• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Celestron Regal ED 8x42 Mini Review. (1 Viewer)

rdnzl

Not Sure.
United States
Celestron Regal ED 8x42 Flat Field binoculars.

These arrived this morning. I've been outside with them for about an hour. I didn't experience any of the blackouts or kidney beaning that I was concerned about that some people
had issues with because of the long eye relief these have. At full extension, the eye cups rest right where I like them, with a nice wide FOV and no issues.

They are what I would call chunky. They have some heft, but I like how they feel. I had no trouble holding them still for extended periods. When using hold method of resting them on my upturned palms and my forefingers on my forehead, my thumbs on my cheekbones, with the cups against my eye sockets, holding them still was effortless, and my middle fingers come to rest very naturally on the focus ring.

They are quite nice. the build quality seems good, and the views are really nice. The FOV actually IS flat. I saw no bending of light poles, flag poles, and no distorted lines when moving to the edge of the FOV. Some slight lack of sharpness when I got close to the edge, but actually in this regard I am also impressed. A nice, large sweet spot.

Close focus on these is fantastic. I was standing about 5 feet from my hummingbird feeder, and watched some Rubys feeding. Very sharp and great color. The focus ring moves very smoothly with just the right amount of resistance. From stop to stop IS pretty far, almost two full turns. Not optimal, must I can live with it, as it really does allow for fine focusing and I don't tend to "overshoot" focus. There is no slack, backlash or stiction of any kind. A Stellars Jay was sitting on a branch across the street, and he was very sharp, and the color was very nice even though he was in the shade.

There is some rolling ball effect, but I have never been bothered my that. And it's not very intense. It might bother some people, but it's not bad at all.

Looking into the objectives with a flashlight reveals a very clean environment with a darkened baffle that goes in quite a distance. The eyepiece caps fit well, and stay on until you take them off due to the soft pliable rubber they are made from. The objective caps are just fine, the dangler style.

I like the hard case they come with. There's also a harness in the box, but I won't be using it, I have better ones. Esthetically, they have a nice look, with the orange accents. The REGAL ED logo is a little cheesy though, IMO.

All in all, I am impressed with them. To use the overworked, phrase, they seem like a lot of bino for the money.

MZpztGc.jpg


1DjlPlB.jpg
 
They are! Loved them but returned because they were a little too heavy for me. Really hoping they come out with an 8x32!!
 
Celestron Regal ED 8x42 Flat Field binoculars.

These arrived this morning. I've been outside with them for about an hour. I didn't experience any of the blackouts or kidney beaning that I was concerned about that some people
had issues with because of the long eye relief these have. At full extension, the eye cups rest right where I like them, with a nice wide FOV and no issues.

They are what I would call chunky. They have some heft, but I like how they feel. I had no trouble holding them still for extended periods. When using hold method of resting them on my upturned palms and my forefingers on my forehead, my thumbs on my cheekbones, with the cups against my eye sockets, holding them still was effortless, and my middle fingers come to rest very naturally on the focus ring.

They are quite nice. the build quality seems good, and the views are really nice. The FOV actually IS flat. I saw no bending of light poles, flag poles, and no distorted lines when moving to the edge of the FOV. Some slight lack of sharpness when I got close to the edge, but actually in this regard I am also impressed. A nice, large sweet spot.

Close focus on these is fantastic. I was standing about 5 feet from my hummingbird feeder, and watched some Rubys feeding. Very sharp and great color. The focus ring moves very smoothly with just the right amount of resistance. From stop to stop IS pretty far, almost two full turns. Not optimal, must I can live with it, as it really does allow for fine focusing and I don't tend to "overshoot" focus. There is no slack, backlash or stiction of any kind. A Stellars Jay was sitting on a branch across the street, and he was very sharp, and the color was very nice even though he was in the shade.

There is some rolling ball effect, but I have never been bothered my that. And it's not very intense. It might bother some people, but it's not bad at all.

Looking into the objectives with a flashlight reveals a very clean environment with a darkened baffle that goes in quite a distance. The eyepiece caps fit well, and stay on until you take them off due to the soft pliable rubber they are made from. The objective caps are just fine, the dangler style.

I like the hard case they come with. There's also a harness in the box, but I won't be using it, I have better ones. Esthetically, they have a nice look, with the orange accents. The REGAL ED logo is a little cheesy though, IMO.

All in all, I am impressed with them. To use the overworked, phrase, they seem like a lot of bino for the money.

MZpztGc.jpg


1DjlPlB.jpg
Nice pictures
 
A few points mentioned here that I highlighted in my you-tube review.

I tend to say well built, not heavy.
As the OP said. no distortion of straight lines, and agreed with what I mentioned in my review
about the excellent close focus. Some binoculars lose a little quality at close up, but not as much with these.

Not as bright an image as the Hawke APO and Viking Osprey. But look at the price difference
 
They are! Loved them but returned because they were a little too heavy for me. Really hoping they come out with an 8x32!!
IMHO these are a standout bin, a Regal 8x32 would be welcomed too.

Just for reference, these are lighter weight and shorter length than a Zeiss SF 8x42.
 
The last generation of Regal's were also a standout bin in their class . The new gen gives you a wider fov . I believe the Regal's were and are Celestron's flagship bin . I still have the Regal LX 8x42 that I bought in 2005 , nice bin . My version with a 6.5 degree tfov and 20mm eye relief were made in Japan .
 

Attachments

  • Regal LX & Monarch HG 8x42's (Large).jpg
    Regal LX & Monarch HG 8x42's (Large).jpg
    161 KB · Views: 29
The last generation of Regal's were also a standout bin in their class . The new gen gives you a wider fov . I believe the Regal's were and are Celestron's flagship bin . I still have the Regal LX 8x42 that I bought in 2005 , nice bin . My version with a 6.5 degree tfov and 20mm eye relief were made in Japan .
Yes , I remember that version of the Regal. I never had a chance to handle one. I wonder if the reincarnated current version is as good as that one optically and whether it also is sourced from Japan.
 
I have had issues with the diopter adjustment from the beginning , apparantly the 10x42 didn't have that problem .. It is so stiff that the rubber armour became loose and spun freely . I sent it to Celestron and they sent it back reglued . It came loose the second time I used it and I decided not to bother sending it back again and having to paying shipping costs again . I think my version came with a lifetime warranty so was considering sending it in again , they might replace it with the current version .
 
Yes , I remember that version of the Regal. I never had a chance to handle one. I wonder if the reincarnated current version is as good as that one optically and whether it also is sourced from Japan.
Just checked, current version is "Made in China".

I don't subscribe to the " Made in xxxxx" belief that it makes a difference.

AFAIK The only other bins fitted with field flattener lenses near the same price point are Meade Masterclass, which could well be the same optics ( except dioptre adjustment mechanism).

These are not perfect, but if you like wide flat fields, then these are a place to start, unless one wishes to add £2000 to get a Zeiss SF instead.
 
The last generation of Regal's were also a standout bin in their class . The new gen gives you a wider fov . I believe the Regal's were and are Celestron's flagship bin . I still have the Regal LX 8x42 that I bought in 2005 , nice bin . My version with a 6.5 degree tfov and 20mm eye relief were made in Japan .
They were quite nice back in the day and competed with the Pentax SP's and Canon WP's. I believe the Regals had aspherical lenses as did some of the Canon WP models. I sold my Regal LX's but still have an 8x32 Pentax SP and a Canon 7x42A WP with aspherical lenses.

The new Regal ED's are better optically IMO, but are on the heavy side (27oz), and somewhat chunky due to the overly large bridge which limits your finger placements. Also the 22mm ER can be somewhat problematic for non-eyeglass wearers. I also have the 8x42 Trailseeker ED's and almost prefer them to the Regals due to easier eye placement for me, plus they give up next to nothing optically. But the Regals do have a better build quality than the Trailseeker ED's IMO. Here some pics comparing the 8x42 Trailseeker ED and Regal ED.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_0324.JPG
    IMG_0324.JPG
    1.5 MB · Views: 32
  • IMG_0326.JPG
    IMG_0326.JPG
    1.5 MB · Views: 32
It is funny 10 years to 15 years ago a binocular at 8X42 weighing about 750 grams was normal. What happened?
I guess magnesium chassis and lighter armoring. (y) It seems that in the $600 and under range that most modern 8x42's weigh 24 oz or less. The only two I have in that category that weigh 27 oz are the Regal ED's and the Svbony SV202. Heck, my Monarch MHG 8x42's weigh the same as the Trailseeker ED's (23.5 oz).
I haven't seen too many people expressing a desire for heavier bino's in any of the "wish list" threads.:)
 
For me, there is a size to weight ratio that I appreciate. It's all personal preference of course. With these, I only notice the weight when I first pick them up.
 
Would be very interesting to see the Celestron Regal ED ($355 USD) compared to the Svbony SV202 ED ($120~140 ED). From all that was described, it sounds like they'd be very comparable.
 
Would be very interesting to see the Celestron Regal ED ($355 USD) compared to the Svbony SV202 ED ($120~140 ED). From all that was described, it sounds like they'd be very comparable.
Watch Neil English's site .....

These are different beasts and it comes down to preferences to what one prefers ..... Regal is wider FoV with field flattener lenses added.
SV202 is 'traditional' a la Trailseekers (but better).
 
Watch Neil English's site .....

These are different beasts and it comes down to preferences to what one prefers ..... Regal is wider FoV with field flattener lenses added.
SV202 is 'traditional' a la Trailseekers (but better).
I have the 8x42 Regal ED's, Trailseeker Ed's, Nikon M5's, Monarch 7's, and the SV202's, in addition to Monarch Hg's and EDG II's. While the SV202's are a heck of a deal for the $113 I paid shipped, I find I prefer the Trailseeker ED's over them. That said, for $113 the SV 202's are an outstanding bargain.
 
I have the 8x42 Regal ED's, Trailseeker Ed's, Nikon M5's, Monarch 7's, and the SV202's, in addition to Monarch Hg's and EDG II's. While the SV202's are a heck of a deal for the $113 I paid shipped, I find I prefer the Trailseeker ED's over them. That said, for $113 the SV 202's are an outstanding bargain.
I only have the non-ED Trailseekers in 8x32 & 10x32 for light travelling. As CA is not an annoyance for me, I perceive, rightly or wrongly, that the non-ED Trailseekers are identical to the ED Trailseekers, except the ED has better CA control??? I thus prefer the SV202 8x32s over the non-ED 8x32 Trailseekers.

Assuming it is the Trailseeker ED 8x42 and SV202 8x42 (=better than the 10x42 & 10x50) you have, what do you perceive to be the difference and why would you rate the Trailseeker higher than the SV202s?

Where do you place the Regal EDs compared to your full list too? (& why?)
 
I have had issues with the diopter adjustment from the beginning , apparantly the 10x42 didn't have that problem .. It is so stiff that the rubber armour became loose and spun freely . I sent it to Celestron and they sent it back reglued . It came loose the second time I used it and I decided not to bother sending it back again and having to paying shipping costs again . I think my version came with a lifetime warranty so was considering sending it in again , they might replace it with the current version .
I talked to Celestron USA tech support yesterday about the extremely stiff diopter adjust on the Regal LX and how they failed to properly repair it back in 2008 ? I was told they should have replaced it with a new one back then . I was also told that they don't repair the bins but they do take care of collimation issues . I was under the impression that they don't do collimation (???) .
So long story shortened , I got an email today saying I am approved for a brand new present day Regal ED 8x42 to replace my faulty Regal LX 8x42 . I just have to ship my Regal that I bought in 2007 back to Celestron and I will get the new one within 4 weeks . It should be a nice back up binocular in case something goes wrong with my Nikon MHG 8x42 or if I need the extra bin for a friend . I'm curious about how well the new Regal ED will do compared to my Nikon MHG . The Regal LX , as nice as it is , is clearly inferior but is still nice to use .
 
Warning! This thread is more than 1 year ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top