Nikon vs Celestron (1 Viewer)

[rb1520]

I'm looking for my first pair of binoculars and want to keep it under $200. I can't go anywhere to try these in person, but have narrowed it down to the following 8x42's:
Nikon Prostaff 7S
Celestron Nature DX ED

I'm leaning 8x42 but in the same price range have also considered these 8x32 models:
Celestron Trailseeker
Carson VP

Occasionally wear glasses, would use mostly in good light but can see them getting some dusk/evening use as well, would also use them for general landscape views while hiking. Given the various uses I can see pros and cons of both sizes but am very interested to hear more about the quality and usability of the above choices. I've been researching too long but have generally have read that Nikons are great quality but with poor eye and lens caps and a FOV on the narrow side. Being my first pair I don't know how big these issues are, and whether the ED glass puts the Celestron Nature ahead.

 

[mwhogue]

rb,

Pending input from people with experience of these particular models, for your use/first bin I would lean to Celestron. I have a couple of Celestron Granites and have looked through several Nikon budget models in stores. All good for the money. The accessory packages can vary depending on where you buy them but I have the same accessories as depicted for the 8x32 Trailseeker on Ama*on and they are great for the price, especially the included harness for hiking. ED glass generally better but not always a big difference in your price range. Like many here you may use a 32 more often, especially for hiking. For general landscape viewing, I like a wider FOV. To be sure you can use with glasses, go with 15mm ER or more. Let us know how it goes.

Mike

 

[rb1520]

rb,

Pending input from people with experience of these particular models, for your use/first bin I would lean to Celestron. I have a couple of Celestron Granites and have looked through several Nikon budget models in stores. All good for the money. The accessory packages can vary depending on where you buy them but I have the same accessories as depicted for the 8x32 Trailseeker on Ama*on and they are great for the price, especially the included harness for hiking. ED glass generally better but not always a big difference in your price range. Like many here you may use a 32 more often, especially for hiking. For general landscape viewing, I like a wider FOV. To be sure you can use with glasses, go with 15mm ER or more. Let us know how it goes.

Mike

Thank you, Mike. This is helpful. Looking forward to hearing from others with experience with these models as well.

 

[[email protected]]

I'm looking for my first pair of binoculars and want to keep it under $200. I can't go anywhere to try these in person, but have narrowed it down to the following 8x42's:
Nikon Prostaff 7S
Celestron Nature DX ED

I'm leaning 8x42 but in the same price range have also considered these 8x32 models:
Celestron Trailseeker
Carson VP

Occasionally wear glasses, would use mostly in good light but can see them getting some dusk/evening use as well, would also use them for general landscape views while hiking. Given the various uses I can see pros and cons of both sizes but am very interested to hear more about the quality and usability of the above choices. I've been researching too long but have generally have read that Nikons are great quality but with poor eye and lens caps and a FOV on the narrow side. Being my first pair I don't know how big these issues are, and whether the ED glass puts the Celestron Nature ahead.

I would probably choose the Celestron Nature DX ED 8x42 over the Nikon Prostaff 7S 8x42 because of the bigger FOV, although they are both excellent values for the money. Try them both if you can.

Category: Good Value

The top-scoring binoculars in the $150–$300 range.

www.audubon.org

 

[Upland]

Pro staffs are horrible with glare. Can’t comment on the Natures but all the Celestrons I’ve owned were worth more than their price point.

 

[rb1520]

UPDATE: I was hesitant to do this but I ended up ordering the 8x42 Nikon Prostaff 7S and the 8x42 Celestron Nature DX ED, as well as the Celestron Trailseeker 8x32, so I could compare in person and keep my favorite. The wide FOV and size of the 8x32 was nice, but ultimately I decided I liked the 8x42 better - the images just looked brighter and more detailed.

As for the two 8x42's, I ended up keeping the Nikons. The Celestrons did have two advantages: 1) shorter close focus which I was already of, and 2) the colors were richer and more vibrant. I preferred the colors through the Celestrons. While the FOV is slightly better than the Nikons I didn't find it to be a noticeable difference.

The Nikons are noticeably brighter leading to slightly more washed out colors, although this made them a little better than the Celestrons in low light. The real selling point for the Nikons and what ultimately made me choose them...it was a LOT easier to lock in focus and the build quality just seemed higher. The focus wheel of the Celestrons just felt too "loose" for lack of a better word, making it difficult to find the sweet spot when trying to lock in focus.

 

[cytherian]

If you ever get the chance, try out the Monarch M5 or M7. Sometimes you can pick them up gently used for very good prices and you might be pleasantly surprised at the improvement over the Prostaff.