• 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.

Still looking for some stadium wide view binoculars (1 Viewer)

tpcollins

tpcollins

Well-known member
I had a pair of Nikon Action EX 7x35 for awhile but returned them earlier this week. They were nice, clear, minimum edge distorsion, and great DoF. But they were a bit "clunky" to handle and I had to refocus them everytime I lifted back up to look thru.

SO unless I can find a nice porro that works for, I'm back to using my roof Zeiss or Leupold GR binocs with their 420' FoV. Any other suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks.
 
tpcollins said:
I had a pair of Nikon Action EX 7x35 for awhile but returned them earlier this week. They were nice, clear, minimum edge distorsion, and great DoF. But they were a bit "clunky" to handle and I had to refocus them everytime I lifted back up to look thru.

SO unless I can find a nice porro that works for, I'm back to using my roof Zeiss or Leupold GR binocs with their 420' FoV. Any other suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks.
Click to expand...


Try another pair? Are you saying they went out of focus simply by hanging around your neck? Or did they get bumped or the action moved downfield?
 
It seemed like when laying against my chest, the pupilary angle (not sure what to call it) would get flattened out and I'd squeeze them back to align with my eyes and that would knock the focus off abit - I think. I could another pair, but they would be just as "clunky" as the first pair . . .

I did like the view though, especially the generous eye relief because I wear glasses. I guess I'll stay with the two I have for now. Thanks.
 
Quality control issues which you describe increase with the decrease in the price of the binoculars. That's why it is best to check out as many samples as possible before you buy if you have the opportunity to do so.

Not that I do it! i just paid a neighbor $30.00 for a 7 x 35 Nikon Action. It was in very good condition. She got it from her brother in law who had passed away. There is a slight catch in the hinge but otherwise it's a nice binocular and would be perfect for watching football games.

Bob
 
tpcollins said:
It seemed like when laying against my chest, the pupilary angle (not sure what to call it) would get flattened out and I'd squeeze them back to align with my eyes and that would knock the focus off abit - I think. I could another pair, but they would be just as "clunky" as the first pair . . .

I did like the view though, especially the generous eye relief because I wear glasses. I guess I'll stay with the two I have for now. Thanks.
Click to expand...

A $70.00 binocular won't have the fit, finish, images and feel of one costing many multiples of that. However for sports viewing I would think the 7x35 would work as long as you don't compare it to your high-end binoculars. I would try another one to see if the IPD is a bit tighter.
 
Clunky to me is the same as cheap bulky. I've always had roof prisms except for my little gem Bushnell 7x26 Custom compact. On cheaper models the manfs use thicker plastic on items whereas the alphas use titanium and such to save on bulk while maintaining strength. I wouldn't mind paying a few dollars to get around a 500' FoV with enough eye relief for an eyeglass wearer - tall order though.
 
tpcollins said:
Clunky to me is the same as cheap bulky. I've always had roof prisms except for my little gem Bushnell 7x26 Custom compact. On cheaper models the manfs use thicker plastic on items whereas the alphas use titanium and such to save on bulk while maintaining strength. I wouldn't mind paying a few dollars to get around a 500' FoV with enough eye relief for an eyeglass wearer - tall order though.
Click to expand...

Look for one of the older ultra widefield 7x35's that were so popular in the 1960's and 1970's. Swift and Sears sold some nice ones under their brand.
 
That reminds me. I had a Sears 7 x 35 widefield that I took to Philadelphia Eagles games in the 70's and 80's. They were inexpensive and lightweight and did a good job. My brother has them now. Last year I compared them with a Yosemite 6 x 30. (My brother has them now too!) The Yosemite was much better for casual birding in the back yard. Better color and better edges but not as wide a view. But for football, I don't think the better coatings would make a difference.
Bob
 
"Look for one of the older ultra widefield 7x35's that were so popular in the 1960's and 1970's. Swift and Sears sold some nice ones under their brand."

There's a Swift Sport King from the 60's on the famous bidding site as I write. They are heavy suckers, but what a comfortable view! Same wide body as the Holiday Mark II but with BK7 instead of BaK4. 578 ft at 1000 yds.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 14 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.

Similar threads

Troubador
Troubador's life with Binoculars
Replies
9
Views
2K
Maljunulo
M
tenex
Binocular Evolution I: Field of View
3 4 5
Replies
93
Views
7K
Binocollector
B
M
Six 5X, 6X, and 7X reverse porros compared
Replies
4
Views
1K
Canip
C
M
Eight 8X reverse porros compared
Replies
0
Views
2K
MarylandUSA
M
D
I tried a slug of $1K roof-prism binoculars and I think the Zeiss Conquest HD 8x32 is still the best for the money!
9 10 11
Replies
203
Views
43K
[email protected]
D

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top