ocular diameter (1 Viewer)

While I await delivery of the Carson 8.5x42 11 degree FOV ultra wide angle bins (I'm a sucker for w-i-d-e FOV and simply want to check these out despite their meager 9mm eye relief), I started a comparison of my vintage wide angle 7x35s. I've had the two Binolux bins for some time but just recently acquired the Jason Statesman #138 which not only has the widest FOV at 11.5 degrees of the three, but is also commonly listed as one of the better vintage wide angle binoculars.

In terms of both weight and bulk, the Binolux 11 degree pair easily tops the stack. I honestly had expected the Jason to be equally bulky but it simply isn't although it is bigger than the other Binolux pair. What seems to set the big Binolux apart are not only the huge prism size but the fact that the eyepiece diameter is also substantially larger than the others. In fact they are larger than any of my roof prism bins too.

All three have approximately 13mm of eye relief and exhibit the expected barrel distortion which isn't all that distracting in any of these units. But the larger oculars in the big Binolux make viewing more enjoyable offsetting the bulk and weight penalties it exacts. Personally I find the optics qualities of the Jason and big Binolux indistinguishable and favor the Binolux because of the bigger oculars. Perhaps this is an anomaly but it would seem that larger ocular diameters are an advantage, all else being fairly comparable. As an aside my eyes are those of a retiree and I suspect the cone of light from these larger oculars doesn't overlap my dilated pupils by much if at all.

I would certainly invite comments from others as my conclusion here is only supported by the simple comparison described herein.

Bob,

I look forward to your opinion of those Carson binoculars. I have to admit I was overcome with some degree of initial skeptcism. This was based on the old addage of "if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is". However, at their price I can see where the temptation to see just what 578' @ 8.5x FOV looks like would be hard to overcome. Besides, if they turn out to be something of a disapointment,you haven't lost much. On the other hand if they turn out well, they are a bargain. I have a couple of Swift Nighthawk 8x40 with a 9.5*, 499' FOV. The first pair date to my Biology Major days in college when I realized I was going to need a binocular. I got the second pair several years ago from Ebay. Despite dating from the late 60's to early 70's they are good enough that I do not feel at a particular optical disadvantage should I need to use one today. Their big disadvantage however, is that FOV. To me anyway, I can't see a real reason to try for more because there is almost too much there at that magnification. The field is sort of "busy" for lack of a better description. So I'l lbe most interested in reading your impression of the far larger FOV in the Carson.

Steve,

Three reasons motivated my move to acquire the Carsons:
(1) My existing 7x35 UW FOVs provide a 3D immersion I simply enjoy, so the notion of an even larger FOV with more magnification was quite tempting
(2) CESDewer, among others, on Cloudynights has a pair and finds despite their short eye relief the view enticing
(3) I found an exceptional price for a new pair making these even more cost effective to audition than the current but expensive UW FOV Miyauchi Binon models

I intend to report first light with the Carsons here and on Cloudynights as well as draw some comparisons with the UW 7x35s in my possession.