Are older designs from top names still considered great binoculars? Models like the Zeiss ClassiCs, Swarovski SLC 8x30 and Porros, etc. can be found at great discounts compared to those companies top new products, but have mid priced models (Pentax, Minox, Kahles) eclipsed them?
-
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.
Old designs, worth it? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter RobConnel
- Start date
Otto McDiesel
Well-known member
RobConnel said:
Are older designs from top names still considered great binoculars?
Yes.
but have mid priced models (Pentax, Minox, Kahles) eclipsed them?
No.
James Eaton
Trent Valley Crew
Hi Rob,
Completely agree with Otto, the Zeiss porros are a classic pair of bins, that are still good. My friend had to use a pair for 2 months this year in Taiwan and Cambodia, no problems, not as good as his damaged new pair of Leica's, but good enough.
The Swarovski 8x30 are a great buy for the money too.
All the best
James
Completely agree with Otto, the Zeiss porros are a classic pair of bins, that are still good. My friend had to use a pair for 2 months this year in Taiwan and Cambodia, no problems, not as good as his damaged new pair of Leica's, but good enough.
The Swarovski 8x30 are a great buy for the money too.
All the best
James
solentbirder
Well-known member
As others have stated, older designs can still be great. I recently picked up a pair of 20 year old Pentax 8x40 wide field binos (9.5 degree field !) on eBay and was amazed to find they're one of the sharpest binos I've ever used. They almost equal the Nikon 8x32SE and visibily out-perform the Nikon 8x32 HG in terms of sharpness and detail. Of course they are heavy, not waterproof and don't have modern multi-coatings...etc.
( I recently picked up a pair of 20 year old Pentax 8x40 wide field binos (9.5 degree field !) on eBay and was amazed to find they're one of the sharpest binos I've ever used. They almost equal the Nikon 8x32SE and visibily out-perform the Nikon 8x32 HG in terms of sharpness and detail. Of course they are heavy, not waterproof and don't have modern multi-coatings...etc.)
Hi
I too looked at these recently on ebay as they posessed a v wide fov i think they are the Asahi model ?
How do they perform toward the view edges ?
From what you have found it sounds very like these are yet another example of excellent aged optics still standing the test of time
Regards
Rich T
Hi
I too looked at these recently on ebay as they posessed a v wide fov i think they are the Asahi model ?
How do they perform toward the view edges ?
From what you have found it sounds very like these are yet another example of excellent aged optics still standing the test of time
Regards
Rich T
solentbirder
Well-known member
richt said:
Hi Rich
Yes it's the Asahi Pentax 8x40 Wide Field Model 536. The field of view is truly spectacular (looking through my Nikon 8x32HG feels very constricted after I've used the Pentax) and image quality holds up very well toward the edges (vastly better than a Swift Aududon porro). One potential down side is the 'anti-glare' ruby coating on the eyepiece lens which gives a greenish colour cast (but actually really does cut down glare very well - I observe a lot over water and mud-flats). I've heard that some people remove this coating by carefully polishing the glass with the appropriate stuff (whatever that is). I'm going to leave mine alone as I find the glare reduction is useful. The eye relief is very short so you won't be able to use them with glasses on. The prisms are huge for a 40mm bino (although they are BAK 7 rather than BAK 4). If only they'd produce a modern version !
Cheers
SolentBirder
(Yes it's the Asahi Pentax 8x40 Wide Field Model 536. The field of view is truly spectacular (looking through my Nikon 8x32HG feels very constricted after I've used the Pentax) and image quality holds up very well toward the edges (vastly better than a Swift Aududon porro)
The prisms are huge for a 40mm bino (although they are BAK 7 rather than BAK 4). If only they'd produce a modern version !)
Cheers
SolentBirder
Hi SolentBirder
Many thanks for the info on the Pentax bins i must confess a couple of your comments have intrigued me
I am a fan of the Swift Audubon porro's in their various models (hope to buy one in Sept whilst in Florida on hols if dollar rate is good) and have always thought the edges on the ones i've viewed were ok but not fantastic due to the wide angle
Your newly aquired Pentax just goes to show that some older designs other than Swift and Zeiss etc must have had the right formulas
I rate the Audubon's and Zeiss Jenoptem's very highly alongside some other earlier "classics" that seem to have been real innovations that basically got "most things right for their time" I believe personally that some of the "old heavies" still have a lot going for them depending on your type and frequency of viewing
I know eye relief,weight ,ergonomics and weather proofing etc are important too and some early great bins had shortcomings in these areas so its not always "they dont make em like that anymore" being the case
It does however offer "food for thought " that perhaps optical excellence has been around for many years and really the margin of difference is not huge even by todays standards
I was also astonished that the Pentax Asahi have Bk 7 prisms !! perhaps its my relative inexperience with binocular specs but i always assumed it was Bk 4 or bust !!
Enjoy the Pentax its always nice imho to use a wide field binocular especially in landscape type viewing
Anyone else with any "golden oldie" anecdotes etc more than welcome to comment/debate
Rich T
The prisms are huge for a 40mm bino (although they are BAK 7 rather than BAK 4). If only they'd produce a modern version !)
Cheers
SolentBirder
Hi SolentBirder
Many thanks for the info on the Pentax bins i must confess a couple of your comments have intrigued me
I am a fan of the Swift Audubon porro's in their various models (hope to buy one in Sept whilst in Florida on hols if dollar rate is good) and have always thought the edges on the ones i've viewed were ok but not fantastic due to the wide angle
Your newly aquired Pentax just goes to show that some older designs other than Swift and Zeiss etc must have had the right formulas
I rate the Audubon's and Zeiss Jenoptem's very highly alongside some other earlier "classics" that seem to have been real innovations that basically got "most things right for their time" I believe personally that some of the "old heavies" still have a lot going for them depending on your type and frequency of viewing
I know eye relief,weight ,ergonomics and weather proofing etc are important too and some early great bins had shortcomings in these areas so its not always "they dont make em like that anymore" being the case
It does however offer "food for thought " that perhaps optical excellence has been around for many years and really the margin of difference is not huge even by todays standards
I was also astonished that the Pentax Asahi have Bk 7 prisms !! perhaps its my relative inexperience with binocular specs but i always assumed it was Bk 4 or bust !!
Enjoy the Pentax its always nice imho to use a wide field binocular especially in landscape type viewing
Anyone else with any "golden oldie" anecdotes etc more than welcome to comment/debate
Rich T
solentbirder
Well-known member
The majority of binoculars more than 20 years old will have BAK 7 prisms. BAK 4 has only become cheap enough and plentiful enough in the last decade or so to filter down to the non-premium brand models. I have an old Swift 7x50 that's got BAK 7 prisms and it's one of my favourite binoculars, even though I have some modern and expensive models too.
WJC
Well-known member
solentbirder said:
Butting in, again, and eager to be corrected, I see "BAK7" being used a lot on this thread. I THINK you mean Bk7. Bk7 is the most common optical glass--usually the crown element in bino objectives. In my Schott glass catalog, the glass types jump from BAK6 to BAK50.
Just a thought,
Bill
solentbirder
Well-known member
WJC said:
You'll find it's not just this thread. Do a quick internet search and you'll find plenty of retailers and manufacturers use theses terms in various forms e.g. Bk7, Bak7, BAK 7, BK-7....
WJC
Well-known member
solentbirder said:
Bk7, BK7, Bk-7 and BK-7 are all just as good to me. Throw the "A" into the mix, and you have a whole different ball game--a completely different family of glass.
Every week, people come into my shop wanting binoculars having "back 4" prisms. And, every week I tell ask them to share with me what they know about "back 4" prisms. And every week they tell me they don't know except they saw it in a magazine.
But then, I am currently on the hot seat in another thread for being a know-it-all. So, methinks I'll shut up.
Kindest Regards,
Bill
elkcub
Silicon Valley, California
solentbirder said:
Christopher's Ltd. has a concise description of the difference between BaK4 and BK7 glass, and what it means in use: http://www.astronomics.com/main/cat...tegory_name/XLK4Q6QD5U5E9JLE93EVC1JJT1/Page/1
This may be sufficient for most folks. BaK4 is what to look for in porros. Retailers often get technical terms wrong, but it would surprising for manufacturers to do that.
Elkcub
I’ve read in a French forum the opinion of an optician : according to him, the vignetted areas shown in the document above are not directly related to the nature of the glass, but is the sign of a wrong design. So, not being sure, I would correct you : evenly illuminated exit pupil is what to look for in porros.elkcub said:
Jean-Charles
Last edited:
RobConnel said:
I'd have to agree with others that older model top end bins can still out perform new mid-price ones. I love the slc 8x30 and would be very happy to use them.
Given the rate at which manufacturers bring out new models, and the way that some people upgrade - there is a good supply of excellent secondhand bins around, often at great prices.
FrankD
Well-known member
Absolutely. As I related in the Nikon forum I just had the opportunity to pick up a pair of Nikon 7x35 Es. From what Henry posted they are probably at least 10 years old, if not a bit older. There is no comparison between them and Pentax DCF-XP 8x33s that I also own. Clarity, resolution and overall image quality is markedly better in the Es. They aren't waterproof and the diopter ring is a bit loose for my tastes but the overall image quality is much better, IMO, than any of the mid-priced roofs I have had the opportunity to own/try.
elkcub said:
Manufacturers do get it wrong, even the best. I have noticed that Leica describe the ED glass in the APO Telvid scopes as Flouride glass and Flourite. The two are quite different beasties.
In the electronics and software industry the people who write the documentation are usually technical authors, rather than techies, hence errors are not uncommon. Alas documentation does not always get checked by the techies. I'm sure the consumer optics industry is no different.
Leif
Wehr
Well-known member
RobConnel said:
I agree with Otto McDiesel and would not worry about a 25 year old design, but the binocs themselves should not be to old. For example there are Zeiss ClassiCs from 1995, which are fully up-to-date and there are some from 1980, which are not. The companies are continuously improving and updating their products.
So I would not pay much attention to the design but to the optical coating. Modern coatings completely outperform the older ones (sometimes by far).
Walter
Last edited:
Similar threads
