imac said:Thanyou very much for the info
Oops, I didn't know it was full. Please give it another try.imac said:Unfortunately I have a message saying your PM box is full , enjoy your holiday. I own a pair of multicoated at the moment
elkcub said:There are two non-ED versions of the HR/5 Audubon. Type 4b(1) appears to have the same coatings as the earlier 804R (Type 4a) and is marked Multi-Coated Optics. Type 4b(2) has the newer green coatings and is marked Fully Multi-Coated.
Ed
zurtfox said:Hi Ed,
I have recently acquired a very fine pair of HR/5 (don't ask what I paid!), which are 91.... with MC optics. However, I am a bit perplexed by your description above because these have a distinct green coating to the outer faces of both the eyepiece and objectives, which is more like the FMC version (I think). I have attached an image of the objective and would appreciate your opinion.
Chris
elkcub said:I'm calling it the Type 4b(1)E — 'E' for Europe. See the historical thread starting with post #109. As with most/all European Swift's, they are also distinguished by not having "model 804" stenciled on the cover plate[UNQUOTE]
Mine have "Model No 804" stencilled on the bottom line of the cover plate. It also has "US Patent No..." on the right cover plate (is that of any significance, or do they all have that?). I'm beginning to wonder if mine (cost $200 at today's £/$ exchange rate) originated in the US and found their way to the UK at some point.
I recently trialled a new 820ED and they appeared to have similar coatings to this pair of HR/5s. I have to admit that optically I was disappointed with the 820ED - with spectacles (super-thin) I could still never get more than 138m/1000m in the fov, even when peering into the corners! However, the colour rendition in the 820 was more neutral than my HR/5, which have a slightly green/yellow cast (very similar to Swarovskis of that time), and ergonomically they are a definite improvement.
As for resolution, well, in a lines/mm @ 10m test, these HR/5s outperformed my Zeiss 8x32 FLs (even after allowing for the extra 0.5x magnification). I am simply amazed a bino which is 15 years old and 1/8th of the cost of the top optics of today performs so brilliantly (and meets its spec @ 144m/1000m = a lovely picture-window 70°).
By the way, I also had a pair of Blue Band and Gold Band 8.5s (76.... & 77.... respectively). I deconstructed the Blue ones (they were in poor physical condition) down to the last screw/lens element/prism, polished the mould off the prism surfaces, rebuilt them, recollimated them and put them in p/x them for the HR/5s. The only discernable difference between them was that the Gold were 50g lighter (although I couldn't find where they had shaved that off - unless I left something out when I rebuilt them ;-)).
One final comment: in your superb 3-part history you have the strap lugs as 'plastic' on the HR/5s - mine are definitely alloy.
All the best,
Chris
PS I use a pair of Nikon LX rainguards instead of the caps - just the right size to keep the entire eyepieces dry.
zurtfox said:Hi Ed,
Thanks for the reply. However, more anomalies are appearing...
elkcub said:I'm calling it the Type 4b(1)E — 'E' for Europe. See the historical thread starting with post #109. As with most/all European Swift's, they are also distinguished by not having "model 804" stenciled on the cover plate[UNQUOTE]
Mine have "Model No 804" stencilled on the bottom line of the cover plate. It also has "US Patent No..." on the right cover plate (is that of any significance, or do they all have that?). I'm beginning to wonder if mine (cost $200 at today's £/$ exchange rate) originated in the US and found their way to the UK at some point.
I recently trialled a new 820ED and they appeared to have similar coatings to this pair of HR/5s. I have to admit that optically I was disappointed with the 820ED - with spectacles (super-thin) I could still never get more than 138m/1000m in the fov, even when peering into the corners! However, the colour rendition in the 820 was more neutral than my HR/5, which have a slightly green/yellow cast (very similar to Swarovskis of that time), and ergonomically they are a definite improvement.
As for resolution, well, in a lines/mm @ 10m test, these HR/5s outperformed my Zeiss 8x32 FLs (even after allowing for the extra 0.5x magnification). I am simply amazed a bino which is 15 years old and 1/8th of the cost of the top optics of today performs so brilliantly (and meets its spec @ 144m/1000m = a lovely picture-window 70°).
By the way, I also had a pair of Blue Band and Gold Band 8.5s (76.... & 77.... respectively). I deconstructed the Blue ones (they were in poor physical condition) down to the last screw/lens element/prism, polished the mould off the prism surfaces, rebuilt them, recollimated them and put them in p/x them for the HR/5s. The only discernable difference between them was that the Gold were 50g lighter (although I couldn't find where they had shaved that off - unless I left something out when I rebuilt them ;-)).
One final comment: in your superb 3-part history you have the strap lugs as 'plastic' on the HR/5s - mine are definitely alloy.
All the best,
Chris
PS I use a pair of Nikon LX rainguards instead of the caps - just the right size to keep the entire eyepieces dry.
Chris,
Said like a true 804 Audubon aficionado.
I don't know if the post-1989 European issue HR/5s can be distinguished from those sold in the US with Gold Dots. I wouldn't be surprised, but I'm not sure how much I care either — . It's too confusing to track these minor things. Your 1991 model, however, sounds just like my recent 1995 acquisition, and the US patent reference probably indicates they were made for the US market.
Wow, you're a handy guy. I'd say your earlier blue and gold ribbon models were Type 3, sold in Europe. If you still have them could you pass on the dates? Some of those go back almost to the Type 1s made by Tamron, and preceeded the entire line of Type 2 Audubons sold in the US.
The new owners of Swift Sport Optics have been made aware that the 820ED does not have air spaced objectives as stated in their recent (and earlier) brochures. So, it's inevitable that the aberration characteristics would be different from the 804ED. Most people I've talked with can't see much difference from the standard 820, except (maybe) for color saturation. My own sense of overall color cast is lacking, or I adapt to it very quickly, so I don't really have any preferences one way or the other.
My 804EDs are superior to any binocular I own for center clarity, and I'd rather use them for long-distance shore birding than 10x42 SLCs or even 10x50 Kestrel Audubons. Remarkable! Buy it if you find one in serviceable condition. Nicolas Crista in the US can do wonders with resoration at a most reasonable price.
I'm sure you're right about the strap lugs being metal on the HR/5s. That will be corrected. Thanks.
Best regards,
Ed
elkcub said:Chris,
If you still have them could you pass on the dates?[UNQUOTE]
Blue Band - 1976
Gold Band - 1977
The best illustration I can give of my HR/5s is to be found on eBay (USA), where currently there is a pair for sale (item number 280057409087). The are identical to my pair in every way (except the year: mine 1991).
All the best,
Chris
zurtfox said:Hi Ed,
elkcub said:Chris,
If you still have them could you pass on the dates?[UNQUOTE]
Blue Band - 1976
Gold Band - 1977
The best illustration I can give of my HR/5s is to be found on eBay (USA), where currently there is a pair for sale (item number 280057409087). The are identical to my pair in every way (except the year: mine 1991).
All the best,
Chris
Many thanks for the dates, which gibe with the Type 3a and 3b we mention in the article.
The auction HR/5 binoculars are also the same as my recent $200 acquisition.
Use them in good health,
Ed
I can tell you that the FMC's give a deeper saturation in the colours and slightly improved contrast. The coatings are different colours which may go some way in determining the improvement.