• 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.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Any data/experience with 90's Gold Ring 9x35 IF porro bins? (1 Viewer)

Bob A (SD)

Well-known member
I've searched the web without success in trying to find specifications for these bins. The few comments I have found have lauded their performance. Still.... Any help / insight would be most appreciated. Thanks

--Bob

PS And yes, once the sample I've got coming shows up I will be contacting Leupold for servicing and history. But in the interim....
 
leupold 9x35

Bob,
I've had one of these since about 1994. I was eventually put off by the IF feature. Optically they are just OK. Better than a Steiner Predator 8x30 but nothing like, say a Nikon EII. If you got them expecting great optics as I did, they will likely dissapoint. They are neither as bright or sharp as either of the two Leupold Wind River Porro lines currently available. If you focus on something about 100 yards away, the depth of field seems set from about 100ft to about 800 or so yards. At that point, the practical limits of the resolution are reached. Past 500 yards or so you will feel the urge to fiddle with the focus. I was using them mostly for hunting, so was always glassing distant animals. I also do a bit of birding now and then and the IF is a real negative there. This is a real pain with IF. The adjustment is click stop. There (on mine anyway) are 9 clicks to the negative side of zero and 6 clicks to the positive side. They do not lock and can be inadvertantly bumped out of focus, so be double sure to mark your focus settings. Eyecups are old fashioned rubber fold down. I'm not sure what the eye relief is. It is not enough to satisfy anyone wearing glasses by quite a margin. The IP distance goes from 56-72mm. They have a FOV of 7.3 degrees which is about 370ft@ 1000 yards. Mine weigh 20 oz. At my IP setting of 60 mm they are 6.5" wide. They are 4.5" high. With a center focus desgin, they'd be more usable. I will advise you not to set your expectations too high. Mine might be the odd sub par unit. Now that I've dug them out for this I'll likely send them to Leupold for cleaning and adjusting.
 
Ouch :( Thanks for the candor Steve.

Yeah I was hoping they'd be decent optically factoring their age and all. I knew the B&L Zephyr 9x35 has a good reputation from decades past and was rather hoping that these Gold Rings would be close.

IF's don't bother me at all. I enjoy my Minox BD 6.5x32 IFs. But click stops? Mmmmm..... Oh and I agree: IFs are NOT for birding.


--Bob

Any one else?
 
Last edited:
Ouch :( Thanks for the candor Steve.

I am inclined to agree with all of Steve's observations, and suspect you will be pleased with your acquisition if your expectation is for a reliable hunting glass and not a WOW factor birding binocular. I owned both the 9 x 35 and the 7 x 30 versions, and found the latter (which I still have) more useful overall given the brighter and more stable image and, most importantly, much greater depth of field. I actually like the click stop diopter adjustments, but I know many who do not. Leupold supplied without cost or hesitation new rubber eyecups some years back and stands behind these glasses fully.
 
Chartwell,

Many thanks. I believe one of your earlier posts regarding the customer service replacement gratis of your eyecups was one of those I mined with my internet searches.

You're correct in thinking that I'm not really looking for the "wow" factor but rather clear bright clean images in a well built pair of bins. I'd not messed with IF bins since my teen years when using my dad's WWII set. That is until I recently picked up those Minox BD 6.5x32 IFs. Their 8* 420' FOV inspired my looking for more magnification in an IF porro. The Leupold's 7.3* 382' FOV will give a nice comfortable 65.7* AFOV as long as the optics aren't severely degraded outside the sweet spot. Understand too about your observations about brightness which obviously is related to the magnification for the meager objective size. I am concerned about both of you commenting that the DOF is so poor though. Guess I'll just keep my fingers crossed and hope that for 60 year old eyes that are supported with mild progressive trifocals (diopter equiv of -1.125 and -1.5) that I normally remove for bin use, that these will work out nicely for hunting and camping.

Thanks again to both of you for taking the time to post (and Steve for digging his out of storage).

--Bob
 
leupold 9x35

Bob,

I perhaps should restate something here. The DOF is really not as shallow as I perhaps made it seem. What really disapointed me is the lack of resolution mine show at any sort of distance. If you are not looking at antlers on a buck or a specific color pattern for a bird ID, the DOF is pretty good, just inadequate resolution to suit me.

For what its worth, I had a chance to look at a 8x30 Yosemite after work today. Seems I saw your name asociated with some posts on the Yosemite. The Yosemite turns out to be just about what I hoped to get with the 9x35. I will likely buy a Yosemite. I'd be interested in your comparative take on the two when you get your 9x35.

Also Leupold, in my experience, is absolutely top notch in customer service. Their service comes as long as you have one of their products, it matters not when or where you bought it. SO if anything seems amiss with your 9x35, just send it to them. They've served me well and never charged me even when I admitted the flaw they were to fix was my fault.
 
Steve,

I guess I'm a tad confused with your DOF / resolution comments. Are you saying that over 500 yards properly focused the 9x35s were unable to give sufficient clarity for you to discern numbers of antlers? That they simply do not exhibit high enough resolution overall? 9x35 at one time was considered an optimum Elk hunting configuration.

Yes I picked up some 8x30 Sams and really like them. FrankD here on these forums was one of the early adopters whose reports influenced me to try them. They compare extremely well with my Pentax 8x32 DCF-WPs in terms of brightness, distortion, color, resolution, and DOF. They actually exceed the Pentax with their 3D presentation. The only real negative is the stiction the focus adjuster exhibits. I had hoped with use (break in) it would dissipate but it hasn't. It simply makes fine focusing more difficult.

They went with me to Arches, Canyonland, Bryce Canyon, Zion, Grand Canyon, Meteor Crater, et all earlier this summer. I let others look through them and universally folks were impressed.


I've been on a bit of a binge recently picking up the Leupold 8x30 Sams as well as Minox BD 6.5x32IF, vintage Binolux 7x35 11*FOV, Vortex Diamondback 10x42, and of course the Gold Ring 9x35 IFs discussed here.

The cheap Binolux were acquired on a lark simply to experience older design super wide field bins. They haven't arrived yet but I expect a fairly narrow sweet spot with significant edge distortion. The extra wide field of view would serve solely to reveal peripheral movement. The Vortex were identified as a great bang for the buck bin by hunting optics writers. I found that to be true. But alas, in my retirement years I'm finding I no longer have the ability to hold 10x steady enough. I don't have a problem with 9x ironically so I've regrettably put the 10x42s up for sale.

The 6.5x32 IFs continue to impress as great overall grab 'n go bins which also serve for short range hunting and as a companion to my 9x63s for night skies. The 8x32 roofs are my overall general use bins with their inexpensive 8x30 porro brother seeing backpacking duties where loss or damage wouldn't be that devastating. My little reverse-porro 9x21s used to be in my briefcase before I retired and now are used primarily to check my distant mailbox to see if the mail has arrived.

In addition to replacing the 10x42s, I envision the 9x35s to fit in as longer distance hunting bins and to vie with the other core bins for their duties.

I will definitely post my impressions of the 9x35s once in hand.

--Bob
 
Last edited:
Bob,

It is safe to say that with the 9x35 I have, that focused as properly as I can focus them, the resolution is sub par, to my eyes, with my 9x35. For me, this tended to limit my perception of the DOF as somewhat shallow. I tended to spend a lot of time refocusing at varying distances, without real result. Real detail is lacking past 500 or so yards. They are not as good as my Nikon Monarch 8x42 and my Vortex Viper 10x42 simply blows them (9x35) away. The Vipers seem to be a visible upgrade from the Monarch as well. I suppose another way to say it is the 9x35 asks questions that the Viper can answer. So my eyes are not your eyes and maybe my binocular is off. That is how mine acts for me. Just for the heck of it, they are going back to Leupold for a clean and adjust session.

Steve
 
Steve,

I would certainly expect the Vipers to soundly trump the Monarchs but I am disappointed to hear your 9x35s are inferior to the 8x42s. I do wonder if something might be out of kilter with yours. I just hope this isn't endemic.

--Bob
 
Bob,

I guess that is why they are going back to Leupold. I've had lots of experience with Leupold and these are frankly the only true optical dissapointment with their product. When comparing them yesterday to my Monarch and Viper it did seem that the resolution was worse than I remembered. The 9x35's, wile I did use them a fair bit, did not suffer from any trauma that should have dinged them, so maybe they did come defective. No complaints with them out to the 500 or so yard level (that's laser determined not a guess by the way). Seems like you enter another focus zone at that point, one where you need just about half a click more to get it right, so it might be the click stop arrangement and my eyes.

Also they appear to have BaK-4 prisms. The exit pupils are crisp round circles with no square effect found with BK-7 glass. Don't know what the coating scheme is.

On another note, the Monarchs, while a good instrument, have recently been retired as my everyday use glass by a new Swift CFT Eaglet 7x36. My use trio is now a 7x26 B&L Custom, the Swift, and the Viper.
 
Steve,

I don't know much about the Eaglet but certainly the B&L and Viper have garnered praise for their performance. Sounds like you have a great trio there.

I have another couple inputs which look to support your resolution comments:

"I had a pair of the Leupold 9X35's in the late 80's. They were the first "good" binoculars I ever bought.

They're decent, at least equal in optical quality to their Vari-X scopes of the era. Being porros they give a bit better stereoscopic vision than roofs with the objectives closer together.

But they do have one drawback shared by all IF binoculars. With IF (individual focus) binocs, you focus each eyepiece separately and then leave them there. You look at everything near and far with that same focus and your eyes have to make the fine adjustments, so it kind of loses the better resolution advantage porros used to have over roofs before phase coating became standard.

My subjective impression - they work and they're decent binoculars, but coatings have come so far in the last 15 years you can get a Pentax or Minox or any number of good "mid-level" binoculars that would just blow away those Leupolds in brightness and especially resolution."


"I am familiar with 4 pairs of the late 80’s vintage 9x35 Leupold IF binos, 3 pair still running fine and the other pair could be as well, not sure. I bought 1 of those pair for my wife, who still uses them.
I was using some 8x30 Steiner IF at the time. I felt that the Leupold had much better resolution and the color was much more vivid.
I am a bit strange in that I quite like the IF option…..
My wife bought me a pair of 8x42 Wind River binos about 6-8 years ago. To me, comparing them with her 9x35’s, it is close, except the color is a bit better again with the 8x42. They are pretty close, to my eyes, in low light conditions. FWIW, hers have held up well to the use they’ve seen. I would consider buying a pair for my kids if the price was right."


I hope I'm not disappointed but things are not boding well. Too bad Leupold doesn't offer a lens coating service so that our 9x35s could get a full blown FMC treatment :)

--Bob
 
Bob,
I's have to agree with the other comments. It will probably boil down to how well you really like IF. I really don't like it. These seemed to work best if you focused on some reflective object about 100 yards or so away. This generally left a focused area from about 30-40 yards close focus to wherever your glass will reach its resolution limits. A lot of binocular use comes in closer to the eye than this. The IF makes close in use about impossible, well maybe impractical. You can fiddle with the distance you focus at, but if you move further out you can move good focus farther out with it, but you also increase the dead distance close in. Really not a relaxing view. I however, do sincerely hope your Leupold, your eyes, and the IF mesh and yoy enjoy your purchase.

Good luck

Steve
 
Appreciate the sentiments Steve.

BTW had I not gotten a "steal" on a new pair of Minox BD 6.5x32 IFs, the Swift 7x36 you've found to be outstanding or perhaps the yet to be introduced and tested Vortex Fury 6.5x32s would have been the top of my list.

And consistent with trying to consolidate comments on the old Leupold Gold Ring IF porro line I quoteb this from this forums archives:

"Blackhorse
Saturday 10th June 2006, 10:36
Robert Ellis said "I say the Golden Rings will be forgotten as quickly as the Steiner Peregrine. Remember the hooplah and the marketing?"
Blackhorse said: More flop than a trout on shore.

Well, I've got a Gold Ring 7X30 P.Prism with the "set and forget" focus...which is good for "From Here to Eternity" and ideal for many hunting applications. I got 'em while living in South East Alaska and used to hunt with 'em tucked down inside my fleece and rubber rain gear that is standard attire for the region (it's wet). Ahem - You can tell if it's August in Southeast because it's lighter grey outside...(make that: wet, wet, wet!).

Well, they're about as bright and clear an image as you would want to find (for their day and beyond)...non-rubber armored...have those *!#* rubber fold-down eyecups...but all in all are a solid piece. I got 'em in about 1985, maybe a year or two later, and have used them with satisfaction and confidence for over 20 years...in very rugged conditions. They have never let me down.

Not what I'd call a "flash in the pan".

Their use, and my penchant for VALUE in my gear has recently led me to add to my "collection" through the purchase of a new Leupold: A Wind River Cascade 10X40 with the newer Phase Coating. These are as good a glass as I'll ever need. My 'in-store' side by side with the Nikon Monarch ATB 10X40 left the Nikon on the counter and the Leupold going down the road in my truck, itching for the woods. I can hardly wait for the fun!"


--Bob
rear_tag_avitar.JPG
 
Bob,

I figured that was probably you at the campfire. As you can see there is a lot of intense either anti this or pro that that smokes up that forum. Leupold seems to get a lot of both. As for the assertion that the new GR binoculars wil be a flash in the pan, well wait and see. Leupold has long been a stand up customer service company and their quality has gone up a lot lately, and it has always been good. Not to belabor it here, but I've had the chance to look at the new GR full size binoculars in both 8 & 10x versions in some field comparisons with a few of the other alpha glasses. Yeah they look funny and they are maybe heavier than I'd like, but they give up nothing to no one when the eyeball meets the ocular. BVD hit the nail on the head on the Gold Ring in their review. That was before ED glass was added. I don't think that kind of optics, which are "alpha quality" for $1,200 will go away real easy.

Anyway good luck with the 9x35. IF leaves too much work for my 55+ eyeballs to deal with.

Steve
 
Steve,

55+ eh? I hit the big 60 in a couple weeks :)

Yeah that forum has their fights but if you ignore the flame wars (like the exchanges about the GRs going away) there is some good info there. This area reflects the needs of birders; theirs is hunting. And then there is cloudynights for the astro folks. All three together give an excellent picture for most optics.

I haven't handled the newer gold rings but Barsness, BVD, and you all agree that they're sleepers. Perhaps during my retirement road trips I'll have a chance to audition some.

All the best!


Update: Well they're here :) I can't believe how light they are. It may just be the contrast from the vintage 7x35SWA 11* 578' FOV heavyweights I've been playing with the last few days though. I'm still evaluating but the initial impressions are quite favorable. Yes I have to twiddle with each ocular to achieve close focus. But I'm not finding issues with the "normal" settings of infinity down to less than a ballfield (haven't measured things yet). I like them thusfar :) They're in good enough shape that I don't think a trip to Leupold is called for. I did e-mail them regarding replacement lens covers, etc. though.

binocs.jpg


--Bob
 
Last edited:
Turns out that there are three versions of the model. Mine are metal knurled oculars, others have rubber knurling. Found this out when talking to Leupold about the replacement lens covers.

Leupold service is well known. The replacement covers plus a new bino strap are being sent gratis. It doesn't get much better :)
 
Turns out that there are three versions of the model. Mine are metal knurled oculars, others have rubber knurling. Found this out when talking to Leupold about the replacement lens covers.

Leupold service is well known. The replacement covers plus a new bino strap are being sent gratis. It doesn't get much better :)

Glad you like 'em, Bob - I was sure that you would. Yours, BTW, appear to be in great shape. A friend recently bought a pair off ebay that looked comestically like it had been run through a cement mixer (despite the battering, the bin was still, amazingly, in collimation and still offered more than OK views).
 
Chartwell,

Thanks and I do indeed like them. Mine do have the normal use dings but overall they're in great shape. All the normal evaluation criteria (resolution, contrast, color, flair, ghosting, etc.) are darned good for 15+ year old bins. I don't seem to suffer from the urge to extract more resolution or contrast that some complain about as dislikers of the IF focus system. I think maybe focus accommodation may be the reason but given presbyopia should plague retirees like me perhaps not. Regardless they do indeed work and work well for me :)
 
Bob,
From your picture, yours are also longer than mine. Looks pretty obvious from your picture, but I can't really be sure. Mine are 4.5" long. Mine also have the rubber knurling on the ocular adjustments. I wonder if the extra length somehow improves depth of field or other optical performance. You seem to like yours better than I do mine. Maybe this is partly why.

It dawned on me during this IF discussion here and at the other two forums I've seen this topic discussed, that all binoculars are IF. Even the most expensive CF glass has to be focused for each eye. So I wondered how my IF glass would compare to my various CF glass. I gathered up the following binoculars;

1. Swift Model 771 Extra Wide Angle Nighthawk 8x40. 499'@1000yds. First binocular I bought for my biology major classes/field work in college in I guess 1968. Still do not feel the least bit optically disadvantaged using it even today.

2. Leupold Gold Ring 9x35 IF. The subject of this thread.

3. Steiner 8x30 IF Predator.

4. Vortex Viper 10x42.

5. Nikon Monarch ATB 8x42.

6. Swift Eaglet 7x36. A new one with the new CFT coatings.

So these binoculars and I did a little looking around today. This is all subjective assesment on my part, as I did not measure distances or try to make any sort of attempt to adjust for any magnification differences. The chief things I loked at to do this was a flock of Wild Turkeys picking through the newly clipped grass in a Walnut orchard, the several dozen Turkey Vultures soaring in the bright blue sky, and a bunch of Yellow Billed Magpies. The turkeys were good to check how each performed as the birds moved at various distances through the orchard and the magpies and vultures for contrasty objects. I focused each binocular on a large yellow implement carrier about 100 yards away. After I focused the initial time, I did not touch the CF dial on any of that type of binocular.

So, quite subjectively assessing these glasses, the best IF binocular I own is the Vortex Viper, then the Swift Nighthawk, then the Swift Eaglet, then the Nikon Monarch, then the Leupold, and last and certainly least, the Stiener. The Viper beat the Nighthawk because it is a very much brighter glass. 2x greater magnification probably didn't hurt either. The Eaglet beat the Monarch because it is brighter. The Eaglet is sharper and brighter than the Monarch in any comparison I've done with mine. I have no experience with any other IF glass other than these two. For the sake of curiosity, I'd like to look through the Fujinon 7x50. My CF glasses tended to focus from about 30-50 feet or so closer to the objective when focused as I did at 100 yards. Except for the Nighthawk, which was more like the IF. But then again, roofs will focus closer than porros, so maybe this explains it. The IF glasses focused from about 150 feet to infinity. The IF binoculars were not as bright as the CF roofs I have, so it seems easier to discern at distance with them. In spite of its age the Nighthawk resolved detail better than both Leupold and Steiner. The Nighthawk also had a marked 3-D advantage.

This points to my preference for CF. There is a technique I learned in college to focus back and forth through a tree full of warblers or other birds, or even waterfowl spread over the surface of the water. It is especially useful as a scanning technique for hunting if one starts at the front of a bunch of brush and focus slowly backward through the foliage. You can pick up lots of things that will be missed relying solely on depth of field. This even works with Swarovski EL's which are renowned for their depth of field. You just can't do that with an IF glass and you really have no idea of what you might be missing.

So, if you like IF glasses, may your views be sharp and your enjoyment high. Thanks to Bob for posting this in the first place. I wound up learning some things.
 
Steve,

A very interesting and informative assessment. Your observation about all bins (save cheap fixed focus types) are IF is true when you consider diopter adjustments. But overall focus remains different. I am finding that two click stops make a difference with my 9x35IFs for different viewing distances and setting them is a much different process than the CF on say my Pentax roofs. While I haven't sat down and conducted a comparison like you have, several things have stood out with routine use:

The old late '60s early 70s 7x35SWA 11* 587' FOV 77* apparent viewing angle (AFOV) Binolux bins (massive heavy uniconstruction body) give an unmatched 3D view (with minimal barrel distortion and a huge sweet spot). The Leupold 9x35IF is next with it's 65.7* AFOV. You'd think the Vortex Diamondback with it's 65.8* AFOV would too but here roofs simply can't match 3D from good porros. Brightest views are from the Minox BD 6.5x32IF, Pentax DCF-WP 8x32, and Leupold 8x30 Yosemite porro, but others aren't all that far behind. I won't comment on resolution here as the differences in magnification tends to skew that for me. My big Orion 9x63s only have a 5* FOV which can be annoying (the old looking through a straw bit applies).

My 9x35IFs are Model #52277. I have identified a 9x35IF variant with rubber knurling as Model #70026. I've yet to ID the third version (what is yours? ...model number is on the bottom on the bridge). As for height, mine stand 5 1/4" tall (with the ocular set to "0") which definitely is a BIG difference if yours stand but 4.5" tall. I neglected to measure how far inset the objective lens are on mine though :(

The rocking technique you describe is familiar to me although (a bit of humor here) it is endemic in those CFs with "fast" focusers anyhow. I think the technique induces a focus contrast, for lack of a better term, which may indeed assist with subjective resolution. But personally I find the averted vision technique used with telescopes when viewing faint "fuzzies" in the heavens above to be just as valuable when trying to extract detail with binocs. And therein may be the reason that I don't find IF bins troublesome. I would assume ( yeah, I know) that birders always look directly at their target with their bins. The notion of placing the target off center and looking at the center or leaving the target in the center but looking towards the edges is probably foreign. But it does indeed work in extracting detail you simply can't see by looking direct. When using averted vision you are using your rods rather than your cones to get more contrast out of what you're observing.

I too am enjoying this thread and learning some things. Thank you :)

--Bob
 
Last edited:
Warning! This thread is more than 16 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top