[John M Robinson]

I'm writing this as reaction of sorts to Dennis's thread on grading binos purely on optical quality. I have owned some good binos over the years, but last winter was the first time I was ready and able to buy the best bins available. That prompted my joining this forum as well as 24hour campfire, and I spent many hours at local sporting goods stores asking questions and looking through various high end binos. At that time I weighed optical quality as the highest factor concerning my pick of optics. I spent hours and hours splitting hairs between an 8x42 Ultravid and a 8.5x42 Swaro EL for example. During these comparisons I considered ergonomics, but if there was a noticible difference in view, I went for the better view regardless of other considerations. I had my limits, 29 oz was my max, so I ruled out 42mm size Swaro SLCs and Trinovids, but other than that criteria I valued things such as eye reliefe, handiness and carryability pretty far down the list.

I ended up with a very nice, cherry unit 8x42 Ultravid BR that is just super, but I immediately noticed that it was a bit too large and heavy for all the hiking I do. This last weekend I went hunting with my buddy's son who was hunting with the old Leitz 7x35 Trinovids I gave him ten years ago when they were judged too expensive to repair ($410.00, loose prism, collimation and dirty lenses, specks inside). They still have all of those problems, but they are all he has and they work better than nothing. Anyway I borrowed them for a bit and loved the package. I had forgotten how handy those old Trinovids are, he just keeps them in his coat pocket, no strap. They are very light and compact. I fantasized about trading him my new 6x30 Yosemites and sending the Leitz's back for repair after all. I know the view would be nowhere as good as the view through my Ultravids, but there would be a lot to say for a view 80%-90% as good in a light handy package like that, and to my mind there has never been a better looking binocular than that original 7x35 Trinovid design.

Where do you guys stand on binoculars as a total package? Are you willing to compromise larger EP and some twilight use for an easier to carry bino? Is there a certain bin that feels so good in the hand, or up against your face that you picked it over another that a slightly better view? How about ease of view? If I hold my Ultravid just right, it is clearly better than any bino in the shop, but now after owning it almost a year, I can see the EL is less critical in the way I hold it. If I had to do it over, I probably would value that ease of view a little higher than I did. Any other considerations?

John

[Steve C]

I pretty much always go for my perception of the total package within the other limits I usually impose on myself with price constraints. Everything seems to be about compromises and I haven't found one binocular that has everything I like, and I doubt I ever will. So, I look for faults that I can live with and concentrate on what I like about the binocular.

I recently spent a fair bit of time looking over Leica Ultravids, Zeiss FL, Swarovski EL, and Steiner Peregrine XP. Now IF I were to decide to spend that much for a binocular, the Steiner XP would be what I'd buy as of today, in the full size range. If were to buy an alpha class 32 mm glass today, it would be the Swarovski 8x32 EL. In both cases, the deciding factor would be the ergonomics of the binocular. The images do look "different", but I could easily live with any, although, I'd prefer the Leica image overall. While the Steiner has a terrific image, I'd personally rate the image order as Leica, Zeiss, Swaro, Steiner. But the difference is rather nit pickish. Resolution of detail does not seem to noticeably differ to me. So the Steiner ergonomics make the choice a no-brainer for me. Now, if I were to win one of the others at a raffle, that's what I'd use happily everafter.

But if I really went alpha, I'd like to get a 7-8x30ish binocular, for the same reasons you state, ease of use when hiking. That is where my Swift 7x36 shines. So, I'm in the wait and see what develops mode.

[orbitaljump]

Whole package, definitely.

Lots of very good optics out there. The Chinese and East Europeans have really stirred up the market and have the Japanese on their toes. There has been an explosion of decent to very good binoculars put on the market...almost unbelievably so.

If I had 1800 dollars to spend on a bino, Id end up with half a dozen at least. :)

[orbitaljump]

I see you are revisiting the 7x35 Trinovids. Good on you.

At a certain point, other factors trump optical considerations. Please do not take this as acquiescence to other peoples claims of "alpha binoculars" superiorty.

[orbitaljump]

I went to the Sportmans Warehouse in Columbia SC today, which has a very good selection of binoculars. I recommend this place to others in the area. The fellow behind the counter was pretty knowledgable as well. Great experience.

I was impressed with the 8x20 Leica sub compacts.....and the 7x26 Bushnell Elite Custom...and to a lessor extent the Nikon ATB 8x25 Reverse Porros.

Also the 10x50 Alpen Porros for $50. The Bushnell 8x40 and 8x42 Legacy's. And the the whole lineup of Nikon Action EX...which I like much better than the older plain "Action."

Also, I was impressed by the Vortex Fury 8x32 and the Steiner Predator 8.5x44. The Steiner had contrast enhancing coatings though.

And the Nikon Monarchs in both 8x42 and 8x36 configs.

The Vortex Vipers and Kalhes and several other big money binos failed to impress for the bucks....not to mention the
$1800 Leica and Swaro EL.

I didnt get to look at a lot of Alpens and Bruntons and Bushnells and whatnot, but Im sure there is a lot of decent to very good glass out there at affordable prices....so you get to distinguish on "The Other Stuff" or "The Whole Package" for your binos needs.

Its great to be a binocular nut these days!

[denco@comcast.n]

Originally Posted by orbitaljump

I went to the Sportmans Warehouse in Columbia SC today, which has a very good selection of binoculars. I recommend this place to others in the area. The fellow behind the counter was pretty knowledgable as well. Great experience.

I was impressed with the 8x20 Leica sub compacts.....and the 7x26 Bushnell Elite Custom...and to a lessor extent the Nikon ATB 8x25 Reverse Porros.

Also the 10x50 Alpen Porros for $50. The Bushnell 8x40 and 8x42 Legacy's. And the the whole lineup of Nikon Action EX...which I like much better than the older plain "Action."

Also, I was impressed by the Vortex Fury 8x32 and the Steiner Predator 8.5x44. The Steiner had contrast enhancing coatings though.

And the Nikon Monarchs in both 8x42 and 8x36 configs.

The Vortex Vipers and Kalhes and several other big money binos failed to impress for the bucks....not to mention the
$1800 Leica and Swaro EL.

I didnt get to look at a lot of Alpens and Bruntons and Bushnells and whatnot, but Im sure there is a lot of decent to very good glass out there at affordable prices....so you get to distinguish on "The Other Stuff" or "The Whole Package" for your binos needs.

Its great to be a binocular nut these days!

I am amazed you like the Leica 8x20's Ultravids(Got them for $400.00 New on E-bay). I just bought a pair and sent them back. I just can not put up with the fiddling around with them. More difficult eye placement, smaller FOV., less brightness. Too me they are a pain in the ass and I don't care how small and light they are. I really WANTED to like them too because they are so small and convenient and the functionality is just marvelous. Just aren't worth the aggravation. The Nikon Monarch's are popular but they are just lifeless compared to alpha glass when it comes to contrast. For alot of people if you aren't too picky they are a good inexpensive choice for hunters for a few hundred bucks.
Can't believe you aren't impressed by the Swarowski EL's and the Leicas. That and the Zeiss are some of the best in there is in my opinion. I really don't put Steiner's in the same group and Nikon Actions have terrible edge resolution. I can not stand them!

Dennis

[orbitaljump]

For $1800 bucks, I can get a pair of 8x30 Yosemites and a round trip ticket to South Africa.

There just isnt enough there. Maybe if I was more affluent....they would be worth the money. Who can say?

Yeah $600 compacts are way out there.

I am impressed with some of the cheaper porro offerings compared to what was available in the 80s and 90s at that price point. The Chinese have really changed the equation.

Porros are the way to go to maximize Price to Performance.

Ill be getting a first generation B&L Custom Compact when I can find one.

My Optolyth 10x40s are the equal of any Leica, Swaro, or Zeiss roof, and the better of many. Though I do have a fondness for the old Zeiss 7x42 and 10x40 B/GAs.

Purpose and personal preferences change the equation too much making blanket statements about which bino is the best a foolish pursuit. Swaro 8x42 ELs dont stand a chance against the Fujinon 16x70 or Zeiss 15x60 porros for astronomical pursuits.

[Tero]

Swaro 8x42 ELs dont stand a chance against the Fujinon 16x70 or Zeiss 15x60 porros for astronomical pursuits.

For the most part, roof prisms are for hunters and birders.

Its great to be a binocular nut these days!

I don't know, it was fun for a while. I might take that ticket to South Africa.

When out there in the field, we get aquainted with other people's scopes, nobody care what binoculars you have. One guy has 300 lifers with Bushnell Powerviews. The ones with the awful rocker focus knob.

[orbitaljump]

It good to know that some birders arent concerned about having the approrpriately named for psycho-anthropological reasons..... "alpha binoculars."

I can obsess over optics as good as anyone. Who am I to talk?

LOL!

[GeneralEverything]

Originally Posted by denco@comcast.n

I am amazed you like the Leica 8x20's Ultravids(Got them for $400.00 New on E-bay). I just bought a pair and sent them back. I just can not put up with the fiddling around with them. More difficult eye placement, smaller FOV., less brightness. Too me they are a pain in the ass and I don't care how small and light they are. I really WANTED to like them too because they are so small and convenient and the functionality is just marvelous. Just aren't worth the aggravation. The Nikon Monarch's are popular but they are just lifeless compared to alpha glass when it comes to contrast. For alot of people if you aren't too picky they are a good inexpensive choice for hunters for a few hundred bucks.
Can't believe you aren't impressed by the Swarowski EL's and the Leicas. That and the Zeiss are some of the best in there is in my opinion. I really don't put Steiner's in the same group and Nikon Actions have terrible edge resolution. I can not stand them!

Dennis

Wouldn't mind a PM with the name of the ebay seller of those Ultravids...
GenEv

[UTCbirder]

Interesting discussion! Maybe the following fits in here? I had alluded to this on another thread, and know that there are some other discussions about IS bins in the Canon forum. Hope this doesn't break any rules... As you can see I'm kinda new around these parts, but man am I pumped about IS and want to try and spread the word!

Right now, I am willing to compromise a lot of things to get image stabilization, including EP, Twilight performance, wt., handling, even to a certain extent pure optical performance. It really does, for me, make that much of a diff!

The following illustrates where I'm at with all this...

Earlier in November, 4 members of our local Audubon Society avicationed in Costa Rica. I brought both Zeiss 7X42 FL's and Canon 10X42 IS L bins. I used the Canon's almost exclusively. On one very early morning walk at Villa Lapas, I felt like I really ought to pull out the FL's... after all why tote them around if they weren't going to make their way out of the knapsack at least once? Two other members of the group went along- one of these folks called our attention to a pair of birds just barely illuminated by the rising sun, at the top of a huge tree some distance from our position. Thru the 7X's, they were just small, bright, dancing dots. The birds really looked to be Toucan-like in silhouette, as the duo flew high-up, across our position and to another impossibly large tree-crown far on the opposite side of the trail. Once again, nothing but shake, rattle and roll; I know that the caffeine and excitement of the moment didn't help any!

One of the birders toted two bins- a pair of older Pentax roof 8-bys, and a Canon 12X36 IS's- "want to try thru these?" was the offer, and indeed the little (compared to the 10X L's...) Canons clearly steadied/magnified the image to the point we could confidently call the ID- Fiery-billed Aracari, a lifer for us and the only ones we found on the trip.

My sense is that even the extra reach of 10X 'nocs would've not have helped us tag the critter any easier.

Needless to say, the Zeiss are about as good as it gets optically, but back in the pack they went. I had several other instances along the same lines. With a near focus of around 8+ feet, and a nice wide linear FOV, there were no conditions we experienced, from deep rain forest to paramo, where the Canons did not absolutely excel- they were indispensible for tagging birds in fast moving roving flock as well as for getting good (read "steady") looks at species at the limits of conjecture.

I am not saying IS is for everyone, maybe esp. a cinder-block like the Canon 10-L. But if you are not put off by the weight and at least on some models the boxy feel and look, every birder owes it to themselves to at least try out some iteration of image stabilized bins.

Right now I am desperately pleading the fat dude in the red suit to toss a pair of Nikon 12X32 Stabileyes my direction, and I think i just might have his (her!) ear...

Sorry if this did not fit in with the discussion...

Kindest of regards,
UTC

[Sancho]

I´m with you on that, UTC...time and time again, I see more birds and more detail when I pack my Canon IS 12x36. I only use 8x non-IS bins for close-quarter work, and to an extent I find I don´t really need IS at 8x mag. In fact I tried the IS 8x25 and didn´t like it for various reasons. I tried the 10x IS in a store too but found them too chunky and heavy. The 12x36 weigh about the same as my EL 8x32, and I find them very comfortable. I´ve never seen another birder in this country with them!

[denco@comcast.n]

Originally Posted by Sancho

I´m with you on that, UTC...time and time again, I see more birds and more detail when I pack my Canon IS 12x36. I only use 8x non-IS bins for close-quarter work, and to an extent I find I don´t really need IS at 8x mag. In fact I tried the IS 8x25 and didn´t like it for various reasons. I tried the 10x IS in a store too but found them too chunky and heavy. The 12x36 weigh about the same as my EL 8x32, and I find them very comfortable. I´ve never seen another birder in this country with them!

I just picked up a pair of Canon IS 12 x 36 II and I really like them. Not quite as good optically as my Leica 7x42 BN's but you can make out more detail with them because you are not shaking. A really good pair of binoculars for getting that positive ID on the bird. I have tried the 8x25 IS and the 10x30 IS and I too prefer the 12 x36 IS II. I think the 15 x50 IS would be getting a little too heavy. Those are my two binoculars right now.

Dennis

[KorHaan]

By now I've tried all Canon IS bins and I'm still not sure which one I'd want. The small ones ( 8x and 10x ) are great for one-handed use when carrying a tripod/scope on the shoulder. 12x36 is the only one I was able to use in the field for some time ( thanks again, Peewee! ) and it outperformed my 10x42 non-IS roofs then.
The 15x50 I tried in a shop against 15x56 Swaro's were a little disappointing ( probably because the Swaro's were extremely sharp and well-balanced in the hand).
The 18x50 were fantastic and made me drool.
The most expensive one, the 10x42 L IS, was optically nice but ill-balanced and clumsy.

To get this on topic: the whole package is more important to me than only outstanding optics, and within that there are two major considerations for me: weight and waterproofness.
I found any bin heavier than 550-560 grams not suited to carry all day around my neck.
I want to use them in pouring rain if I have to, so they must be waterproof.
The optics must be pleasant for my eyes. My current all-round bin ( the only one I take out besides scope ) is Minox BL 8x32 BR. The weight is only 525 grams. It fits my hands like no bin before, just about everything seems right with this little miracle.

Weight seems to be the paramount factor now for me. Maybe I'll change my mind next year and buy some Canon IS's. The IS-feature is the only thing I'd sacrifice my spine for carrying them all day.

Kindest regards, great thread,

Ronald

[denco@comcast.n]

Originally Posted by KorHaan

By now I've tried all Canon IS bins and I'm still not sure which one I'd want. The small ones ( 8x and 10x ) are great for one-handed use when carrying a tripod/scope on the shoulder. 12x36 is the only one I was able to use in the field for some time ( thanks again, Peewee! ) and it outperformed my 10x42 non-IS roofs then.
The 15x50 I tried in a shop against 15x56 Swaro's were a little disappointing ( probably because the Swaro's were extremely sharp and well-balanced in the hand).
The 18x50 were fantastic and made me drool.
The most expensive one, the 10x42 L IS, was optically nice but ill-balanced and clumsy.

To get this on topic: the whole package is more important to me than only outstanding optics, and within that there are two major considerations for me: weight and waterproofness.
I found any bin heavier than 550-560 grams not suited to carry all day around my neck.
I want to use them in pouring rain if I have to, so they must be waterproof.
The optics must be pleasant for my eyes. My current all-round bin ( the only one I take out besides scope ) is Minox BL 8x32 BR. The weight is only 525 grams. It fits my hands like no bin before, just about everything seems right with this little miracle.

Weight seems to be the paramount factor now for me. Maybe I'll change my mind next year and buy some Canon IS's. The IS-feature is the only thing I'd sacrifice my spine for carrying them all day.

Kindest regards, great thread,

Ronald

It would be hard to compare ANYTHING to the Swarovski 15 x 56 that is one awesome set of binoculars! You are talking about some seriously good optics there even though they are a might heavy. I was really impressed by the Swarovski 10 x 50's also even though they are a bit heavy. Great optics!
The Canon's are alot of fun but your right in that the lack of waterproofing makes them kind of a secondary tool. You never know when it is going to rain or you are going to encounter alot of humidity when birding, hunting, or just nature observation. I really like my Canon 12 x36 IS II though. If you look around you can pick them up pretty cheap and their edge clarity is among the best I have seen. Nice flatfield too. Pretty light too.

[orbitaljump]

I must admit, I like the ergos on the Swarovski ELs in the 32mm and 42mm objective sizes....the open bridges....I guess part of the whole package.

[John M Robinson]

Orbital, that's exactly what I'm talking about. Once you get up to a certain optical level, other issues come into greater play such as the open bridge ergonomics you bring up, way they fit the face, easy no black out view, light and compact carry, ect. I go back to those 1960-80s 7x35 Leitz Trinovids, if I had a mint pair, and if they were 85%+ as good visually as newer phase coated Alpha bins I'd take them in a heartbeat over a modern 42mm size Trinovid for example.

[trealawboy]

Originally Posted by orbitaljump

I must admit, I like the ergos on the Swarovski ELs in the 32mm and 42mm objective sizes....the open bridges....I guess part of the whole package.

Its a shame they have thumb grooves though. That spoils them for me.

:-(

[Kevin Conville]

The whole package, absolutely. I've been barking up that tree for awhile actually. Here on BF when talking bins, the topic often focuses on the hair splitting of optical differences, and that's OK but I'd never buy bins based solely on the view. Besides, the "view" is also up for grabs.

Though I get why some are fans of image stabilized binoculars, to me they fail meeting that overall package criteria. The several Canon I tried had the ergonomics of a toaster. Add to that their complexity, marginal warranty, and need for batteries and those are deal breakers for me. I have no doubt that one can see more with them however.

The other one I'll pick on in the premier class is Zeiss. I've tried various FLs a number of times. They are very very good optically, and may be the best of all but I don't see myself buying them. To me they don't have the air of mechanical quality of some others, kind of plasticky. I don't much like the molded-in ridges which make them feel bulkier than they are and probably don't do much to improve grip. 2 of 4 I recently looked at/through had tight spots intermittently while running the focus wheel. They are great to look through though!

[orbitaljump]

Originally Posted by John M Robinson

Orbital, that's exactly what I'm talking about. Once you get up to a certain optical level, other issues come into greater play such as the open bridge ergonomics you bring up, way they fit the face, easy no black out view, light and compact carry, ect. I go back to those 1960-80s 7x35 Leitz Trinovids, if I had a mint pair, and if they were 85%+ as good visually as newer phase coated Alpha bins I'd take them in a heartbeat over a modern 42mm size Trinovid for example.

I with you John.

Im also a fan of vintage binos.

[KorHaan]

Originally Posted by denco@comcast.n

It would be hard to compare ANYTHING to the Swarovski 15 x 56 that is one awesome set of binoculars! You are talking about some seriously good optics there even though they are a might heavy. I was really impressed by the Swarovski 10 x 50's also even though they are a bit heavy. Great optics!
The Canon's are alot of fun but your right in that the lack of waterproofing makes them kind of a secondary tool. You never know when it is going to rain or you are going to encounter alot of humidity when birding, hunting, or just nature observation. I really like my Canon 12 x36 IS II though. If you look around you can pick them up pretty cheap and their edge clarity is among the best I have seen. Nice flatfield too. Pretty light too.

That's right, the 15x56 Swaro's are outstanding binoculars. You'd have to put them on a tripod, though, and that's were I normally keep my scope. The big Canons seem attractive when you don't want to be bothered with the pod/scope combo. Besides, for the price of one Swaro15x 56 I could have two Canons.

But I think it will be 2010 earliest I can afford to buy another pair of bins.
The Canon 12x36 IS II I've seen listed for 499.- Euros and even that price is too much. The 18x50's IS are 988.- Euros and that is even more unthinkable right now.

Fortunately I appreciate my 8x32 Minox's more and more each day, to the point I ignore binocular shops. Up until now I couldn't pass one without popping in for elaborated views through all the attractive looking bins including the prohibitively expensive ones.
This could mean I'm a cured binocuholic ( hmm... am I? ) or I have found a perfect pair of bins. For my taste, for my hands, for my eyes.

This may sound boring, but I'm actually quite satisfied with what I have at the moment.

Regards, Ronald

PS : I'm struggling to resist looking on the Minox website and deny another brand loyalty virus to invade my brain. Fever....

[Sancho]

Originally Posted by KorHaan

Up until now I couldn't pass one without popping in for elaborated views through all the attractive looking bins including the prohibitively expensive ones.
This could mean I'm a cured binocuholic ( hmm... am I? )

It´s a tough question...I thought I was cured until all this talk of 8x42 ED bins started off. Now I´ve again seen your appraisal of Canon IS 18x50, and I´m wondering if I want that instead....the virus was dormant, but I think it´s active again! BTW, did you find the Canon IS 18x50 usable without a tripod,and was the FOV too restrictive? A note on my 12x36 IS....they look odd, but they´re very comfortable in the hand.

[KorHaan]

Originally Posted by Sancho

It´s a tough question...I thought I was cured until all this talk of 8x42 ED bins started off. Now I´ve again seen your appraisal of Canon IS 18x50, and I´m wondering if I want that instead....the virus was dormant, but I think it´s active again! BTW, did you find the Canon IS 18x50 usable without a tripod,and was the FOV too restrictive? A note on my 12x36 IS....they look odd, but they´re very comfortable in the hand.

Hi Sancho,

The Canon IS 18x50 is perfectly usable without a tripod IMO. There are occasions I only carry my 8x32's and regret that I left the scope at home, not being able to ID a distant bird. This is where 18x50's IS would come in handy. As a back-up pair in a bag or rucksack they would be great.
12x36's IS are not enough, is my guess. A scope is still required then.

Last october I went for a week to Texel, a great birding spot, but I didn't take the scope/pod combo. I just wanted relaxed bicycle rides. All went OK until I picked out with my 8x32's a juvenile Rosy Starling in a flock of 300 common Starlings. I put the bins on the saddle of my bike, sat on my stool and cursed myself quietly for being stupid to leave the scope at home. The views would have been great.

The thing that I like about the Canon 18x50's is that they have a tripod attachment point underneath. So you can use them on a tripod if you feel like it, or on a monopod. I've experimented with two tripod adapters last summer to mount my 10x42 non-IS roofs and 10x50 Chinese porro's. Both bins had threads on the far end of the hinge. The little pedestals ( the adaptors) screwed on caused considerable vibration, due to the fact gravity was working on a 90 degree angle this way, and with my hand on the focus wheel at the front end of the hinge it was clearly noticeable. Attachment points underneath the housing are much more stable ( I think ).
Ergonomics over optics, to keep to the topic.

The field of view in the 18x50's was surprisingly good, maybe because I expected a narrowish FOV with 18x mag. I believe it's 66 m./1000m.
Not to be used as an all-round pair of bins, where the 12x36's IS could be used that way.

A scope on a tripod though allows for more relaxed viewing than a handheld heavy IS bin.
My kind of birding is a need to see details. I'm a total tw*t if it comes to JIZZ.
I envy others who can nail an ID at 2 kilometers. I can't; I need the details on the bird.

BTW, I fully agree with you that the Canon 12x36 IS's are very comfortable to hold!

Regards, Ronald

[etc]

Considering pure optical performance, I love Leica 8x42 (Trinovid and imagine Ultravid is even better)

However, what I actually have and use and take in the field is Swarovski EL 8.5x42. Even thought it has a slightly different view impossible for me to define.


Some day I hope to own a Ultravid HD but will have to send it in for them to adjust the focus past infinity distance, at the expense of close-up focus distance.

[catmouse]

I looked through a pair of Swarovski EL 10x32 in a store I loved the 360 F.O.V. for a 10x the binoculars fit my face and eyes perfectly,the size was perfect too light weight and great feel. The only problem is the price "IF" I could afford them I would buy them. I compared them to a Leica Ultravid 8x32 and I prefer the Swarovski 10x32 EL,in my opinion a excellent binocular for all day carry and hiking anyone who can afford one is truly lucky.