[ReneZ]

I'm in doubt what to do and would appreciate your advise. I understand that you get what you pay for, but if I take a budget of £350 and want to get the best for that money, you can do the following:

1 Buy second hand an earlier version of the big brands - probably not their best line(something like 7 or 8 X 40).
2 Buy second hand a smaller size, but better quality line (same 7 or 8 x 20/25) with the latest coating T* or similar.
3 Buy new a second-tier brand, but with multi-coating, Bak4 etc?

The difficulty is that you can't really compare all possible offerings.

Appreciate your advice! Thanks, Rene.

[Tero]

Warranty is a big deal. I just sent some Vortex for repair, hoping for the guarantee on the web site.

If you find the very thing you want, the model that was absolutely your dream, used, Get that. Otherwise get mid price Minox, Pentax, Vortex, Meopta etc etc. You might look at low [price] end Swarovski and Leica. Zeiss conquest are not worth the effort, my Pentax beat my Zeiss. I still have the Pentax.

[ThoLa]

Originally Posted by Tero

... You might look at low end Swarovski and Leica. ...

You will admit that this is a very unfortunately phrasing as there are no "low end" instruments from these companies.

T

[ThoLa]

Originally Posted by Tero

Zeiss conquest are not worth the effort, my Pentax beat my Zeiss. I still have the Pentax.

A week ago I had a chance to do a side-by-side comparision of Zeisses and Pentaxes.
The Pentax DCF ED was quite nice but not as good as a corresponding Zeiss Conquest.
The focusser on the Pentax was very stiff, and the rubber coating was loose at the objectives' end (very odd; more like a trench coat than a diver's suit).
The colours were very nice, the image crisp. Colour fringes in the periphery were pronounced, and clearly stronger than in any Conquest (or any of the top brand models).
There was something disturbing about the image in the Pentax; I think the collimation was not quite as good as in the top end instruments.

Tom

[Matt_RTH]

2nd hand is a great option. With auction sites, craigslist (which I think is in the UK but maybe not as popular) and other sites, your money can stretch further. But I'm like others in here who has had many, many sets of binoculars, though I now have "only" 8 or so. That means that I have experience in spotting a deal and spotting a dud and realize there are always risks to that.

One thing I'd encourage you to do is to factor the "on paper" specifications as a smaller fraction of the purchase decision. Your actual judgment of the view is the ultimate decision, not what it does on paper. There are many models coming out that look great on paper, ED glass, silver coating, etc, but only time will tell if all these newer, slightly upscale imports will stand the test of time or just become another wasteland of binoculars that don't hold their value. That said, some of these coming out look very interesting and well within your budget. Like this one for instance: http://www.telescope.com/control/pro...oduct_id=09256

How much history do you have using binoculars? I'm going out on a limb and assuming that one big risk is that you need more time to determine what your tastes are.

So as a strategy - here's what I might suggest:
1. Keep an eye open for any great deals on top brand with known reputations (Leica, Swaro, Zeiss, Nikon (their high end that is).
2. Try out as many models as you can. Ask fellow birders what they like!
3. Get to the point that you can discern quality between models and make the best decision for you.

BTW, I see expert birders whose primary binocular is a small 8x20, and some who use 7x50! I am a huge fan of the 8x32 format. It can be shown to be ideal for almost any occasion. But if you are asking for the ideal format, I'd really suggest staying in the 8x32, 7x42, 8x42 category. If you have rock solid nerves and can take on the limitations of 10x binoculars, then 10x42 could be an option.

[OwenM]

Originally Posted by ThoLa

A week ago I had a chance to do a side-by-side comparision of Zeisses and Pentaxes.
The Pentax DCF ED was quite nice but not as good as a corresponding Zeiss Conquest.
The focusser on the Pentax was very stiff, and the rubber coating was loose at the objectives' end (very odd; more like a trench coat than a diver's suit).
The colours were very nice, the image crisp. Colour fringes in the periphery were pronounced, and clearly stronger than in any Conquest (or any of the top brand models).
There was something disturbing about the image in the Pentax; I think the collimation was not quite as good as in the top end instruments.

Tom

The ED you looked at must be the biggest lemon ever.
I would have never believed a binocular as bad as the Conquest could cost so much until I compared several models side by side with my 8x32 SP.
Based on the four I looked at, Conquests can't compete in either optical or construction quality with the Pentax SP, much less the ED, which is noticeably better.
Most shocking to me was how poorly made the Victory FLs are for their price point. I paid $150 for some Bushnell-made Brownings that are better constructed than a $1500 FL. Shameful.

[Kevin Purcell]

Originally Posted by OwenM

I would have never believed a binocular as bad as the Conquest could cost so much until I compared several models side by side with my 8x32 SP.
Based on the four I looked at, Conquests can't compete in either optical or construction quality with the Pentax SP, much less the ED, which is noticeably better.

Very odd.

I have a Zeiss Conquest 8x30 and it smokes my Pentax WP and SP 8x32.

It's sharper than my Celestron Ultima DX 8x32 porro (a rather good deal but a decent porro).

It's essentially as sharp as the "Chinese EDs". Has great color. It is light. Fits well in my hands. The focuser action feels "like a machine screw" (as someone else described it and they're right).

The only bin I have that beats it is the Nikon SE (but I'm missing bins in the "top" level but I have a number of good to decent bins).

It's failing is how it handles stray light and I only saw that recently but a view close to the sun, compared with say the Chinese EDs and the SE, show how it fails with veiling glare.

I see Tero's comments (and Owen's above) and I wonder if we have the same binocular?

Are the bins different (sample to sample) or are people different?

For the OP the usual "Chinese ED" advice ... the Chinese are making better bins these days and they're well priced. You'd do well to look at the Hawke Frontier ED (for £270 well inside your budget) which really isn't bettered until you get to the top bins.

The other possibility is a good porro, to get the most optics for the money, to start and keep saving for later. Assuming you don't find porros too big or heavy.

The other problem about buying "good" old bins is the current design have moved on quite a bit: weather proofing, coatings (especially phase coatings in roofs) have improved a lot. And some of the old "good" bins still carry a premium (especially from people who couldn't buy them when they were younger!).

But start looking through a lot of bins ... you will see the differences with practice (and sometimes without!).

[Steve C]

I'm going to go with Kevin and recommend one of the Chinese offerings. The Hawke Frontier ED is most likely more easily available in Scotland than the Promaster ELX ED. There has been mention of an RSPB ED binocular that seems to offer the same sort of specifications in a traditional closed hinge design.

I would be some what astounded if you were not more than pleased with the Hawke. But as the back and forth between Tero, Thola, OwenM, and Kevin indicate, different eyes see binoculars differently, and there can exist some sample variation. So, either make arrangements to visit a shop with a good inventory and try a couple of different ones in your price range. Alternatively select a site to order from which will allow a return of something you don't like in exchange for another. It can be a hassle to either make a special trip to a place where you can look at several types, or a hassle to order and send back binoculars until you get it right.

But, the REAL hassle will come when you decide to avoid the hassle and stick yourself with something you really don't like. Mid price binoculars are getting ever better, and if you don't like the Hawke/Promaster (highly unlikely but always possible) try a different one. Giving two or three decent binoculars a try is likely to produce one you like. At the point you find one you like, just use it and enjoy it. My comments here are somewhat prefaced on an assumption that you don't want to spend a lot up front.

[Tero]

Based on the four I looked at, Conquests can't compete in either optical or construction quality with the Pentax SP, much less the ED, which is noticeably better.

Owen is right and the problem is obvious in the 10x Zeiss. It had no alignment problems, but they were not for me. I might still take the 8x30 Zeiss. Very solid feel in all the Zeiss in hand. Eye cups is a different story.

If Zeiss is you choice, go for the top.

[Sancho]

Originally Posted by ReneZ

The difficulty is that you can't really compare all possible offerings.

But do try, if you can. I don´t know where in Scotland you are, but Black and Lizars have a number of stores dotted about there, try to get over to one and try as many binos as you can. You need to decide what mag you want (8x or, at a push, 10x as an earlier poster said), what objective (30-40mm), and whether you want "roofs" or the more trad-style "porros". If you are happy with porros that aren´t waterproof, you can get a pair of Nikon 8x30 EII´s still (online from England) for 259 sterling. That´ll give you about the best optics available (although what that constitutes is open to much debate). I have a pair and the lack of waterproofing has never been a problem....the climate here is probably even wetter than yours. On the other hand, the Hawkes cost about the same and are waterproof roofs. I´ve never seen a pair but check if B and Lizars have them....reliable folk here recommend them highly. Try as many binos as you can before you buy, to get a clearer picture of your requirements. Then go back and ask yourself if you want new or secondhand. My 0.02 euro´s worth, Best of Luck and tell us what you get!

[Pinewood]

Hello ReneZ,

There is a fourth option, at least in the States. Purchase a demo or a refurbished binocular. Some items are sent in for repair, but the owner gets a new one in exchange, while the old one may be repaired and sold as a refurbished. There are shop demo's, which were used to show customers, and there are demos from shows.

I am not in touch with the UK retail market to know if something similar exists.

A fifth option may be a clearance price on older models.

I bought one Zeiss, as a clearance, three and a half years, ago, and two Zeiss and a Leica, as Demos. The Zeiss glasses came with the identical guarantee, as did new ones.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur

[Kevin Purcell]

Originally Posted by Sancho

If you are happy with porros that aren´t waterproof, you can get a pair of Nikon 8x30 EII´s still (online from England) for 259 sterling. That´ll give you about the best optics available (although what that constitutes is open to much debate). I have a pair and the lack of waterproofing has never been a problem....the climate here is probably even wetter than yours.

I know you have glasses, Sancho. Does the Nikon 8x30 EII work with glasses for you? Or do you not wear them with the E2?

It seems to have very short eye relief in the specs (which might be a consideration for the original poster ... or not depending upon eyeglasses).

[Fireform]

Originally Posted by Kevin Purcell

I know you have glasses, Sancho. Does the Nikon 8x30 EII work with glasses for you? Or do you not wear them with the E2?

It seems to have very short eye relief in the specs (which might be a consideration for the original poster ... or not depending upon eyeglasses).

It was enough of a problem for me that I sold mine, alas. I lost so much of that huge FOV with glasses on that I couldn't stand it. Amazing binoculars, though, with a terrific balance of strengths.

[Kevin Purcell]

Originally Posted by Fireform

It was enough of a problem for me that I sold mine, alas. I lost so much of that huge FOV with glasses on that I couldn't stand it. Amazing binoculars, though, with a terrific balance of strengths.

Though I see Henry says

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=38202

The eye relief of the E and the EII measured about 16mm from the center of the eyelens and 14mm from the rim of the folded down eyecup. The SE measured 21mm from the eyelens and 19mm from the eyecup. Like Kimmo’s friend I found that I could see virtually the entire 70 degree field of the EII while wearing reading glasses . Nikon’s eye relief figures seem to be conservative and are apparently measured from the eyecup. Beware that some manufacturer’s like Swarovski appear to take their measurements from the glass so that 2-3mm need to be subtracted from their specs compared to measurements from the eyecup.

IMHO, it seems it's an "honest" 14mm rather than say a "dishonest" (speced from the glass) 16mm for an Swift Audubon. It seems they're both similar at bottom. The perils of the wide view.

[KorHaan]

About the Conquests:

Last year I could have bought a 10x30 model for half the price. 350 Euro's, a really good bargain. They were new in the box. The focus wheel was next to impossible to move. Not with one finger, not with two, only with great force from both my hands was I able to turn the focuser slightly. Sheer rubbish.
I've seen six models of 8x30 and 10x30 Conquests over the last few years and only one had a smooth focus wheel. So much for the non-existant quality control at Zeiss.

I could say all kinds of nasty things of FL's too, but let's say I'm glad I sold mine and bought Minox BL's; four times cheaper, and well-designed separate diopter and focus.

Regards, Ronald

[ColonelBlimp]

Also, try the Opticron Imagic BGA SE's. I had a budget about the same as yours, bought them, and was very happy with the great construction, great customer service, and very nice optics. Can't comment on how they would compare to a Hawke etc. though.

[Fireform]

Originally Posted by Kevin Purcell

Though I see Henry says

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=38202



IMHO, it seems it's an "honest" 14mm rather than say a "dishonest" (speced from the glass) 16mm for an Swift Audubon. It seems they're both similar at bottom. The perils of the wide view.

That's likely true. My experience with the Audubon is that the eye relief feels more like 12mm--very short. The EIIs may be OK for some eyeglass wearers, but they weren't for me. If you could try out a pair in advance you would know, but there aren't many of them around in stores anymore. I had to "upgrade" to other bins, a process I'm still not happy about.

[Sancho]

Originally Posted by Kevin Purcell

I know you have glasses, Sancho. Does the Nikon 8x30 EII work with glasses for you? Or do you not wear them with the E2?

It seems to have very short eye relief in the specs (which might be a consideration for the original poster ... or not depending upon eyeglasses).

I don´t know quite how to measure real eye-relief (without sticking a tape-measure in my eyeball) but I reckon it´s about 15mm, for both the 8x and 10x EII´s. I do wear glasses with my EII´s nowadays, but (and this is going to sound so obvious as to be daft), it depends what glasses. My normal everyday glasses (the ones I wear to work, at home etc.) don´t work with any binoculars because they sit further out on the bridge of my nose (and I have a big nose). I have special "dedicated" birding-eyeglasses (we had a thread about that some time ago), which are small round wire-framed, and sit back into my eyes. With these, I can get full FOV with my EII´s and my EL´s. It´s been said before, but I think the crucial feature is not the eye-relief of the binoculars, but the eye-relief of the spectacles, that makes the difference. So much so that I´m going to save myself a fortune and not buy any of these new ED long-er bins (that might never get produced anyway....).

[Kevin Purcell]

Originally Posted by Sancho

I don´t know quite how to measure real eye-relief (without sticking a tape-measure in my eyeball) but I reckon it´s about 15mm, for both the 8x and 10x EII´s. I do wear glasses with my EII´s nowadays, but (and this is going to sound so obvious as to be daft), it depends what glasses. My normal everyday glasses (the ones I wear to work, at home etc.) don´t work with any binoculars because they sit further out on the bridge of my nose (and I have a big nose). I have special "dedicated" birding-eyeglasses (we had a thread about that some time ago), which are small round wire-framed, and sit back into my eyes. With these, I can get full FOV with my EII´s and my EL´s. It´s been said before, but I think the crucial feature is not the eye-relief of the binoculars, but the eye-relief of the spectacles, that makes the difference. So much so that I´m going to save myself a fortune and not buy any of these new ED long-er bins (that might never get produced anyway....).

EDIT: correct the previous gibberish ... (not Sancho's post ... I posted a gibberish response ... copy and paste error!).

Eyeglasses don't have "eye relief". They're like Galilean telescopes in that they don't have an exit pupil. They just add or subtract power the eye lens system (the lens + the cornea).

The important thing is just matching the position of the exit pupil from the back of the eyepiece to the position of the entrance pupil of the eye (after it's been "moved" by any "lenses" placed in front of it like your eyeglass or your cornea).

So eye relief is easy to specify optically ... the distance from the back of the last lens to the position of the exit pupil. Done.

Easy.

Except for the problem of "unusable distance" enforced by the eyecups around the lens. This makes a difference from eyeglass wearers (but not usually for non-eyeglass wearers as their eye doesn't care about that edge). So that removes bit of distance from the "optically correct" ER making some sort of "usable ER".

And then these the problem of the marketers and the "big numbers" sell. So you get the Audubon that quotes IIRC 16mm (sounds good) but with glasses is closer to 12mm usable (not so good ... you will lose field).

Then there's the problem of the glasses themselves. There's a convenient fiction that the vertex distance (the distance from the front most part of the cornea to the back of the eyeglass lens) is 15mm. It actually makes a little difference to the correct prescription but as lenses come in multiple of 0.25 diopter it doesn't show up.

But people fit eyeglasses in all sorts of ways with vertex distances below 10mm (though your eyelashes might start to hit the lens) out to 30mm (big eyeglasses worn down the nose often by old guys!). These difference distances make all the difference.

Then there's how much correction you need and what the eyeglasses are made out of. High index plastics make thinner lenses and so help with poor ER.

You could give a person with close fitting thin lens (10mm vertex distance) a bin with 14mm ER and they'ed see the whole field. Give it to the guywith the 30mm vertex distance and thick CR39 lenese and maybe he'd see a little bit in the middle. Same bin. Same ER. Different eyeglasses and different people.

Add in deep set eyes and you can see the problems.

Sancho (and me) do the right thing by having custom eyeglasses for birding.

But even than can lead to problems ... my nice close fitting glasses give me problems with the SE. Why well one reason is the ER is too long with the eyecup down for my close fit eyeglasses. So I need to move the eyeglasses out.

So getting the balance right is a problem ... and the only way to know is to test. But you can stack the deck in your direction with well though out birding eyeglasses.

[Pinewood]

A member of this forum suggested to me that myopics should have fewer problems with eye relief, becaue our specs make things seem smaller, and we get a bigger field. Certainly, I see a bigger FOV with my glasses on, and the cups down, then with my glasses off, and the cups up.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur

[Kevin Purcell]

Originally Posted by Pinewood

A member of this forum suggested to me that myopics should have fewer problems with eye relief, becaue our specs make things seem smaller, and we get a bigger field. Certainly, I see a bigger FOV with my glasses on, and the cups down, then with my glasses off, and the cups up.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur

And that minification (making things smaller) is what contributes to KB blackout problems in some bins with a lot of myopic correction ... the effective ER becomes increased because the negative corrective eyeglass lens diverges the light moving the effective position of the exit pupil back (so the eye is effectively "too close").

Hyperopes who have a positive eyeglass correction would suffer less from blackout problems with the SE and more from lack of ER.

So stronger myopes should be happier with shorter ER than weaker myopes or all hyperopes (and the stronger a hyperope you are the more you need long ER). Not all eyeglass wearers are the same.

I see this effect with my Yosemite 6x30 too. Just in the more corrected right eye. A little bit of eyecup twist up (a couple of mm) gets rid of it i.e. I move the eye further away from the EP and the KB blackout disappear.

The other issue you describe, seeing the full field, is nothing to do with myopia and everything to do with insufficient ER or too much distance from the eyeglasses to the eye as I mention above. Hyperopes and even normal vision people wearing sunglasses have this same problem (again depending on the fit of the glasses).

The usual myope's problem viewing through their bins without eyeglasses is having enough focus "beyond infinity" to get the negative correction they require. For some bins there isn't enough. It's often speced and needs to be more than your prescription (including astigmatism correction).

And if you have astimgatism then not using your glasses with bins isn't a good option.

I can see the difference in view with my -1D (left) and -3D (right) of astigmatism between wearing and not wearing my glasses with a bin (assuming I can deal with the spherical -3D in both eyes with the bins) with any halfway decent bins. So for me not wearing glasses is not really an option anymore.

[Sancho]

[quote=Kevin Purcell;1352504]
But people fit eyeglasses in all sorts of ways with vertex distances below 10mm (though your eyelashes might start to hit the lens) out to 30mm (big eyeglasses worn down the nose often by old guys!). These difference distances make all the difference.

QUOTE]

Thanks for the very informative post, Kevin, and also for saying far more succinctly what I was trying to get at; and for explaining how to measure real er. "Vertex Distance" is what I meant when I said er of eyeglasses....and yes, one tiny problem is that my eyelashes do brush off the lenses....John Lennon glasses, Sophia Loren eyelashes! (And Cyrano de Bergerac nose....)

[Pinewood]

Strong myope! I guess that describes me. When I don't use glasses, which is rare because of astigmatism, I twist the dioptre setting way over, as I need -7.5

Happy birdwatching,
Arthur

[Kevin Purcell]

Originally Posted by Pinewood

Strong myope! I guess that describes me. When I don't use glasses, which is rare because of astigmatism, I twist the dioptre setting way over, as I need -7.5

Happy birdwatching,
Arthur

So that's more of an indication of the difference in correction between the eyes than the total amount of correction (the bin can do that).

But -7.5D difference is a lot!

You are not the oddball who is a hyperope in one eye and a myope in the other? With a prescription of something like +4D in one eye and -3.5D in the other eye are you?

I'm myopic but only a 1.5D difference between the eyes (when I include astigmatism ... otherwise they're about the same for spherical).

You had problems with the SE blackouts too didn't you? I think I can see why. In just one eye?

What is your prescription?

[Pinewood]

Originally Posted by Kevin Purcell

But -7.5D difference is a lot!

...
What is your prescription?

Kevin,

Sorry, I was writing of IF binoculars, not the right dioptre with a CF binocular. Both of my eyes are -7.5.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur