7 and the 50 give the eyepiece reason
to have a bigger FL and thus big eye relief.

I did not notice the narrow view on the 7x50 Aculons!
Huh...that's a throwback to the 50s. That does allow
an even flatter field than just cutting 6-1/2 degrees out .. interesting.
They would stretch a Kelner, probably. Very high contrast.
Yes...maybe nice for the night sky. Still claustrophobic.
In the shop I was just struck by the flatness.
There are 7.1s sharp to the edge. Some go 5-element (very flat,
rare siblings of the 7x35 Featherweights),
others add a little curvature to the top surface.
 
Last edited:
I have decided to upgrade to either 8x42 or 7x35 for bird watching because they are lighter. With that being said, I have used my 7x50 for stargazing and was very pleased. Should I use an 8x42 or 10x50 for astronomy or just stick with my 7x50?
Try one of the big Canon's IS for astronomy. I find they are the best unless you use a tripod. The stars just sit there and twinkle. I like the Canon 10x42 IS.
 
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