Websites with Binocular Tests and Reviews (1 Viewer)

I am trying to put together a short list of non-commercial websites where you can find reliable tests and reviews of binoculars, and I am addressing both forum members on BF and CN.

Beside the many excellent reviews and tests published by members in forums like the Birdforum, CloudyNights and others, and beside trade journals for hunters, hobby astronomers, birders and the like, which regularly publish instrument reviews (of varying quality!!), there are a few knowledgeable institutions and individuals who run their own websites and regularly report on instrument tests performed by them.

The caveat in all this: such websites are only really useful if their tests are of a non-commercial nature.

In my search, I came across websites such as the “Best Binoculars & Binocular Reviews Website”:

https://www.bestbinocularsreviews.com/

and was at first positively impressed. However, reading further in some of their reviews, I got the impression that many seems overly positive in their results, and when I then discovered at the very, very bottom of the website, far down where you usually don’t scroll to, the innocent-looking little phrase

“Exclusive Member of Mediavine Home”

this made me suspicious – rightfully so, because if you google the term “Madiavine”, this is what you get:

“Mediavine offers full service ad management including …. sponsored influencer marketing”

“Sponsored influencer marketing” – not exactly what I am after when looking for reliable, non-commercial tests of binoculars.

The following is a brief commented list of websites which I have come across and where I found reliable info on binos. I am not saying that I would always agree with the findings on such websites, but I would trust the information as being “honestly” put together substantially without “sponsored influencer marketing” - I hope!

Binomania (http://www.binomania.it/category/1-recensioni/ )
Regularly brings information about new instruments becoming available, and publishes reviews and tests of binoculars and spotting scopes. I find it generally worth reading!! In Italian, but a convenient “translate” button is provided at the top of the website

allbinos (https://www.allbinos.com/binoculars_reviews.html )
A Polish organization providing a large database with specifications of almost 2000 binoculars, and relatively detailed tests of over 200. Well worth reading. I am not convinced that the points they add to come to an overall total rating give always a sensible result, and I also take some of the results, including seemingly scientific data – e.g transmission test results, with a “grain of salt”. But I find this nevertheless a very useful site.

House of Outdoor and Optics
( http://www.houseofoutdoor.com/verrekijkers/verrekijkers-testen-en-vergelijken/ )
Here, you not only find some of the most detailed and sophisticated tests and comparisons of binoculars, but also lots of useful information on technology, optics, history (Swarovski) etc. Some of the tests and other information are in Dutch (so you may need to “google translate”), but many are in English.

Binocular Sky (http://www.binocularsky.com/ )
Dedicated to binocular astronomy. Stephen Tonkin, who runs this website, is also the author of the book “Binocular Astronomy” (which I can only recommend). Lots of useful tips, instrument reviews, links and other information for hobby astronomers

Holger Merlitz (http://www.holgermerlitz.de/ )
Prof. Dr. Holger Merlitz of the Leibniz-Institute of Polymer Research in Dresden, Germany, is well-known here as one of the foremost experts on optical instruments in general and binoculars in particular. He wrote the leading book on binoculars in German. On his website, you can find a plethora of interesting articles on the optics of binoculars, e.g. on distortion, as well as many detailed and highly rated instrument tests and reviews.

Scope Views (http://www.scopeviews.co.uk/ )
Roger Vine, the owner of this site, mostly writes about the good and very good segment of the binocular world, but also brings detailed reviews about scopes, astronomical telescopes, binoculars, and how to choose an instrument. Very nice website. Probably known by many here.

Greatest binoculars (http://www.greatestbinoculars.com/ )
Tobias Mennle, a biologist with the trained eye of the avid photographer, presents some of the most critical reviews and articles on optics and binoculars that you can find. You may or may not always share his views, but Tobias’ devotion to the subject, his competence and independent judgment are beyond doubt. His website features superb images.

Dear BF / CN forum members, kindly add to this list further websites that you find useful in this context – many thanks in advance.

Canip

Very nice post, Canip!

Lee

Sky and Telescope binocular tests.
These are independent and are conducted by skilled testers.
However, they are from an astronomy perspective.
Also astronomers do not need some of the features that bird watchers value, such as being waterproof or having very good colour fidelity.
Astronomy binoculars are often lower price than bird watchers binoculars.

There are probably independent binocular tests in major magazines in Germany, France and elsewhere.

Again, some magazines only test lower priced binoculars, which are not much used by bird watchers, and good marks are given, whereas bird watchers would mark them low.

The top magazines also test scopes, again for astronomers, either for visual use or for imaging.
Some scopes are really high quality but not waterproof.

Stephen Ingraham’s ‘Better View Desired’ (the original site is now hosted by Cloudy Nights): https://www.cloudynights.com/BVD/reviews.php
This is ’a blast from the past’. Stephen was a premier reviewer in the 1990’s through to the early 2000’s, and BVD is his work from then
It includes individual reviews, comparative reviews and a whole lot more from a birding viewpoint. Spotting scopes are also included
Great stuff for those wanting a then contemporary perspective

John

Twentse Vogelwerkgroep
Tests by Jan Meijerink
http://www.tvwg.nl/ovz-kijkers.shtml

Thank you, John, and thank you, Binastro.

I have regularly been reading reviews in:

- Astronomy journals
Sky and Telescope (http://www.skyandtelescope.com/ )
Sky at Night (http://www.skyatnightmagazine.com/ )
Astronomy (http://www.astronomy.com/ )
Astronomy Now (https://astronomynow.com/ )
Sterne und Weltraum (http://www.spektrum.de/magazin/sterne-und-weltraum/ ), in German

- Birding Journals
Vögel (http://www.voegel-magazin.de/ ), in German
Birdwatching Magazine (https://www.birdwatching.co.uk/ )
The Audubon Society Guide to Binoculars (http://www.audubon.org/gear/binocular-guide )

The crux with the reviews in journals in my view: their quality tends to vary quite a bit and depends a lot on who writes them.

Canip

Kimmo's reviews are available though they have not been updated recently

https://www.suomenlintuvaruste.com/p1832-optic-reviews-fi.html

Older reviews in English are still available on the wayback machine searching for alula.


This topic comes up now and again and there is older thread somewhere listing sites.

John A Roberts said:

Stephen Ingraham’s ‘Better View Desired’ (the original site is now hosted by Cloudy Nights): https://www.cloudynights.com/BVD/reviews.php
This is ’a blast from the past’. Stephen was a premier reviewer in the 1990’s through to the early 2000’s, and BVD is his work from then
It includes individual reviews, comparative reviews and a whole lot more from a birding viewpoint. Spotting scopes are also included
Great stuff for those wanting a then contemporary perspective

John

Click to expand...

They were responsible for a couple of my purchasing decisions.

I wish they were still around.

Thank you, dipped (post #7).
Kimmo’s reviews are certainly worth reading.

Canip,

Thanks for the link info, much appreciated.
Additionally, thanks to Goudvink, John and dipped (who provided some great info regarding the original Nikon HG models from the early 2000s) for the additional sources.

Andy W.

The problem with magazine reviews is that some are clearly influenced by suppliers and advertisers.
Also the reviewers sometimes don't have much knowledge of optics, although this does not mean their reviews are not accurate reflections as to how the binocular performs its task.

In addition, if a supplier supplies a binocular, it will probably be cherry picked, whereas one bought anonymously may or may not represent an average example.
The situation is never ideal.
So it is better to have several independent reviews.

As to the difference between astronomy binoculars and bird watchers binoculars.
Astronomy binoculars are used at 'infinity', so the focus mechanism is of little concern, so long as the binocular will actually focus on the stars.
Colour fidelity is also not high up the list.
Planetary astronomers use filters to reveal detail. The Wratten numbers are given on the drawing.
Double stars with different colours are enhanced by each other. Separately they may look quite different.
Red Mars and Betelgeuse aren't red.
Compare them with a red aircraft navigation light. They are red.
Incidentally the red LED traffic lights are orange to my digital cameras. I don't know what colour they really are, if any.
Astronomy binoculars don't have to be waterproof.

When I observed with groups I never saw one high end binocular in use by an astronomer.
They were usually around 10x50 and £100, less or slightly more.
Now that bird watchers binoculars are often high end this may have changed.

Canon IS binoculars are used by astronomers so these are more expensive than the standard binoculars.

@canip - I don't see BBRs use of Mediavine to place ads on its site as any different to Binomania's use of banner ads paid for by distributors/vendors or Allbinos use of paid for banner ads also paid for by distributors/vendors (nor indeed Birdforum's use of paid for sponsor banners and Google syndication to place ads).

You are absolutely right, Pete.
Ideally, we should exclude all websites which have ads and all those linked with an organisation that also sells binoculars.
Then we would also have to exclude places like House of Outdoor and others, although that would be a pity since their reviews are clearly very, very useful.
Which means that we will still have to use our judgment and try to separate the wheat from the chaff, which is not easy, and we may get it wrong sometimes.
But have you ever read an allbinos review, or one from Gjis, and gotten the impression that they are trying to sell you something? I haven‘t, in contrast to BBR, where I get a completey different feeling.
Am I right? I hope, but I don‘t know for sure.
Canip

Canip, post 13,
Our reviews on the WEB-site of House of Outdoor are fully independent of any producer or binocular shop, we are not paid by anybody also not by House of Outdoor, it is only a platform for publishing our reviews. That is to ensure that we can work completely independent from any brand or commercial party. Works fine for everybody in our opinion.
Gijs van Ginkel

Thank you, Gijs.
I couldn‘t agree more.
Canip

But I guess Jan doesn't host and run his website nor his business on hot air and hope...

pete_gamby, post 16,
Every time I enter Jan's shop, it strikes me how nice and warm it is in there, so customers must like the temperature. Sometimes it becomes even hottter when a company is furieus because of our test data and Jan generally tells them: it is not my business if you do not like it it is your problem and you have to sort it out with the tester and that is how it has to be.
I have written in the past for a number of different journals : photography, historical optical, hunting and that could also be taken as advertising for these journals since they do not live on hot air alone.
If I would run a WEB-site by myself every click of a customer could yield me money as just as BF, since every click on BF results in a small amount of money for the WEB-site organiser. Life is complicated.....
Anyhow, I do not earn a penny with my tests the only thing that keeps me going is the fun of it.
Gijs van Ginkel

Gijs van Ginkel said:

Canip, post 13,
Our reviews on the WEB-site of House of Outdoor are fully independent of any producer or binocular shop, we are not paid by anybody also not by House of Outdoor, it is only a platform for publishing our reviews. That is to ensure that we can work completely independent from any brand or commercial party. Works fine for everybody in our opinion.
Gijs van Ginkel

Click to expand...

Gijs:

I have found your reviews to be very well done and independent. Your history
of Swarovski is a very good resource.

Keep up the good work, the only issue I have is getting an English translation,
but there are some members on here who help with that, and it is appreciated.

Jerry

Jerry, post 18,
Thank you for the appreciation of my work, it is fun to do. With regard to translation in English: there are only 24 hours in a day, I have tried in vain to make it more, but did not succeed, one of my many failures.Moreover there are also some other activities which keep me quite busy.
Gijs van Ginkel

Kimmo Absetz - earlier reviews to 2006

In post #7, Dipped gives a link to currently available reviews by Kimmo

Earlier reviews can be found here: http://web.archive.org/web/20081214224910/http://www.alula.fi/GB/index.htm
A) click on the button ‘Published reviews of optics’ (located at the bottom of the year column on the left side of the page)
this will take you to the main listing - see the attached copy

B) to go to an additional review of compact binoculars, click on the button below A)

n.b. all these reviews are in English


John