Show us your "vintage" and classic binos (1 Viewer)

[Paultricounty]

Tasco 110 7x35 12.5° High index BaK4, JB160. One of my widest FOV binoculars, it’s like looking through a glass window. One could barely see the field stop, unlike anything on the market today. Very neutral color rendition and very bright for vintage binoculars.
Paul

 

[tenex]

I have made a mistake. When cleaning i put the wrong ring (with the red dot) on the wrong tube. Just found out today ☺️

So the red dot should be on the right tube. Then it’s allright haha

Yes, of course that's why it bothered me. Glad you got it sorted.

 

[Thotmosis]

Tasco 110 7x35 12.5° High index BaK4, JB160. One of my widest FOV binoculars, it’s like looking through a glass window. One could barely see the field stop, unlike anything on the market today. Very neutral color rendition and very bright for vintage binoculars.
Paul

Very, very nice!

 

[Thotmosis]

Jeez. No idea what they are like to look through, but they certainly are wonderful to look at. Elegant even in (or should that be especially in)_this day and age. Amazing how that styling has stood the test of time so well.

The look through them is wonderful. Very sharp en wide view! In direct comparison with later models you notice a slight yellowish cast, like in my Zeiss 15x60 BGAT. Focus is like my Habicht, even stiffer and slower but very precise. It’s a nifty good looking little Leitz/Leica..

Now that i think about it, it’s the perfect combo: the small Trinovid 7x with the Big Bertha 15x60. You have all grounds covered.

 

[Frank van Drogen]

Just from an amateur, a pair of ~80s Bresser compared to a pair bought last week for my 14 year old.

 

[Wasabrot]

Tasco 110 7x35 12.5° High index BaK4, JB160. One of my widest FOV binoculars, it’s like looking through a glass window. One could barely see the field stop, unlike anything on the market today. Very neutral color rendition and very bright for vintage binoculars.
Paul

I would like to show through such a wide field of view. I know what it means to have 150m/1000m. Nearly no boarder but at the edges it become blurry. At 200m i guess you will see no boarders but how is the edge sharpness? Disturbing or something you ignor instantly?

 

[Paultricounty]

I would like to show through such a wide field of view. I know what it means to have 150m/1000m. Nearly no boarder but at the edges it become blurry. At 200m i guess you will see no boarders but how is the edge sharpness? Disturbing or something you ignor instantly?

On the Bushnell FPO and Kowa Rangemasters 10° 525 @ 1000 are very good at the edges , fall off is extremely gradual and is sharp to about 80% of the field. Id say almost as good as any newish so called wide field (non field flattener) binos. I’d also say it has the biggest sweet spot of anything I’ve tried. No funny panning traits, very low distortion, amazing considering they were designed 60-70 years ago. Think of a Nikon E2 with 10° and even less noticeable fall off at the edges and sharper.

The Bushnell Rangmaster Tamron version 11° Is where there is noticeable panning distortion , things can get a little funny , wavy when panning left to right. Even though it’s 11° the sweet spot is slightly smaller than 10° versions. But still not bad at all, and such a beautiful image circle. Again the fall off at the edges is gradual, so nothing funky , blurry or mushy. There is nothing that really pops out that is disturbing in either one of them.

There are a few other high end vintage 7x35’s 11° that the distortion is not as good as the Tamron Rangemaster , like the Swift Holiday and Panoramics to name a few. Although I believe they are the same binoculars labeled differently for different markets.

Once we get to 12° and up thats when things get more noticeable. The Sans and Streiffe , Tasco 110’s and a few others, the distortion it’s quite noticeable and panning behavior not the best. Its a kind of give and take, a trade off if you will at this large FOV. The image circle is so large and immersive that the edges are not the thing that really pops out. A beginner and intermediate are blown away by the images and don’t notice any negative behavior, an advance observer looking for every optical trait will spot the softness in anything over 11°.

Paul

 

[Patudo]

I would like to show through such a wide field of view. I know what it means to have 150m/1000m. Nearly no boarder but at the edges it become blurry. At 200m i guess you will see no boarders but how is the edge sharpness? Disturbing or something you ignor instantly?

As one of this sub-forum's most distinctive (ahem) voices is fond of reminding us, every optical design involves compromises. There's a fair amount of commentary in Cloudynights etc. noting that the very widest FOV binoculars of that vintage have extremely limited eye relief, and that the relatively simple eyepieces of the era did not perform well optically when stretched to such wide fields of view (poor edge sharpness etc). I haven't tried every extra-wide angle binocular our there, but it's not surprising that those with more experience tend to say that the narrower the field of view (from 12.5/12 to 11 to 10 degrees) the better corrected the image is. Nikon's 9.3 degree extra wide 7x35 is supposed to be particularly good in this regard.

But edge performance (or at least the perception of it by the user, as opposed to truly objectively tested edge performance) is interesting because I think to some extent it can depend on your own visual accommodation. I have found that with my Swift 766 (11 degree field of view) at closer distances the sweet spot seems larger than when the target is further away. It could be that my eyes have more ability to accommodate when the binocular is focused at shorter distances, or maybe the optical design is optimised for shorter distance viewing. In any event this is one of the things you do need to see for yourself and figure whether you like it or not. I have found, for myself, that after using a flat field binocular a lot (Nikon 10x42 SE) I do tend to notice how non flat field binoculars are unsharp at the edge. But with practice and familiarity - learning how to look through the binocular, as it were - one can adapt to it. The other binocular I use the most nowadays doesn't have a flat field, but works just fine for me.

 

[42za]

Here is another old 7 x 35 Japanese one that I have (made by JB87) with a narrow field of view , but it still gives a nice view.

 

[Paultricounty]

As one of this sub-forum's most distinctive (ahem) voices is fond of reminding us, every optical design involves compromises. There's a fair amount of commentary in Cloudynights etc. noting that the very widest FOV binoculars of that vintage have extremely limited eye relief, and that the relatively simple eyepieces of the era did not perform well optically when stretched to such wide fields of view (poor edge sharpness etc). I haven't tried every extra-wide angle binocular our there, but it's not surprising that those with more experience tend to say that the narrower the field of view (from 12.5/12 to 11 to 10 degrees) the better corrected the image is. Nikon's 9.3 degree extra wide 7x35 is supposed to be particularly good in this regard.

This is absolutely true, the eye relief on anything over 11° is not good, if you wear eyeglasses this is not for you. The Tasco #110 12.5° I believe it’s 10 mm, your eyeballs are almost touching the glass 🤣. The Nikon action 9.3° is not in the same league as these vintage high-grade wide fields. It really does depend on the specific binoculars being discussed. The Bushnell Tamron Rangemaster at 11° has a substantially (noticeable) better edge than the Swift (early) 766, as well as better panning behavior, but with less eye relief, so as you said, all attributes are a trade off in one way or another. I feel that the Bushnell FPO rangemaster might have been the pinnacle of all things coming together for the best combination, 10° with very little softness at the edges, low distortion, well defined huge sweet spot and 14 mm of eye relief, I can use sunglasses with this one. I’ll post a few pictures later or tomorrow.

But edge performance (or at least the perception of it by the user, as opposed to truly objectively tested edge performance) is interesting because I think to some extent it can depend on your own visual accommodation. I have found that with my Swift 766 (11 degree field of view) at closer distances the sweet spot seems larger than when the target is further away. It could be that my eyes have more ability to accommodate when the binocular is focused at shorter distances, or maybe the optical design is optimised for shorter distance viewing. In any event this is one of the things you do need to see for yourself and figure whether you like it or not. I have found, for myself, that after using a flat field binocular a lot (Nikon 10x42 SE) I do tend to notice how non flat field binoculars are unsharp at the edge. But with practice and familiarity - learning how to look through the binocular, as it were - one can adapt to it. The other binocular I use the most nowadays doesn't have a flat field, but works just fine for me.

I’m with you on this, it does depend on the individual (eye relief aside) as to how much or well the the individual perceives the edges. Very similar to how some (small percentage) of people have issues with many field flattener binos because of globe effect. I’ve found some people can see it on their own, some when you point it out to them and a few others who throw up 😵‍💫. It seems that maybe we’re doing around the circle again with with wide field binoculars, NL and SF, although nowhere near like the feeling of the vintage wide field bins of yesterday, but its going in that direction. And with less eye relief and a less comfortable I box. I haven’t really noticed the difference in edge softness or quality from close focus to distant, but now that you mention that I’m going to look for it next time out.

I also enjoy the image in the flat field binoculars like the SE’s, EDG’s, EL’s etc. etc. It all depends on what we’re going through for the flavor of the month, or for some (like me) the flavor of the year.

Good points Patudo 🙏🏼.

Paul

 

[Patudo]

I probably should not have mentioned a binocular I have no personal experience with (the Nikon 7x35 9.3) - I was going by Henry Link's and others' comments, which seemed to chime in with the general trend of narrower FOVs having a superior image. The Tamron batwing Rangemaster I have tried (courtesy of a fellow BF poster who had a fully serviced example) and if I get the chance to try it again I'll make sure to examine it in more detail. I definitely recall it being not as bright as my example of the Swift mk II Holiday; center sharpness was similar, the Swift if anything might have been slightly ahead; sweet spot of the Rangemaster may have been larger (but I need to check this if I get the chance). The impression I came away with that I didn't feel any urge to get one, nor embark upon the difficult and expensive quest, even then, to find the FPO version which most commentators seemed to consider somewhat superior, but not mind-blowingly so. I'd read the various observations by Steve C et al on their Rangemasters and was expecting to be blown away - regretfully I was not, on that occasion anyway.

Admittedly this was just the one try - I'd be more than happy to have a good look through any Rangemaster or indeed Holiday/Panoramic that anyone cares to lend me (Grimnir from this parish has a good collection I hear ) and note my observations. The London Wetland Centre would be a great place for this - hobbies pursuing sand martins is just the situation where a very wide field shines! More than happy to bring a couple from my own collection if you're interested.

 

[Paultricounty]

I probably should not have mentioned a binocular I have no personal experience with (the Nikon 7x35 9.3) - I was going by Henry Link's and others' comments, which seemed to chime in with the general trend of narrower FOVs having a superior image. The Tamron batwing Rangemaster I have tried (courtesy of a fellow BF poster who had a fully serviced example) and if I get the chance to try it again I'll make sure to examine it in more detail. I definitely recall it being not as bright as my example of the Swift mk II Holiday; center sharpness was similar, the Swift if anything might have been slightly ahead; sweet spot of the Rangemaster may have been larger (but I need to check this if I get the chance). The impression I came away with that I didn't feel any urge to get one, nor embark upon the difficult and expensive quest, even then, to find the FPO version which most commentators seemed to consider somewhat superior, but not mind-blowingly so. I'd read the various observations by Steve C et al on their Rangemasters and was expecting to be blown away - regretfully I was not, on that occasion anyway.

Admittedly this was just the one try - I'd be more than happy to have a good look through any Rangemaster or indeed Holiday/Panoramic that anyone cares to lend me (Grimnir from this parish has a good collection I hear ) and note my observations. The London Wetland Centre would be a great place for this - hobbies pursuing sand martins is just the situation where a very wide field shines! More than happy to bring a couple from my own collection if you're interested.

I had a similar experience with the first Audubons I tried, they were terrible with a very yellow dull image, thankfully something was wrong with them so I was able to return them. At the same time I had those there was another fellow selling the identical version but described them as perfect, so I took another chance, the rest is history, I now have the whole collection from the 804R (type 4c I believe) to the last run of the Audubons, the rubberized water proof 820 ED version.

Some of the things I’ve read on CN from Smark and a bunch of others prompted me to try the 11° Tamron rangemasters, which seemed to be readily available due to the their ugly duck bat wing description, and at reasonable prices. I got lucky and the one I bought was from a fellow on the bay who buys , collects and services them and sells many on his store. The one I got was excellent, all the glass and prisms perfectly cleaned, no haze or cloudiness, no degradation on any of the coatings, which seems to be the case with many of these old vintage bins. I was amazed at how sharp and wide the image was, so much so I wanted to research and find all those cherry high end wide field options to try , out and keep the ones that I thought were the best. To me there are no true superwide binoculars on the market, the NL’s and the SF’s are the closest things , but are no way in the vintage wide field category. As I had said before imo , the best combination of traits for the vintage superwides are Bushnell FPO and FPO Silverline, see post.

Maybe worth another try if you can find a nice one.

Paul.

 

[Paultricounty]

Bushnell FPO Silverline Rangemaster 10° , with Bushnell 2.5x booster for 17.5x spotter monocular.

 

[Paultricounty]

Does anybody have any SARDS they’d like to post some info and pictures?

 

[Paultricounty]

Here is a Nikon 8x30 A. These are the precursor of the Nikon E line. These probably fall more into the classic category than vintage. Solid non rubber eye cups, very dense, solid feeling more so than the E version after it. A very classic design.

 

[William Lewis]

Very nice! Should have them serviced, and get the prisms cleaned. I’ve found that most all of these vintage binos , even when in excellent condition have a little film on the prisms. After cleaning and tweaking the collimation they’re like new binoculars.

Here are the Jenoptems.

Incidentally as it may be of some interest Optrep on the south coast of England is where I send my old bins for work, here's some examples of the types of things they've worked on over the years and is one of the reasons I feel confident in there ability to deal with the rather more everyday classics I tend to send there way for attention! Binocular, Telescopes, Ophthalmic Equipment Repairs & Servicing Examples - Optical Repairs

 

[Acorndrive]

I picked up a pair of Zeiss 8x30 GA Dialyt binoculars recently. At 60 CHF the price seemed more than reasonable. I have owned many Zeiss Binoculars but this is the first time I've seen IF., as against central focusing. Perhaps I am missing a trick but I am struggling. The view, once focused is surprisingly good, and compares well with more recent models. The build quality is rugged and to be expected considering these were marketed to Police and the armed forces.

Can anyone have any focusing tips? . The original instruction manual suggests setting both barrels to zero for distance viewing, and adjusting accordingly for closer to viewing. This just seems imprecise to me. Perhaps some forum members have tips on using.

 

[Pinewood]

Hello Acorn,

You practically stole this binocular at 60CHF! It is worth many times that price, even if it needs servicing.
This is the Zeiss Safari model. Although it predates phase coating, giving it a poorer view than modern models, its chief virtues is ruggedness.
Do you wear glasses? If so, turn the eyecups down for a full view. Next adjust the inter pupillary distance, so that you see a complete round view.
To start pick a target about 8m away. Cover the right barrel with your hand or an opaque object; then focus the left barrel. Now cover the left barrel and focus the right barrel. It is a little awkward for bird watching but excels at hiking, hunting, stargazing and other uses. I have many IF binoculars, so they are quite useful.
There is a possibility that the binocular is out of collimation, which would result in eye strain. That would mean it needs servicing.

Use it well!
Arthur Pinewood

 

[Acorndrive]

Thank you for your reply and advice. Following your instructions the view is excellent and I remain pleasantly surprised at the clarity and sharpness from what must be a 40 year old Zeiss. We've had a terrible spring here in Switzerland, with rain every day for over a month, and even in low light these compare well to my Terra Eds, but obviously not up there with the Victory or Conquest models. Nevertheless, great to pop in a rucksack when out on a hike, and to repeat very rugged. Thank you again for your advice.

 

[Thotmosis]

Thank you for your reply and advice. Following your instructions the view is excellent and I remain pleasantly surprised at the clarity and sharpness from what must be a 40 year old Zeiss. We've had a terrible spring here in Switzerland, with rain every day for over a month, and even in low light these compare well to my Terra Eds, but obviously not up there with the Victory or Conquest models. Nevertheless, great to pop in a rucksack when out on a hike, and to repeat very rugged. Thank you again for your advice.

These are still great binoculars, build to last forever and perfect for heavy hiking. I have the same, see post 18.
Enjoy them in good health!