An example of terribly ignorant advicer (1 Viewer)

[Swedpat]

Without have been trying the most of the binoculars in the list, I know several of them are bad for eyeglasses. Not only that all of 10x42, possibly except from the Swarovski, are not good at all. Nikon Monarch 7 8x42 may work but is far from one of the better for eyeglasses, I tried it so I know.
But look at the compacts: 8x21 and 12x25! Only by looking at the eye lenses size and how they are recessed I can know it's not good. A 12x binocular in general is never good for eyeglasses, not even Swaro EL 12x50. And here it's a cheap 12x25! The article is insanely bad and misleading. He just does not understand this at all.

10 Best Binoculars for Glasses Wearers in 2024

I know it was never easy to find out the best binoculars for glasses wearers. But the hustle can be minimized by checking this article.

binocularman.com

 

[Reesyd]

Glasses wearers may want to try GPO binoculars. I recently tried and purchased them in 8x42 and they are superb with my varifocals.

 

[John A Roberts]

Whoever is writing the content for the site 'Binocularman' (sic) is not what they're posing as being
i.e. a couple of knowledgable Americans writing about binoculars.

As can be seen, the person who wrote the 'About Us' entry is neither a native, nor fluent, English speaker:




Looking at the only article under the Blog heading reinforces this: What Binoculars Does the Military Use? - Binocularman.com

As does one about that perennial optical head scratcher: What is the Strongest Magnification for Binoculars?
. . . where the author sagely concludes: 'After reading the full post, you’ve come to know that there is no set strongest magnification limit for binoculars.'


- - - -
This seems to be a similar effort to the Dean Optics site, where some optically naive writers, were using online searches
to produce unintentionally amusing content.
See: https://www.birdforum.net/threads/‘how-to-repair-binoculars-at-home-step-by-step-guide’.389663/


John

 

[Dominique B.]

This article is not about technical education based on optics and competence,
It's all about advertising and seduction to buy.
wasted time

 

[Swedpat]

By the way: I can give 10 examples of very good binoculars for eyeglasses. Of course there are more models being as good so raiting 10 best is hard.

1: Swarovski CL Curio 7x21
2: Swarovski CL 8x25
3: Leupold Katmai 6x32(discontinued)
4: Vortex Viper HD 6x32(discontinued)
5: Nikon Sporter 8x36(the first version)
6: Swarovski SLC 7x42(discontinued)
7: Zeiss Conquest HD 8x42
8: Swarovski NL Pure 8x42(at least excellent ER for such a big AFOV)
9: Pentax ZD 8x43/10x50)
10: Swarovski SLC 8x56

Apart from these there are Pentax AD 8x25 WP, different branded clones of 8x28(roofs) and 6x30s(porros) a number of 7x42 and 7x50s and so on, who are excellent with eyeglasses.

 

[wllmspd]

An affiliate link harvester. The “best 10 XXX of 2023(or other year)” pages are overly common pollute my searches often…. Grrrr.

Peter

 

[PatR]

Luckily I am blessed with a built in BS indicator which automatically closes my wallet and temporarily erases my Visa card when I see the '5/10 Best XXX' type sites pop up, which they do, with amazing regularity.

They provide the square root of Sweet F All.

This one in particular though is a classic and is clearly populated by Advertising Nerds.

 

[Maljunulo]

Most of those seem to “review” anything but the best.

Traps for the ignorant and gullible.

You can’t protect fools from themselves …… they will win every time.

 

[GrampaTom]

Ahhh.... duh.... not another list of binoculars that do this or that written by the unqualified, for the unsuspecting.

 

[Foss]

"BinocularMan is supported by its audience. We may earn an affiliate commission when you buy through the links on our site."

'Nuf said.

 

[Maljunulo]

Ahhh.... duh.... not another list of binoculars that do this or that written by the unqualified, for the unsuspecting.

An unusually nice turn of phrase, is that. (the unqualified for the unsuspecting)

You’ve outdone yourself.

 

[Ted Y.]

10 examples of very good binoculars for eyeglasses.

Why are these binoculars very good for eyeglasses? You tested every model with your eyeglasses? Different eyeglasses?
Do you have criteria for "very good"?

 

[Ted Y.]

written by the unqualified, for the unsuspecting

A wordsmith I would say

 

[Swedpat]

Why are these binoculars very good for eyeglasses? You tested every model with your eyeglasses? Different eyeglasses?
Do you have criteria for "very good"?

I have tested the most of them. Of course what is sufficient eye relief vary between different persons due to different eye placement and eyeglasses. In many cases I can directly understand just based on eye lens size, how recessed the lens is from eyecup edge, and apparant field of view if a binocular likely is good for eyeglasses or if they surely don't work at all for anyone. *
I know I am pretty demanding about this, so I know a binocular which fully satisfies me will satisfy most other too.
"Very good" is what I consider ~16mm useful eye relief. This means in many cases 19-20mm measured eye relief. In other cases even 20mm is not good because the lens is recessed unnecessary much. An example is Fujinon FMTR 10X50. ER is 20mm but only 13mm is useful, so at least 5mm is wasted. Bad design.
Swarovski Curio 7x21 has stated 16mm but works good because the lens is recessed just as little as required to avoid physical contact between eyeglasses and ocular lens.
And in the article there are such a blatant examples of really bad binoculars for eyeglasses, so therefore I reacted about it.

*I have wroted about how dissapointed I am that advertisement pictures of binoculars often show the binocular from all sides except from a picture of the eyepiece lens with the eyecup in bottom position so you see the eyepiece design. This is the most important picture, in my opinion. A picture of the objective lens is totally uninteresting.

 

[iseegeorgesstar]

Whoever is writing the content for the site 'Binocularman' (sic) is not what they're posing as being
i.e. a couple of knowledgable Americans writing about binoculars.

As can be seen, the person who wrote the 'About Us' entry is neither a native, nor fluent, English speaker:

View attachment 1541308


Looking at the only article under the Blog heading reinforces this: What Binoculars Does the Military Use? - Binocularman.com

As does one about that perennial optical head scratcher: What is the Strongest Magnification for Binoculars?
. . . where the author sagely concludes: 'After reading the full post, you’ve come to know that there is no set strongest magnification limit for binoculars.'


- - - -
This seems to be a similar effort to the Dean Optics site, where some optically naive writers, were using online searches
to produce unintentionally amusing content.
See: https://www.birdforum.net/threads/‘how-to-repair-binoculars-at-home-step-by-step-guide’.389663/


John

At this point in our internet age, you need to seriously ask/inquire whether the articles you're reading aren't "A.I." generated...

 

[elkcub]

If a stupid article is written by an AI agent, can we still say it's "intelligent?"

Ed

 

[tenex]

If a stupid article is written by an AI agent, can we still say it's "intelligent?"

"Intelligence" is a complete misnomer for software that doesn't actually know anything, and only sounds intelligent until it doesn't.

At this point in our internet age, you need to seriously ask/inquire whether the articles you're reading aren't "A.I." generated...

Many obviously are now. Even the clunky English could be produced by an AI that's read too much clunky English. Now the question is whether Google's AI can recognize and deprecate text generated by AI...

 

[richard866945]

There are four Opticron 10x42 models with good eye relief.
Countryman 17mm
DBA VHD+ 17mm
Natura BGA 20mm
Imagic BGA VHD 21mm
I wear glasses and find I can get the full field of view with 17mm eye relief.