Am I crazy? Wards 8-17 porro. (1 Viewer)

I usually peruse the optics at Goodwill when I am there. Most of the time, the binocs are pretty bad, broken, dirty, uncollimated etc.etc. but maybe one out of twenty is remotely usable.

I looked at one labelled Wards, 8-17 zoom with 40 objective.

The instrument had the dense feel of a quality porro, the objective and ocular had what appeared to be high quality blue coatings. The barrels were clean, and the prisms viewed from the objective as clear and clean as any bino I have ever seen.

I looked out the window at 17x and saw a great, clear view, so I paid the $4.25 and took them to the beach.

I spent a bit of time marveling at the sharp image. They were heavy enough to stabilize reasonably well by hand even at 17x. 40mm isn't quite enough to get maximum color and contrast at 17x, but the views looked pin sharp and were like high quality bino telescopes.

At night, minimal ghosting, views of the moon were sharp and beautiful, I could make out the circular shape of Jupiter and its pinpoint moons with ease, not much coma, the field was at least 90 percent sharp at the 17x.

8x during the day was bright, but a very low FOV (262ft/1000yds), but above 12x, which seems to be its preferred operating range, it is more than decent and the field size doubles.

Now, this is the much loathed "zoom" type, and it was sold by a department store. Was I just lucky or were binocs of this quality sold by Wards in the day? I find it hard to believe and can't really find much to fault with this bino except the very narrow FOV at low 8x magnification.

Made in Japan, no unusual markings, looks like Tasco hardware, SMC on the center objective hinge which I assume is associated with Pentax/Ashai. They also have roll up rubber eye cups and work quite well with sunglasses.

Based on your comments I am going to infer that you have more than just a passing knowledge of some of the vintage porros out there.

In truth I am not really surprised at all. When I went through my stage of buying numerous vintage porros (mostly 7x35 and 7x50) I found several Wards models that were quite extraordinary considering the lack of multicoatings and the date of their manufacturer. It really was an eye opening experience.

I am glad to see you found a zoom-model that works for you. I would certainly hold on to it as you aren't likely to find another any time soon.

I have seen other Wards types that seemed pretty bad. I am just shocked that here is a zoom model with high end optics. The 17x is more than a little sharp and useful. It is hard to believe what you can see with it.

The crescent moon with earth shine looks amazing with them. I will probably use them for shore use/whale/dolphin watching and the occasional time I want to look at stars/moon. They show the colors of stars with aplomb.

Zoom binoculars have all sorts of short comings, mainly narrow fov and collimation issues at various focal lengths.

The collimation does seem to have "lobes" where it is better and worse. At 17x, it is perfect, nice relaxed view. Not the widest FOV and contrast slightly dusky at 17x, but not tunnelly either, and this sucker is sharp over the field. That absolute sharpness can sometimes trump other qualities. Best overall compromise of contrast and brightness is between 13x and 14x, where the collimation is fine and the FOV is still reasonable. 8x is very bright and contrasty, but very narrow FOV. Nearly the entire field of view is available with sunglasses and the eyecups rolled down at all magnifications. The heaviness and density of the body with the ability to prop it up to sunglasses seems to help the stability and make it very reasonably stable. It's even pretty stable without propping.

I think it is just luck of the draw that this is actually a useful "zoom" type, most opinions regard them as reprehensible as a rule. I think I will be taking it to the shore quite a bit.

Could this be a re-branding of the Nikon HG 8-16x40 Zoom of many years ago. I looked through a few of these & they were definitely the best zooms I ever saw. They went for over $1000 here in Canada! The size is VERY close!

My guess would be some kind of OEM Swift or Tasco when they made good stuff, but who knows? I read of a very good Nikon Zoom 8-16/40 somewhere, one of the few "acceptable" zoomers.

It would be presumptuous to think that this one would approach Nikon quality. This one weighs a tad under two pounds with the strap. Minimum focus would be somewhere around 16-20 ft.

It is probably impossible to figure out some of the OEMs from those days, I suppose batches might have come from any of the Japanese vendors.

Many of the Wards aren't so great, so one just has to look through them to find out.

Looking up the Nikon XL 8-16 which were mfc'd in 1985 and 88, the Wards instrument is eerily identical in weight and dimensions. The Wards does not have the j markings that indicate lens and body mfc, it does have the silver/black stripes on the oculars and focus that you tend to see on Tascos and Swifts.
There is a "detente" at the 16x, where it achieves maximum AFOV, so I guess the 17x is just overshoot.

I suppose it might be a OEM Nikon from that era, it is so close in size, weight and characteristics it would not be a stretch. I can't find any info on older Tasco or Swift porro zooms.

OK, revision, closest focus paced out is about 30 ft.

Could be Nikon parts in more generic housings to OEM for Wards, maybe just because of excellent field sharpness to edges.

It is eminently useable binoc, seems especially good at night, and does not resemble the loathsome descriptions of the zoom genre. However, I don't think I would be taking a shot in the dark on any zoom type without careful examination first, I think this one is just a lucky draw. I noticed another on ebay, but it does not have the same prism tube housing construction on the ocular end.

Anyway, for $4.25 I don't feel ripped off and will be using this one an a fairly regular basis for ocean viewing.

Finally saw some vintage Tasco zooms on ebay, couple of 7-15/35 and one 8-16/40.

The 7-15 has identical fascia to this one. I am going to call this one a vintage Tasco. Tasco must have had some fine optics at some point, so many are terrible.

So, unlikely to be any kind of Nikon rebadged etc.

cjfrbw said:

OK, revision, closest focus paced out is about 30 ft.

Could be Nikon parts in more generic housings to OEM for Wards, maybe just because of excellent field sharpness to edges.

It is eminently useable binoc, seems especially good at night, and does not resemble the loathsome descriptions of the zoom genre. However, I don't think I would be taking a shot in the dark on any zoom type without careful examination first, I think this one is just a lucky draw. I noticed another on ebay, but it does not have the same prism tube housing construction on the ocular end.

Anyway, for $4.25 I don't feel ripped off and will be using this one an a fairly regular basis for ocean viewing.

Click to expand...

For $4.25 you can't get a good hamburger.........so I would say that you got a great bargain.

The Ward zooms were like th eearly Empire line or binolux, sort of revisited a decade
later. Which is to say, very good, if they haven't picked up smuts inside.
I don't collect zooms, though....I'm too into FOV, and the extra glass reduces contrast
a bit.

A great thing to buy at a real shop....they can get bumped in shipping.