[KG4QEV]

Ok, so I am brand new to this whole birdwatching thing and decided I should get a pair of binoculars to help aid in the enjoyment of my newly found hobby. I was looking for a pair of "beginner" binoculars that were cheap but decent to get me started. I figure if I get really involved or decide that I want to make a long term commitment to the hobby I'll drop a few hundred bucks on a better quality set of binoculars later on down the road.

My first choice was the Eagle Optics Triumph 8X25 based on a nice write up from Birdwatching.com. Even though $70 isn't bad as far as entry level price I decided to research some more being the frugal/cheapskate that I am.

This is what I found: Celestron Outland LX 8x40 - Porro. It is on sale at Binoculars.com for $40 right now (regular price $110, and orders over $50 get free shipping). I think it will be a great set of beginner binoculars for me and I don't think a better set can be found for less than that price. I'll report back when I've had a chance to test them out. I also picked up a pair of 8x21 Compact binoculars for $8.95 (regular price $50) to take with me on hiking/camping trips when I want to travel light but still have a little something to peek at the wildlife with.

Total = $51 bucks and some change for one 8X40, one 8X21, and a Pentax cleaning cloth. (shipping included)

- Chad

[Tero]

They should work in the beginning, 8x is good. The compacts will not be terrific, but better than no binocular.

[Common Raven]

Originally Posted by KG4QEV

Ok, so I am brand new to this whole birdwatching thing and decided I should get a pair of binoculars to help aid in the enjoyment of my newly found hobby. I was looking for a pair of "beginner" binoculars that were cheap but decent to get me started. I figure if I get really involved or decide that I want to make a long term commitment to the hobby I'll drop a few hundred bucks on a better quality set of binoculars later on down the road.

My first choice was the Eagle Optics Triumph 8X25 based on a nice write up from Birdwatching.com. Even though $70 isn't bad as far as entry level price I decided to research some more being the frugal/cheapskate that I am.

This is what I found: Celestron Outland LX 8x40 - Porro. It is on sale at Binoculars.com for $40 right now (regular price $110, and orders over $50 get free shipping). I think it will be a great set of beginner binoculars for me and I don't think a better set can be found for less than that price. I'll report back when I've had a chance to test them out. I also picked up a pair of 8x21 Compact binoculars for $8.95 (regular price $50) to take with me on hiking/camping trips when I want to travel light but still have a little something to peek at the wildlife with.

Total = $51 bucks and some change for one 8X40, one 8X21, and a Pentax cleaning cloth. (shipping included)

- Chad

Chad,
I have the Eagle Optics Triumph 8x25; For the money it is a great little compact. In bright days it it provides a decent view; however, I think the Outland could produce a better view, since it is an 8X40, particularly during cloudy or early morning/evening outings. I find that using the Triumph during these days dark and frustrating.

[KG4QEV]

Tero and Raven,

Thanks for the input. Yeah I think the Triumph is a nice value for the beginner. It would have been my choice had I not caught the Outland on sale. I just couldn't pass the Outland up for the price. I am sure either the Triumph or the Outland would suit my needs for now until I decide to upgrade later. I'd like to get in 4 or 5 camping/hiking trips this year so I'm definitely going to try and put it to good use.

- Chad

[FrankD]

If the Outland fails to please for some reason then consider the Nikon Action 7x35 ($60), Action EX ($130) or possibly one of the Leupold Yosemite Models 6x30 ($90), 8x30 ($100).

[Curtis Croulet]

I was at a birding thing in 2004 where a traveling vendor was selling Celestron Outland bins. A birder had borrowed a pair from the vendor to try out, and she spotted me with my Eagle Optics Ranger Platinum Class 8x42 and asked to compare them. The Outland was not phase-coated, and whether because of that or some other reason, there was really no comparison. The EO was very obviously superior. The Outland may have been out-of-collimation, too, but I don't remember now. If you buy the Celestron Outland, you may find yourself upgrading very quickly.

[Otto McDiesel]

Originally Posted by Curtis Croulet

If you buy the Celestron Outland, you may find yourself upgrading very quickly.

There may be a confusion of names and models here. The name Outland was applied to both porro prism and roof prism models.

[KG4QEV]

Curtis,

The Celestron Outland I ordered is the Outland LX 8x40 - Porro, and the description indicates that it is "fully multi-coated optics". I'm not sure if that includes phase coating. It could mean it is coated with peanut butter for all know. I couldn't find a more detailed description of what Celestron means by "fully multi-coated optics". They seem to be of decent quality, are waterproof, and super cheap. My main reason for buying these was the price point. I am sure the Eagle Optics Ranger is far superior, however at over $300 versus $40, it should be. I think I will be happy with the Outland for awhile. I'll take a look at the Ranger and other higher quality models down the road if I decide to upgrade.

- Chad

[Tero]

Porros do not have or need phase coatings. Coated lenses is good.

[KG4QEV]

Originally Posted by Tero

Porros do not have or need phase coatings. Coated lenses is good.

Thanks for the clarification Tero!

- Chad

[Curtis Croulet]

The Outland I looked through was a roof-prism.

[ksbird/foxranch]

The only Outland Celestron that I've tested is the 10x50 fully immersible and waterproof (gas purged) porro. The 4 element objective had spectacular color correction, although it didn't have the widest field of view it was reasonable. The 10x50 is so inexpensive I might get some as loaners this year. If the 8x40 has as sharp a view through its 4 element objective then it will be very competative or even superior to the Nikon Action Extreme 8x40. Your price was good. The person who looked through the 8x42 Outland roofer may not have liked what he saw, but the porros are great and really low priced now.

I compared the Pentac PCF WP 16x50 to the Nikon Action Extreme 16x50 before getting the Pentax even though the Nikon was good, the Pentax was more expensive and we have many Nikons here. But the Celestron Outland Porros are exceptional performers and exceptional values too. If you can handle a porro conveniently, you may not find too many other binoculars of any kind at any price that will make you think they are better for either sharpness or CA. The only thing that troubles me is the consistancy of production from one unit to the next. Be critical. If you think there is anything at all wrong with this Outland bin, go to a store with many high end bins and compare. If one eye seems different compared to the other through the Outland, or the focus isn't right or for whatever reason, then arrange for a replacement. Like I say, the 10x50 Outland porros I saw were spectacular, which is surprising for a bin that costs US$80 plus $10 shipping.

In comparision, the Zeiss Classic 10x40 T*P* roofers I was using as a standard was no sharper and had no better CA and the FOV was narrower. While my Dekarem 1Q 10x50s has a much wider field of view compared to the Outland 10x50 they were no sharper. The 2 pairs of Docter 10x40 Notarems were not as good either. The Newcon 10x40 military style and Komz 10x40 porro military bins were as sharp in the center and waterproof but not as sharp on the edges. The 10x40 Conquests and Victorys were nice and better ergonomically but no better optically, Only the 10x42 FL seemed to have better color correction. The 10x40 Steiner Predator and Swarovski Habicht 10x40s were both excellent and the flaring may have been surpressed better on them but the FOV, sharpness or CA was no better. I wanted to test the Outland 10x50 against the Steiner 10x50 Military Police but their owner didn't show up for our testing. The one pair of older Minox 10x42 Asphericals we checked may have had better edge sharpness, but that was all. The 10x50 Outlands are supposed to color correct well for red, yellow, green and blue wavelengths, instead of sharpness to the edge. They are very good.

I was disappointed that optically the Swarovski WB SLC 10x42 and 10x42 EL were not sharper and just "all-around better" than the Swarovski 10x40 Habicht porro. The best binocular we saw that day was the Swarovski 8x56 Habicht which is shockingly good if a bit large. It made me consider blowing another $1000 for a binocular. And the Habicht SLC 10x50 roofer was very bright and this added liveliness to the view (but not as much as the 8x56 ... WOW), but the SLC 10x50 is very very good and might be as sharp as the Outland or sharper in the middle, while the edges on the SLC 10x50 did not have better color correction. We couldn't test the 10x Nikon SEII that day but would like to. The only pair of Leica BA 10x40s we tested that day seemed dim by comparison and the contrast in shadows was not even in the same league with many of the models I'v mentioned. We wanted to test a pair of 10x32 Ultravids but no one had a pair available.

The weather is crisp and clear here. Only a few birds of interest like our territorial red-bellied woodpecker and some hawks are around (because there are still sparrows, jays and cardinals to eat). The trees are bare so animal activity is seen much better this time of year than at any other time. Yes there is allot of cold mud (39F / 4C for the high temps some days), yes it is windy and wet leaves can stick to you. Sitting in a blind/hide is a pain in the ... chair. But for clear sharp views, with no heat waves, and hazy wideband sunlight, this is THE best time of year. I can use my Maksutov spotter at 100x-120x to view foxes at 500ft (150m) as clear as a I ever see them up close. It's too cold and windy to do serious testing using targets that are printed out in different colors, but hawks are just dazzling flying overhead. If you are dressed properly and you have the right gloves, this is the best time of year to see what birds there are that are still here. Please review the Outland 8x40s when you've had them for a while.

Originally Posted by Curtis Croulet

The Outland I looked through was a roof-prism.

[henry link]

Have you checked to see if the objectives in the Porro Outlands really have 4 elements? That might be a typo in the Celestron information.

[ksbird/foxranch]

I originally thought that Celestron's "4 element objective" was "something else" like maybe an aspherical plastic "coating" like the Tamron lens systems tout. I wasn't able to determine by just looking at the objectives whether there were indeed 4 glass elements (the literature never says "Glass" anywhere). So if these lenses are "cemented" together by using a new kind of plastic between 2 glass elements then it would only qualify as a triplet, at best. But maybe there are 2 of these plastic layers applied to the glass elements. Whatever it is that they do, it works extremely well. I am pretty certain that means that the words "Four element objectives" are not a typo.

What I think is being done is that in China Celestron is able to specify a much more complex objective lens system than was previously available because some lens manufacturer probably came to them and said, "I have this new product, would you like to buy it?" I've noticed that Celestron's ads for all the larger Outland porros say they use a 4 element objective, but the Outland roofers only offer the 4 element objectives in the Outland LX version, although the LX roofers are NOT phase coated (I'm sure this is to protect the Noble and Regal product lines). I believe that as soon as the Regal and Noble Celestron roofers and the Ultima porros are sold out, these new 4 element objectives will be introduced into those lines as well. This might be why the person who checked out a pair of the Outland roofers but not the Outland LX roofers might have found them lacking.

The color correction on the 10x50 Outlands I saw was so good it made you "think" the view was sharper because most things in life are colored and so various color fringes interfere with our perceptions of sharpness. But when I whipped out one of my black and white resolution posters to briefly test the sharpness of this binocular, they were good but not the absolute best optics I've seen or own. What was most obvious was the lack of yellow or purple fringes on the white areas of the chart. I think that however Celestron's Outland Porros and LX roofers have their 4 elements determined (plastic can be an optical material the same as glass), the color correction is almost as good as flourite and maybe equal to or better than ED glass. The lens grinding itself isn't up to Takahashi or TeleVue standards yet but it's very good. Since our perceptions determine our opinions on "sharpness", the superb color correction of the Outland porros put them in the top category for CA if not absolute sharpness.

The internally reflected flares, eye relief and other aspects of binocular making that are important are only in the "good" range. You have to wonder how well a low-priced waterproof binocular can be built, or how consistant the build quality really is, whether a possible 4th plastic lens/layer applied to the outside of the objectives might be soft and scratch-able or even how consistant the full multicoating will be. But everyone will be very surprised at how good the porro Outlands really are. With even backlighting this binocular is pretty shocking when the image first snaps into focus and not just in the center but across about 80-85% of the width of the FOV on the 10x50.

Originally Posted by henry link

Have you checked to see if the objectives in the Porro Outlands really have 4 elements? That might be a typo in the Celestron information.

[KG4QEV]

ksbird/foxranch,

Thanks for the review of the Outland 10x50 and all of the great details. I will definitely post my opinion of the 8x40's after I have had a chance to use them. I am new to the binocular world so I will have to do some more reading and research before I can post any type of beneficial review for all of the non-newbies, but I'll give it my best shot.

What part of Kansas are you from? I have relatives in Hutchinson. I had a chance to visit South Dakota and Kansas on a trip one year while visiting relatives and it is an astronomer's dream out there. The sky is so dark. More stars than you could ever count and they kept appearing as the night grew darker. I'd imagine you have some nice birding opportunities as well for the 10x50's with plenty of wide open spaces.

- Chad

[mayoayo]

Originally Posted by henry link

Have you checked to see if the objectives in the Porro Outlands really have 4 elements? That might be a typo in the Celestron information.

Hi..i recently took apart a Five elements eyepiece,and found three lenses and two metal rings or spacers adding to that count(3+2).Maybe is the same in this case,4 elements maybe counting spacers .Hey , fully-multi,nitrogen filled for $39,is a good price...Do they use BAK4 prisms?

[ksbird/foxranch]

Although I don't know the item you took apart, the description of many lens systems is expressed as a certain number of lenses in a certain number of groups. The number of groups describes the individual lenses and/or the glued together doublets or triplets etc. So an eyepiece described as having 5 lenses could easily have only 3 groups or three sets of lenses glued together into one single "thing". Spacers don't count as optical elements capable of bending light. But a pair of lenses glued together into a sigle unit might easily be separated by a spacer in an eyepiece from another element.

I'm not sure of whether the optical (light bending) elements in the Celestron LX Outland binoculars are glass, plastic or something else (fluorite qualifies as something else, as does borosilicate etc), but "elements" always describes something that bends the ight in an optical system and so spacers don't qualify.

Originally Posted by mayoayo

Hi..i recently took apart a Five elements eyepiece,and found three lenses and two metal rings or spacers adding to that count(3+2).Maybe is the same in this case,4 elements maybe counting spacers .Hey , fully-multi,nitrogen filled for $39,is a good price...Do they use BAK4 prisms?

[henry link]

Originally Posted by ksbird/foxranch

I originally thought that Celestron's "4 element objective" was "something else" like maybe an aspherical plastic "coating" like the Tamron lens systems tout. I wasn't able to determine by just looking at the objectives whether there were indeed 4 glass elements (the literature never says "Glass" anywhere). So if these lenses are "cemented" together by using a new kind of plastic between 2 glass elements then it would only qualify as a triplet, at best. But maybe there are 2 of these plastic layers applied to the glass elements. Whatever it is that they do, it works extremely well. I am pretty certain that means that the words "Four element objectives" are not a typo.

I'm going to need a bit more convincing about this. One thing that seems fishy to me is that the Celestron list of features for the roof and porro versions is identical, word for word. I can easily imagine the person typing this stuff didn't realize that the 4 element objective part should only apply to the roofs. 4 element objectives (a fixed triplet and a moving focusing singlet) are common in internal focus roofs. A 4 element objective (plastic or glass) would be unprecedented in a Porro using moving eyepieces for focus. An objective using hybrid elements would be unprecedented for any binocular. I think this is a case in which something that would be quite extraordinary if true (but could be a simple mistake) needs to be carefully checked out. I suppose it could be difficult to accurately count the objective reflections if there really are 4 elements, but it shouldn't be too hard to tell whether or not you're looking at a conventional cemented doublet.

Henry

[ksbird/foxranch]

Yes Henry if the Celestron LX Porros have a real 4 element objective it would be unprecedented. While typos do occur, Celestron has a large group of product managers and the idea that all the literature and advertising material going out is completely wrong seems unlikely since the products have been out for a while and they have managers who check other managers (remember the sales agents like OpticPlanet are also using this info and they have people who question these things too). I don't have a pair of any of the models of the OutlandLX porros, but we're considering them here for loaners (although Olympus direct factory bins are still less expensive and that's what loaners are all about).

I did look into the objectives on the 10x50 and with full multicoating on every air-to-glass/(plastic(?) surface seeing any glue refelctions was not possible. A friend of mine works for Tamron and he doesn't think 4 or even 5 or 6 element objective lenses in a US$80 binocular will be uncommon with Chinese manufacturing. Tamron makes some great camera lenses for themselves and Bronica. They can now make 17 element Chinese camera lenses with 3 "cemented" plastic aspherical elements that they can sell to distributors for US$100. He was surprised that no one was already making 9 element computer designed multi-color corrected lenses for binocular and telescope objectives (in China).

Zeiss Diadems are made in China now. In the watch business one of the most difficult items to make is the true tourbillon movement. For a long time the watches made in China were low quality. Then they began to make medium quality watches and they learned how to make watches with excellent cosmetics (there are many excellent fake high end watches made in China and their cosmetics are excellent). Real tourbillon movements are now being made in China (as well as some of the most ultra-high end tube sound equipment in the world). It is projected that within 5 years China will be making more real tourbillon watch movements than all the rest of the world put together.

As I said before, when Nikon or Zeiss train people in China in the techniques needed to make those branded items in Chinese factories, in very short order the Chinese factories will be producing those same quality items with their own brand names and for house-brand retailers. The step after that is for the Chinese factories to make products superior to the ones they were making for Zeiss and Nikon. This is already the case in ultra-high-end audio tube equipment. It will soon be happening in the watch business. Why not optics? With such a huge, dynamic, hard-working and well-trained work force, plus gigantic government support in terms of regulations and mega-financing, it would seem reasonable that a country as large and populated as the USA and Europe combined would start making interesting new products, breaking new frontiers and creating luxury products for its home market as well as for export.

Holger Merlitz is recognized as a highly skilled, young physicist in the modern world and his grasp of optics is excellent (holgermerlitz.de). He is the type of tech-genius the Chinese have hired to teach in China. The people he trains are likely as advanced as anyone in the world. And let us not forget that in the field of computers, the USA and Europe may be doing okay, but most of the computers in the world are made in China and enormous amounts of research is being done (and money spent) to make China the world leader in computers within 10 years. Space travel, computers, watches, audo electronics, and optics are all technology products. I don't doubt that China will be making better and more inovative optical products soon, compared to anything made anywhere in the world, and you can also bet that until China becomes a massively consumer oriented country the price of all those computers, optics, audio electronics, and watches will be lower than similar products made anywhere in the world.

When this thread starter's 8x40 Outland LX porros arrive maybe he can check them. It stands to reason that if Celestron contracted to buy 25000 of the new 4 element lenses they would use them in everything possible. What is more interesting is that the standard Outland roofer is described as having a standard objective and a low price. For more money you can buy the Outland LX roofer. This is price differentiation. In porros there is no way to divide the market into low-price and high-tech and porros are out of favor now. But using the 4 element objectives in the LX Outland porros would make sense if Celestron needed to use a very large number of them to retain exclusivity, and THAT is a very key marketing tool/need. But the Outland porros have already gone through one sales cycle (the 8x40s discussed in this thread are now selling on factory close-out). If there is a major mistake in the Celestron literature it would be corrected by now.

Originally Posted by henry link

I'm going to need a bit more convincing about this. One thing that seems fishy to me is that the Celestron list of features for the roof and porro versions is identical, word for word. I can easily imagine the person typing this stuff didn't realize that the 4 element objective part should only apply to the roofs. 4 element objectives (a fixed triplet and a moving focusing singlet) are common in internal focus roofs. A 4 element objective (plastic or glass) would be unprecedented in a Porro using moving eyepieces for focus. An objective using hybrid elements would be unprecedented for any binocular. I think this is a case in which something that would be quite extraordinary if true (but could be a simple mistake) needs to be carefully checked out. I suppose it could be difficult to accurately count the objective reflections if there really are 4 elements, but it shouldn't be too hard to tell whether or not you're looking at a conventional cemented doublet.

Henry

[Alexis Powell]

I wouldn't count on companies or major retailers to se to it that advertising or other product description errors are corrected. For example, the variable-ratio focus of the Brunton Epoch line is incorrectly described in every review that I've read except the one by Steve Ingraham in Better View Desired. Type Brunton Epoch review into Google and check out the following to see what I mean:

http://www.onmymountain.com/product_reviews/
http://www.optics4birding.com/RevBruntonEpoch.aspx
http://www.birdwatching.com/optics/brunton_epoch.html
http://www.birdingguide.com/binocular_review/

The same incorrect description also appears in the "Birding with Brunton" promo in the last few issues of Winging It (a newsletter of the American Birding Association). The wording of these descriptions is so similar, I suspect that the mistaken description derives from Brunton itself. In fact, at the American Ornithologists' Union meeting three years ago, Brunton had a sales booth and the salesperson there was describing the focus in the same incorrect way. After being variably amused and annoyed by seeing so many mistaken descriptions, and none of them corrected even after several years, I wrote a note to Brunton a few weeks ago to share my observation (I haven't gotten any response).
--AP
PS For those unfamiliar with the Epoch, and the point of having a variable-ratio focus, the focus of the Epoch changes from a fast, high-ratio focus at close distance to a finer, lower-ratio focus at farther distances (not the other way around, as described in the above reviews) thus allowing for efficient (speedy yet precise) focusing at all distances. The Pentax Papilio also has a variable (or at least dual) ratio focus, though Pentax makes no mention of it in product literature.

[ksbird/foxranch]

I agree that while the "way" Brunton's "progressive focus" works is not described well by either Brunton or some reviewers looking for an easy way to describe a conceptual difference, BUT Brunton is offering a new-tech kind of focusing. It is the way this new focusing methodology is described that is a problem.

"4 element objectives" is not the same at all. Either an objective lens has 4 distinct optical elements (we're not worried at this point what those elements are made of), or it doesn't. I think NOT phase coating the Outland roofers was purposeful or Celestron might not have been able to sell off their current inventory of Noble and Regal roofers. This would again indicate that the 4 element objective lenses are very high end quality. Anyone near to Celestron in California could always call celestron and talk to someone about this 4 element design. That would end all the wondering. Since the Outland 8x40 porros are only $40 we're going to get a pair as loaners here at the ranch. We need to see a pair for ourselves for as long as it takes to figure out what is going on.

Originally Posted by Alexis Powell

I wouldn't count on companies or major retailers to se to it that advertising or other product description errors are corrected. For example, the variable-ratio focus of the Brunton Epoch line is incorrectly described in every review that I've read except the one by Steve Ingraham in Better View Desired. Type Brunton Epoch review into Google and check out the following to see what I mean:

http://www.onmymountain.com/product_reviews/
http://www.optics4birding.com/RevBruntonEpoch.aspx
http://www.birdwatching.com/optics/brunton_epoch.html
http://www.birdingguide.com/binocular_review/

The same incorrect description also appears in the "Birding with Brunton" promo in the last few issues of Winging It (a newsletter of the American Birding Association). The wording of these descriptions is so similar, I suspect that the mistaken description derives from Brunton itself. In fact, at the American Ornithologists' Union meeting three years ago, Brunton had a sales booth and the salesperson there was describing the focus in the same incorrect way. After being variably amused and annoyed by seeing so many mistaken descriptions, and none of them corrected even after several years, I wrote a note to Brunton a few weeks ago to share my observation (I haven't gotten any response).
--AP

[Tero]

Celestron does not even list the Outland porros on their web site. Their porro offerings are pretty standard porros
http://www.celestron.com/c2/product....=24&ProdID=172

[henry link]

Tero,

The Outland LX Porros are here: http://www.celestron.com/c2/category.php?CatID=23

I agree with Alexis about the reliability of marketing information. I've seen too many mistakes and my experience with retailers and company reps has left the impression that their real area of expertise is selling. They often know very little about the widgets they sell. If you look at the information about the Outlands on the website you will see that Celestron were not particularly fastidious about accuracy. For instance, I think most of us here know that full multi-coating has nothing to do with sharpness. Whoever wrote and proofread the Celestron copy don't know that.

Of course, if there is a novel objective design with amazing performance in these cheap binoculars I want to see it. ksbird, where do I get a $40 pair?

Henry

[ceasar]

Has anybody checked out Celestron's Ultima DX 8 x 32 Porro? Waterproof, FMC, Twistup eyecups, 16mm ER, 430' FOV, CF 10', 30 0unces. $159.00 from Time & Optics in Millersburg, Ohio. The series also includes 3 other large Porros: 10 x 50, 8 x 56 and 9 x 63. They appear to be a step up in quality from the Outland's
Bob

[mayoayo]

Originally Posted by ceasar

Has anybody checked out Celestron's Ultima DX 8 x 32 Porro? Waterproof, FMC, Twistup eyecups, 16mm ER, 430' FOV, CF 10', 30 0unces. $159.00 from Time & Optics in Millersburg, Ohio. The series also includes 3 other large Porros: 10 x 50, 8 x 56 and 9 x 63. They appear to be a step up in quality from the Outland's
Bob

They use BAK4 prisms and celestron advertises that fact,probably the Outland's use BAK7....