7x50 advice (1 Viewer)

[Kevin Purcell]

This may be an dumb question, but why do none the porros I'm considering have CF?

Because most 7x50 bins are designed for boats or ship use and so are easier to seal with IF.

The targets sailors are looking for are all "at infinity" (given the usual depth of field that's 100m or so and father out). So they focus them and use them as needed without worrying about focus. Same for soldiers and hunters who are all looking for big(ish) targets at infinity (not small warblers moving quickly between 3m to 40m).

You can find quite a few CF 7x50 out there though.

But unless you are in a really dark environment (outside of urban or suburban areas ... rural or wilderness) you'll probably not get an eye entrance pupil wider than 5mm (though individual results vary). You might want to measure yours (ruler, digital camera with flash and a dark room ... it's easy to photograph your own eyes) to get a feel for how much exit pupil you can use. A similar measurement in the "target environment" can be very handy too to help select the right bin.

The 7x50 was chosen for fit young sailors with big entrance pupils in oceanic dark environments. You may not need that.

 

[ceasar]

Though seldom mentioned, keep in mind that Meopta also does make a 7x50 Meostar if the 7 mm exit pupil is that important. I have never tried it but if the edge performance is as impressive as the 8x56 then I would certainly recommend it.

Frank,
Is that the Meopta 8 x 56 you are talking about? When did you try it? I wonder how it would standup against the Zeiss Henry uses?
Bob

 

[mooreorless]

"Same for soldiers and hunters who are all looking for big(ish) targets at infinity (not small warblers moving quickly between 3m to 40m)."

I don't know of any hunter around these parts that use IF binoculars. This might be different out west.

 

[CLRobles]

"Same for soldiers and hunters who are all looking for big(ish) targets at infinity (not small warblers moving quickly between 3m to 40m)."

I don't know of any hunter around these parts that use IF binoculars. This might be different out west.

No, same out here. Hunters rarely use a IF bin..... But I have seen a few. One Fuji 7x50 this year on a elk hunt (my 10x42 SE changed his mind on his bins and now he is in the market for a pair of light high quality 10x42's) and a few very high power bins in the hands of Coues Hunters (Docter Aspectums and Kowa Prominars).

 

[CharleyBird]

Gotta love this forum, I've never before had so many explorer sites open for comparison of things.

Don't think those Canon 18x50 will do, 2.8mm exipt pupil and heavier than a bag of sugar.
Will measure my pupil as suggested - and my daughters'.
And thanks for the Finon/Monk link, I needed a good laugh.

Considering all the above, in my heart I still fancy...the Nikon or Zeiss 7x50. And the Nikon looks to be a "bargain".

But logic says get an 8x56 roof, and Henry's review of the Zeiss FL is compelling. But the price!
Leica's 8x56 are a non starter at 1600 quid. The Swaro SLC's are cheaper, and the Czech made Meopta Meostar are affordable.
Anyone been able to compare these optics?

 

[ceasar]

FYI Meopta's 8 x 56 Meostar costs around $1100.00 US funds and their 7 x 50's a bit less. Check them out in the link shown in thread #4 above. I have no connection to this company and have never tried a Meopta. Frank D. has a 7 x 42 and says it is excellent.
Bob

 

[FrankD]

Actually I have never had the 7x42 for any length of time. The 8x42 was my favorite overall but I find the little 8x32 has won my heart as my preferred 8x32 over any of the others I have tried. It provides, for me, the perfect balance of ergonomics and optical performance.

The 7x50 was on sale as an "open box" special at Eagle Optics for noticeably less than what it sells for new. I am not sure if it is still there.

Bob,

I had the opportunity to demo the 8x56 Meopta last spring and eventually purchased one from EO back at the end of August. In all but one area I would rate the optical performance of 8x56 Meostars to be well about average and certainly within a few small group of superb binoculars. Brightness, apparent sharpness, apparent contrast, edge performance, etc.... were all superb. Even the handling for such a huge binocular was much better than one would expect. The thumb indents, the texture of the rubber armor and the relatively light weight for a 56 mm roof prism binocular all combine to make it very manageable.

So, what was the one issue you might ask? Well at 333 feet the apparent field of view is pretty narrow for an 8x. Still, if you use it for awhile then it tends not to be that noticeable. The 7x50 with its 380 or so foot field of view would be comparable from an apparent field of view standpoint but the depth of field should be a bit better.

 

[wal.s]

Look at the William Optics 7x50ED for an option. i use them and live by it's sharp and crystal clear image. it's not as pricey as others of similar quality and consider them good value for money. Check out the review on cloudy nights by EdZ, someone who can offer expert advice on the subject of optics. I can only give you my personal impression.

http://www.williamoptics.com/binoculars/astro750_features.php

Good luck in your quest for a 7x50.

Wal.S

 

[CharleyBird]

Thanks again for the continuing suggestions. My search is becoming complicated, not least by specifications.

Question:

What is the minimum nearest binocular focus that is acceptable to you as a birder?
10 feet?
20 feet?
30 feet?

I've been considering that, while a shorter close focus is nice, how often do we ever view a bird under, for example, 30 feet?
In my case rarely, even among hedgerows and trees the birds are rarely within 30 feet. Similarly in hides. In the garden I may look at a relatively tame robin, dunnock, blue tit, blackbird etc at about 20 feet, but apart from that?
Would you say 20 feet is close for a bird and most flee?

Regards

Andy

 

[Kevin Conville]

Question:

What is the minimum nearest binocular focus that is acceptable to you as a birder?
10 feet?
20 feet?
30 feet?

10 feet. less is even better.

I've been considering that, while a shorter close focus is nice, how often do we ever view a bird under, for example, 30 feet?

For me, often.

I'm a little confused at this point though. Your original post had us thinking you were primarily looking for a large pupil astronomy bin for yourself that would do double duty as a bin your daughter(s) could use for general daytime use, and were fairly well set on an IF 7x50.

Now you seem to be thinking of a birding bin with center and close focus in mind. Tip: 7x50 porros aren't the best place to start for a general use birding bin and definitely not with individual focus. There are countless threads here on BF regarding what makes a good birding bin (that's what we do) and with a little searching you'll find that 7x50 IF porros are somewhat an eccentric choice. A 7x42 roof prism bin will also be friendly to use regarding exit pupil and forgiving eye position, but be much lighter and smaller, have close and center focus, and probably waterproof.

 

[CharleyBird]

I was quite set on a 7x50.
The danger and pleasure of asking for advice on such a knowledable site is that one realises how little one knows, and that what I was considering as suitable is not.
The 7x50's with IF have been described as cumbersome and clunky, CF as far easier to use, and 8x56 better than 7x50.

A combination of comments on this thread (Meostar's, ZeissFl's), searching this forum and then following links to two other forums, looking again on the internet, and considering what's available versus what my Steiners already offer has made me turn towards roof 8x56's.
I ought to have said so directly, my apologies.

Looking at some 8x56's, the Swarovski nearest focus is surprisingly far at 30 feet. Considering my use of binoculars, I searched but didn't get enough of an answer... hence my question. Can I live with 30 feet as a minimum focus?

Regards

Andy

 

[BobinKy]

Unless you are going to observe birds in low light, such as heavy shade or twilight, I suggest you consider a 8x44 or 8x32 center focus. Do not get me wrong--I love 7x50 binoculars. I have two of the best pairs currently in production. However, the 7x50 is big, bulky, and their close focus is not that close.

As to how close should you attempt to get while bird watching--as close as you can get. If you view through a blind or window in front of a bird feeder, you can get extremely close (5-10 feet).

 

[falcondude]

Unless you are going to observe birds in low light, such as heavy shade or twilight, I suggest you consider a 8x44 or 8x32 center focus. Do not get me wrong--I love 7x50 binoculars. I have two of the best pairs currently in production. However, the 7x50 is big, bulky, and their close focus is not that close.

As to how close should you attempt to get while bird watching--as close as you can get. If you view through a blind or window in front of a bird feeder, you can get extremely close (5-10 feet).

well said. You don't gain much from 50mm for bird watching since it is often used under daylight condition

 

[spacepilot]

well said. You don't gain much from 50mm for bird watching since it is often used under daylight condition

Also agree with Bob on the close focus thing. Even in the field without any cover, you'd be surprised at how close birds and mammals get if you stand still for a minute or two.

Ning

 

[xmeecosmic]

I am learning first-hand that the need for "close" close focus depends on the habitat you bird in and the luck and/or skill that you have in getting close to certain birds. For example, today on a local trail I would have had an excellent opportunity to view different types of hummingbirds at 11 or 12 feet but the best my existing binoculars (Nikon Actions 7x35) can do is around sixteen feet. The 8x43 and the 10x42 roofs that I will have in a few weeks both have close focus of 6 feet so I would have had real good looks at the hummingbirds if I had been using one or the other. My opinion, is that you never know what you may be fortunate enough to get close to so the closer the focus the better.
In my area, close focus is also real good for lizards, butterflies, and hordes of insects.

 

[John Russell]

If you or anyone you know reads German, click on the pdf text below the lower illustration of the 8x56 FL for a comparative test of night hunting bins:-
http://www.zeiss.com/c12567a80033d63e/Contents-Frame/98e9ece8b7b0634ac12570fc0047e209

John

 

[FrankD]

Unless you are going to observe birds in low light, such as heavy shade or twilight, I suggest you consider a 8x44 or 8x32 center focus. Do not get me wrong--I love 7x50 binoculars. I have two of the best pairs currently in production. However, the 7x50 is big, bulky, and their close focus is not that close.

Just for the sake of argument one could also go the other direction and possibly consider a 7x42 as well.

If that is the case then many of the "usual suspects" mentioned for an 8x56 would also apply here... Swaro SLC, Zeiss FL, Meopta Meostar....plus others such as the Leica Ultravid/Trinovid, Nikon EDG could also be considered.

After some personal comparisons with the Meopta in 8x42, 8x32, 10x50 and 8x56 along with the Zeiss 7x42 FL I remain unconvinced that one "needs" a 10x50 or 8x56 for the utmost in lowlight performance.

 

[ronh]

Andy,
10x44 is darned near unassailable, provided the 10x shakes don't bother you. It will show, day and night, earth and sky, as much within a hair, or more, although in a slightly different way, as any spec that has been named here.

I don't quite understand what the problem is. If you want to see the stars better, move up to a mounted, or at least armchair-braced, 16x70. If your daughter would like a birding bino, how about an 8x32, I mean most girls aren't big strong optiphiles (although there is a 10x70-wielding female over on Cloudy Nights) and wouldn't really enjoy 56mm as much as ease of use. And if you just have the irrational binocular fever, or want to upgrade, well, happy confusion is almost a good thing, and anything you buy, many of us will think you could have done better!

Finally a close focus anecdote. Close focus is about the last thing I thought I cared about. But this summer, I wandered up on a Rufous hummingbird out on a trail, going after some flowers 6 feet away from me, the limit of my Zeiss FL. Woah, it looked like a dinosaur, the view was absolutely staggering! So you just never know.
Ron

 

[John Dracon]

Andy - When binocular powers start soaring, particularly for dusk or near night conditions, the Zeiss 15x60 B is an exceptional binocular. For its power and weight, it is relatively compact. A big honker, but what a view! I believe it is now discontinued by Zeiss, and used ones probably come at a premium cost. When you can get to a solid rest, IMO, the Zeiss 15x60 has no peer. John

 

[CharleyBird]

10x44 is darned near unassailable

This is part of the problem, the Steiners are good; measured their close focus last night as 78" so watching birds on the garden feeder isn't an issue...

the irrational binocular fever

LOL. Yup, certainly have become absorbed, though I've been reading up for a few months now, and tried a few bins out, including smaller lighter ones.
I want the ease of use of 7mm exit pupil and optics for low light, and after the advice given it's got to be an 8x56.

Babel fish translation of the article linked by John Russel (thanks) seems to rate both Zeiss models marginally ahead of the Swaro for light transmission, though I'm guessing it would be hard to tell the difference of a few % in practice.

Got to stew over it a bit more.