• 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.

Vintage binoculars, what is good? (1 Viewer)

Yashica 8x30...1970's I have had a pair of these for 30 years. Getting a bit tired now but still point perfectly.Have had more expensive and newer binos but none better.
 
Wow, I just quickly scanned through all these posts. I'd say you guys must be nuts, but .... I did read through it!!! Even made a few notes ;)
 
Swift also has a lot of good glass from yesteryear.
B&L Zephyrs and Discoverers (Zephyrs are better) Im partial to the US made Zephyrs, but the Japanese made ones are good as well.
.

As Elkcub will no doubt confirm, some of the older Swift porros easily rival most modern roofs. Notable in that list are the very hard to find 8.5 x 44 ED Audubons. The more accessible later model Audubons and their 10 x 50 Kestrel cousins are also exceptional. The Swift Neptune (7 x 35) is an astoundingly good binocular. I have an early MK II example which is brighter, sharper and with a flatter field than any like B & L I have ever owned or examined, including the Rochester Zephyrs and the later Japanese successors. I actually prefer the last versions of the 7 x 35 Discoverer for better coatings and more robust build quality to the predecessor Japanese Zephyrs. The Rochester versions of this landmark model are wonderful binoculars but simply not in the same optical league.

Ironically, the sharpest and flattest field binocular I presently own (my perception of sharpness and not measured on a bench) is a 1950's Japanese copy of the 6 x 30 Zeiss Silvamar marked Zuiho, which I bought on a whim at a local gun show. Since its an individual focus copy of the universally popular military glass, its obviously not suitable for birding but my birding bino snob buddies are always amazed when they look through it.
 
Last edited:
Cleaning vintage binoculars

Hello all. While searching the house for binoculars with which to watch the grisly but mesmerizing upbringing of our resident red-tailed hawk fledglings, I stumbled upon my grandfather's brass field glasses. They are a straight line design, no offset, presumably without a prism, just two truncated cones with a spiral focusing mechanism between them. They have a nice clear image. They are marked "D & L" and "Paris" and extend from 6" to 8". I have searched Google and ebay for any reference to that maker or clue as to the year (decade? century?) of manufacture, without success. I am hoping that someone will recognize these glasses; the depth of knowledge on this forum is amazing.

Also, my late father's WW2 10x50 Dientsglas blc+ Carl Zeis binoculars have developed a light film of fine dust particles on the inner side of one lens. They are otherwise in good shape and are my regular glasses. I gather that despite the easily accessible screws, it would be unwise for even a careful amateur to disassemble and dust them out internally. Is this true? If so, how does one identify a skilled binocular cleaner; and approximately how much might one anticipate spending? Any information would be appreciated. Thank you.
 
Great thread Guys, I love Wide Angle Binos. I have been really Impressed with WWII U.S. 6X30 Binoculars I have a very HAMMERED pair of Nash kelvinators and they impress the Hell out of me they are coated 1944! I have Several Pairs of these 6X30 Army and Navy. Also A pair of Sard 6X42 and Hayward 7X50's incredible views. I also have several German 6X30 dienstglass. They may be lighter and smaller than B&L style U.S. Binos but i will take the view on my U.S. makes any day. Most of the German war binos Have gotten dirty inside and have fogging issues more than U.S. models. I am sure though that the Navy rebuilt most of them after the war.
 
Hi 20 20,.
Your collection inspires envy!
The Sard 6x42s are collectors items and worth hundreds, if not thousands, depending on condition. They are very susceptible to corrosion, but they are the epitome of a wide angle glass.
My guess is that we are on the threshold of a boom in WW2 collectibles, as the older generation dies out and people try to find links to that era. Binocs are a pretty good choice imo.
 
My Nash Kelvinator (green) looks hardly used but they don't seem to have any coating on them.

I like my Zeiss Oberkochen 8x30 (clean and clear inside) for it's size but it's nowhere near the image quality of the Zen Ray or most modern, mid to upper range, bins. (unless i'm just looking at stars, etc)
 
Last edited:
Bushnell Custom 7x35

I have a pair of Bushnell Custom 7x35 from the mid 70s that I still use for watching the feeders. They are well built with an 80% sweet spot. The eye relief is too short for a full field view with glasses.
 
I recently bought, for $135, a Hensoldt DF 8x30 in good condition. Hensoldt is the military branch of Zeiss, and the Hesoldt binoculars come from the same plant at Wetzlar where the modern Zeiss FL, and several previous generations of Zeiss, are made.

The little DF is an individually focusing military glass probably from the late '60s, and was used by NATO forces during the cold war. It is waterproof, and has a reputation for sturdy prism mountings and ruggedness. It only weighs 20.0 ounces, so it's easy to hold it up to the eyes and work the eyepieces at the same time. The individual focusing is fast in gearing ratio (3/8 turn from infinity to 12 ft closest focus), and so easy to turn, that it is surprisingly quick and easy to use. I had practiced with a Fujinon 6x30 IF already, and looked at moving up to 8x as a challenge, and was surprised to find that despite the higher power, it is in fact much easier with the Hensoldt. I go birding with it, and can get it focused about as quick as you please.

The eye relief, said to be 12mm, is too short for glasses wearers, but after removing about a mm of eyecup material, I can get the entire 8.5 degree view, which works out to an impressive 68 deg apparent view. The sweet spot seems plenty wide to me, and there is some acceptable degradation, and pincushion distortion, at the edge. The central image looks very sharp, and this little binocular gives the most pinpoint star image I have ever seen (and I am quite a fanatic on binocular double stars) although this is partly a product of the small amount of light, which would reveal the binocular's aberrations only weakly, and the small exit pupil, which has the same happy effect on my eyes.

Its main weakness is its single layer coating, but at least the simple optical system works in its favor here. The daylight image seems about as bright and contrasty as an 8x42 Leica Trinovid BA, with silvered prisms, that I once owned.

As dark approaches, it is crushed by a modern 8x42 or 7x50, but hey, it's little. In good lighting, the view is enjoyable, and I'd recommend one to anybody who dares to try individual focus on the cheap.
Ron
 
Last edited:
Buy yourself a late Jenoptem with the T3M coatings.
Otherwise a Swift Audubon, Swift Saratoga, various early Ross models....
But most will need a clean so be warned.
Please have a look at my collection, there are so many good binoculars out there for not a lot of money.
 
I have a question here, just does what Vintage mean? Is it over 20 years? 30?

When was the last Zeiss 8x30 made?

I have seen Simons collection, vintage, yes, impressive !
 
Stephen,
Yes it does have the reticle. I should have mentioned that. The reticle comes into focus only at infinity, and consists of very narrow black lines, so it can be annoying, or at least clearly visible, if viewing a bright scene far away. But it is invisible against a dark background like in the woods or the night sky, or when the focus is set as close as 20-30 yds. It is far enough below the center of view that it is only an annoyance and not really in the way of where one normally looks.

It creates a ghost image in the right side when looking at the moon, but I can't see any other optical harm from it as hard as I have looked.

I keep meaning to unscrew the right eyepiece, and try to remove it, but that sucker is really on there tight, and sealed with some kind of waterproofing glue or putty which I kind of hate to violate, so I find myself just putting up with and getting used to it. It reminds me of the military heritage, you know!
Ron
 
The reticle is a useful device for estimating distances to a target, by measuring how large a distance an object of known size takes up in the binocular image. Near essential for some kinds of hunting,, much less so for birding. Principal downside is the extra light loss, as reticles are generally inserted into the optical path rather than scribed on the prisms. Most glasses with reticles have light transmission of 70-80%, well short of the 90+% achieved by quality commercial binos from Fuji or Zeiss,
but for the user these differences are imperceptible except for brief periods at dawn and dusk. where the civil glass might get enough light to see a little longer.
 
Most glasses with reticles have light transmission of 70-80%, well short of the 90+% achieved by quality commercial binos from Fuji or Zeiss,

That would be news to some porro makers with a reticule who claim 90 to 90% transmission.

It is true though that the M-22 7x50 spec only requires a minimum of 70% transmission (which is rather low for a porro these days).

e.g. http://www.usmc.mil/news/publications/Documents/MCO 8000.5.pdf

An AR coated reticule as it should be will have very little impact on light loss. Even an uncoated one would cost 8% at most.

You can't "inscribe the reticule on the prisms" the reticule has to be at the focus of the eyepiece so that it is in focus with the image.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top