Is the Pentax 62217 UCF II any good? (1 Viewer)

I currently have this Nikon binocular..
http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-DC120-N...UTF8&colid=GQQ36E9UYHH9&coliid=I3S8Z9JXPCKX8V

It's pretty good. I can see pretty clearly from far away. However, I'm looking for another pair of better binoculars that will have a zoom function so I can see even further. I don't want to spend more than $100.

I was looking through Amazon and saw this Pentax 62217 UCF II binocular...
http://www.amazon.com/Pentax-62217-...TF8&colid=22M7T5H3WNCQ4&coliid=I3NGZYRMN1EX7N

Is this good? Will this help me see further away? And will it give a better and clearer image than what I currently have?

Any help will be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

Hi,

Welcome to the forum.

I've not seen that particular Pentax model, but I very much doubt it will be more satisfactory than the Nikon. Firstly, very few can hold anything more than a 10x steady enough to see any more detail. At 16x you would certainly need to rest it on a solid surface if not a tripod to get any advantage.

If you divide the objective diameter by the magnification you get a number called the exit pupil. It's a good guide to how bright the view will be. At 8x that would would be 2.6mm. Should be fine for daytime viewing, but at 16x it's 1.3mm. Probably usable in direct sunshine but would be very dim in gloomy conditions. The field of view is pretty narrow at 5* (8x). Narrow views make it trickier to find what you are looking for. Finally the 4 lens optic is probably a little simple to ensure that all the view is nice and sharp. All in all, I suspect it would be less useful than your Nikon.

I'm not sure what the best $100 deals are in the US. If you are OK with the larger size the Nikon Trailblazer 10x42 would be a big step up in optical quality and be quite useful in low light. The Bushnell H2O I didn't think was quite as good as the Nikon but usually a bit cheaper I think. (These don't have phase coating so won't match more expensive pairs for brightness). If you need jacket pocket size then the Olympus Tracker 10x25 (non-waterproof) is very good for the money or the waterproof Nikon Prostaff ATB would be good choices. These, like the Pentax you are considering, are reverse porros and don't need phase coating for full brightness. If you currently find the hand shake quite noticeable with a 10x (like me) then I would urge you to go down to an 8x. You will probably find you actually see more detail with the lower power. (Yes, even more than a 16x!) It will be a bit brighter too.

If you truly need higher power then you are going to need to mount the optic on a monopod or tripod and small scope might be a better bet. Sorry can't advise you there. Hopefully others will come up with alternative suggestions.

Good luck,

David

typo said:

If you need jacket pocket size then the Olympus Tracker 10x25 (non-waterproof) is very good for the money or the waterproof Nikon Prostaff ATB would be good choices.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the reply.

Will the Olympus Tracker 10x25 be an improvement over that Nikon binocular that I currently have?

Yes as reverse porros tend to provide better image quality compared to roofs that aren't phase coated in that price range.

Thanks again.

One more question....
Is this better than what I have?
http://www.amazon.com/Olympus-Track...id=1344346030&sr=1-5&keywords=olympus+tracker

This seems to have the same specs as the 10x25 one, except that this one has a zoom feature. I know a zoom function is not the way to go, but I can always just keep the binoculars at 8-10x without zooming. It certainly doesn't hurt to have that extra zoom feature.

Sorry for the questions, but I'm not much of a binocular expert.

I don't know about Olympus zoom. I've only looked at one compact zoom and it was so dreadful and I've not been tempted to look at another. On paper it looks like there is a penalty in field of view and close focus compared to the fixed magnification model.

Maybe you could order both and keep the one you prefer.

David