Was my primary woods glass for about 4yrs and was very good all-around. Except for the above-mentioned shortcomings, as fine an image as you're likely to find, even today. They pop up on ebay occasionally, and if you can get it for no more than $250US, you won't be disappointed.
-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Reviews by spyglass
- spyglass
- 4.00 star(s)
- Recommended
- Yes
- Price
- 0$
Pros
- brightness, resolution, nice feel, size
Cons
- narrow fov, folding eyecups, lack of armor
For PF 65EDA in Compact Spotting Scopes
- spyglass
- 5.00 star(s)
- Recommended
- Yes
- Price
- 0$
Pros
- size, weight, optics,versatility
Cons
- none
I have the straight version (don't like angled scopes....too hard to find & track moving objects), used in conjunction with 3 XL ep's, for 18.5, 28 & 37x....couldn't ask for more. Got the scope for $450 from Adorama....unbeatable. Except for use in really lo-light circumstances, is every bit as capable and pleasurable to use as the PF80 (which is saying something). I sold my 80 after 6yrs of great use & rplcd with the 65 due to the physical size....can now fit scope, 3 ep's, 2 binos, bird guide and misc items (cleaning cloth, lens brush, pens, compass) into one hard case, tho' I still hafta carry the tripod on a shoulder sling.
- spyglass
- 5.00 star(s)
- Recommended
- Yes
- Price
- 0$
Pros
- everything (except eyecups)
Cons
- see above
In stead of repeating all the superlatives already put forth, I'll just say that this SE line, and the 8x in particular, have probably generated more ink on the bino blogs than any other since the Zeiss Classics. Steve Ingraham started the raves (his reviews in BVD likely have had more to do with the optics mfrs striving to improve their lines than any other individual) and everyone else picked up on it. That says volumes about the popularity and competence of this series. Nuff sed.
- spyglass
- 5.00 star(s)
- Recommended
- Yes
- Price
- 0$
Pros
- Everything (save the diopter adj)
Cons
- see above
I have both the 7x42 and 10x56....both give as good a view thru glass (or flouite crystal, if ya wanna get techy) as is available. I've cut my inventory of handhelds to these, 2 SE's, and the new Custom Elite for a compact. I can't improve on any magnification, so I'm finally done purchasing binos.
For 10x42 SE CF in Large Binoculars
- spyglass
- 5.00 star(s)
- Recommended
- Yes
- Price
- 0$
Pros
- everything (except eyecups)
Cons
- eyecups
Nothing more can be added.....as good a 10x view as anything out there, cost no object.
- spyglass
- 4.00 star(s)
- Recommended
- Yes
- Price
- 0$
Pros
- Resolution, brightness, fov, handling
Cons
- eye relief, popups (as opposed to twistups)
As far as the view thru this glass, it is on a par with anything out there. I also have 2 Zeiss FL's, all 3 Nikon SE's, a big Canon IS and a couple of Bushnell Customs, and the 820 (mine isn't even the ED version) gives every bit as satisfying an image as any of the megabuck binos. There is some grousing about size & wt, but that actually makes the bino easier to hold (and hold still). It's physically no bigger than the 10x42SE (weighs about 5oz more, but no biggie).
Swift advertised er at 17mm....it's a theoretical figure, based on measurements of the various focal lengths of the optics complements, not a true usable measurement. 12-13 mm is more like it.....not quite enuf for eyeglass use to see the full 8.2* possible (you can get maybe 7-7.5 if you have close-fitting specs). And the popup (actually very stiff pullup) eyecups.....no good. Now mine is almost 8yrs old, they may have made running changes and improved them. Mine has very snug diopter setting....no problem, and I did notice the anodizing on the hinges start to peel off at about 4 yrs. On my example, they are made of aluminum, not plastic. I just peeled off the rest of it and applied some AluminumBlack with a Q-tip and it looks fine.
In short, I've owned over 75 binos since I got my first good one for my 13th birthday.....some really good, others complete toads. I've kept the best, the Audubon included....it's in very exclusive company.
q
Swift advertised er at 17mm....it's a theoretical figure, based on measurements of the various focal lengths of the optics complements, not a true usable measurement. 12-13 mm is more like it.....not quite enuf for eyeglass use to see the full 8.2* possible (you can get maybe 7-7.5 if you have close-fitting specs). And the popup (actually very stiff pullup) eyecups.....no good. Now mine is almost 8yrs old, they may have made running changes and improved them. Mine has very snug diopter setting....no problem, and I did notice the anodizing on the hinges start to peel off at about 4 yrs. On my example, they are made of aluminum, not plastic. I just peeled off the rest of it and applied some AluminumBlack with a Q-tip and it looks fine.
In short, I've owned over 75 binos since I got my first good one for my 13th birthday.....some really good, others complete toads. I've kept the best, the Audubon included....it's in very exclusive company.
q