• 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.

Vintage and Classic Binoculars (1 Viewer)

Hello,

My eyesight is really getting bad, I read that question mark, after the serial number, as a "7." that made me off, by almost thirty years.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur :hi:

I kinda wondered about that...but decided not to be critical, assuming a man with your erudition probably just made a slip up!
I got a reply from Leitz in Germany that these Binocs were made in 1937,
replied with German definitiveness.
So...1937 is when they were made. Still good!
Thanks for all the reply,
Tom from Cody
 
I kinda wondered about that...but decided not to be critical, assuming a man with your erudition probably just made a slip up!
I got a reply from Leitz in Germany that these Binocs were made in 1937,
replied with German definitiveness.
So...1937 is when they were made. Still good!
Thanks for all the reply,
Tom from Cody

"Erudition"? Arthur, you said your doctor got rid of that. Does it still itch? Mine does. I think it's an old guy thing! |=\|

Bill
 
Who has an opinion or review answer of the older Nikon Superior E 8x32 Binoculars ? The ones with a 7.5 angular
field of view. I understand that they are not made anymore...in the older config.
Thanks,
Tom
 
Who has an opinion or review answer of the older Nikon Superior E 8x32 Binoculars ? The ones with a 7.5 angular
field of view. I understand that they are not made anymore...in the older config.
Thanks,
Tom

Mine provides me with all I will ever need.

Bill
 
Anyone have info on this Tasco 7x35 15ILE?

I picked up this old Tasco roof for £10, but having trawled the web, I can't find anything about it, not even a photo, if anyone knows it, be grateful for any info.

From the style and case, my guess is mid to late 1970s, seems typical of the average Japanese made roofs of then, optically not bad, similar to my Swift Trylite, but the view is a bit darker. It say's on the focus knob, 15ILE, TASCO, 367FT@1000YDS. Green rubber armour, very solid build, quite heavy, well made, on the front it say's JAPAN KH/90 and has a serial number, 4 numbers. Looks like 107 JT11 on the QC sticker. If it was a bit brighter it would be quite a good glass.
Thanks, Ben

Sorry, mistake in header, it is 7x42 of course.
 

Attachments

  • TASC0-15ILE-7X35BA-ROOF.JPG
    TASC0-15ILE-7X35BA-ROOF.JPG
    89.1 KB · Views: 93
  • TASC0-15ILE-7X35BA-ROOF.JPG2.JPG
    TASC0-15ILE-7X35BA-ROOF.JPG2.JPG
    86.5 KB · Views: 80
  • TASC0-15ILE-7X35BA-ROOF.JPG3.JPG
    TASC0-15ILE-7X35BA-ROOF.JPG3.JPG
    56.2 KB · Views: 77
Last edited:
I picked up this old Tasco roof for £10, but having trawled the web, I can't find anything about it, not even a photo, if anyone knows it, be grateful for any info.

From the style and case, my guess is mid to late 1970s, seems typical of the average Japanese made roofs of then, optically not bad, similar to my Swift Trylite, but the view is a bit darker. It say's on the focus knob, 15ILE, TASCO, 367FT@1000YDS. Green rubber armour, very solid build, quite heavy, well made, on the front it say's JAPAN KH/90 and has a serial number, 4 numbers. Looks like 107 JT11 on the QC sticker. If it was a bit brighter it would be quite a good glass.
Thanks, Ben

I was impressed with the sharpness of the roof edges on the Swift version.

Bill
 
I was impressed with the sharpness of the roof edges on the Swift version.

Bill

Hmmmm. I've noticed that when looking into most roof prism binoculars through the objectives the roof line is visible but in a few other roofs it is not or else very faint. Wondered why this happens but hadn't considered some roof edges may be sharper than others. Could this cause a less visible roof line?
 
Hmmmm. I've noticed that when looking into most roof prism binoculars through the objectives the roof line is visible but in a few other roofs it is not or else very faint. Wondered why this happens but hadn't considered some roof edges may be sharper than others. Could this cause a less visible roof line?

Yes; I thought enough of the Swift unit to show it off at the OSC when I was paying a visit to one of my optics contacts in Tucson. You would have thought it had been made by Zeiss or Leica.

There is such chipping on such operations, it was once customary to grind the angle a little more to keep the breakage and the profit up. While the bane of star clusters, most people would never know the difference.
 
. Hi Ben,
if the sticker was on a camera I would say it was made in October 1971.
However, the 107 on the binocular might mean something else.
 
. Hi Ben,
if the sticker was on a camera I would say it was made in October 1971.
However, the 107 on the binocular might mean something else.

Thanks Binastro, that seems the right era for this style, pre- phase coated roof, I cant find another example of the particular Tasco anywhere.
 
I have used Binoculars probably more than most as they were used in my years on the Bridge of a Merchant Ship
as a Licensed, Professional Navigator...used them day & night, in all weather conditions...some events were quite dicey & critical. So...is to say...I developed a critique different than the casual user. I depended on them, and
carried my own that I used. Since I retired in 1999...I have used binocs like "landlubbers" (no offense meant)
game & bird viewing, etc. here in Wyoming. Anyhoo...I have used & own a lot of binocs that I still use often.
This has led me to a question, particularly to "WJC"...is there a point where advanced binocular optics can't be
really utilized by the viewer? I wonder if the $2000+ binoculars really have an advantage for the viewer...in other words...is the advanced optical technology able to be used? Or mostly selling points for profit? I take
the attitude that the utility can't really be used...its there...but does it make a difference in practicality?
Not sure that a reasonably priced & quality binoc. isn't in useage as good as the Ionospheric priced model?
Any comments on this? Thanks, Tom
 
Last edited:
Who has an opinion or review answer of the older Nikon Superior E 8x32 Binoculars ? The ones with a 7.5 angular
field of view. I understand that they are not made anymore...in the older config.
Thanks,
Tom

Tom, welcome to the Birdforum. The Nikon 8x32 SE is a well revered
binocular on this site, and go and spend some time on the Nikon
subforum, you will see many posts.

I have the 8x32 SE and really like this binocular, as it fits me great,
I like the nice view to the edges, and I call it a reference standard,
as some others do, for a comparison to some newer roof types.

I have some good glass and the SE holds its own very well to others.

Jerry
 
I have used Binoculars probably more than most as they were used in my years on the Bridge of a Merchant Ship
as a Licensed, Professional Navigator...used them day & night, in all weather conditions...some events were quite dicey & critical. So...is to say...I developed a critique different than the casual user. I depended on them, and
carried my own that I used. Since I retired in 1999...I have used binocs like "landlubbers" (no offense meant)
game & bird viewing, etc. here in Wyoming. Anyhoo...I have used & own a lot of binocs that I still use often.
This has led me to a question, particularly to "WJC"...is there a point where advanced binocular optics can't be
really utilized by the viewer? I wonder if the $2000+ binoculars really have an advantage for the viewer...in other words...is the advanced optical technology able to be used? Or mostly selling points for profit? I take
the attitude that the utility can't really be used...its there...but does it make a difference in practicality?
Not sure that a reasonably priced & quality binoc. isn't in useage as good as the Ionospheric priced model?
Any comments on this? Thanks, Tom

Tom:

I find your post interesting, and there are discussions on the forum about
what binoculars you may find on the bridge of a ship.

I am curious to what binoculars you have used while in service. Tell us
what is provided by the service and what you have used.

As far as how the newer advanced models work for individuals, I think
that is up to the user. If you have good vision, you can enjoy the benefits
of the best optics. Things are getting closer, so the mid-range binoculars
are very close to the highest end.

Jerry
 
I have used Binoculars probably more than most as they were used in my years on the Bridge of a Merchant Ship
as a Licensed, Professional Navigator...used them day & night, in all weather conditions...some events were quite dicey & critical. So...is to say...I developed a critique different than the casual user. I depended on them, and
carried my own that I used. Since I retired in 1999...I have used binocs like "landlubbers" (no offense meant)
game & bird viewing, etc. here in Wyoming. Anyhoo...I have used & own a lot of binocs that I still use often.
This has led me to a question, particularly to "WJC"...is there a point where advanced binocular optics can't be
really utilized by the viewer? I wonder if the $2000+ binoculars really have an advantage for the viewer...in other words...is the advanced optical technology able to be used? Or mostly selling points for profit? I take
the attitude that the utility can't really be used...its there...but does it make a difference in practicality?
Not sure that a reasonably priced & quality binoc. isn't in useage as good as the Ionospheric priced model?
Any comments on this? Thanks, Tom

I’m sorry; I just saw your question.

You wrote: “Is there a point where advanced binocular optics can't be really utilized by the viewer?”

From my standpoint: yes! But, I’m sure you’ve seen this forum is filled with standpoints. Except for bragging rights, one does not need to spend the money for a Zeiss, Leica, or Swarovski, to have a world-class bino. For some people, however, bragging rights is the main thrust of their need to acquire such bino. I’ve rarely seen a merchant mariner afflicted with that disease. Although you can get nose bleed from standing on their wallets, most want the best you can REASONABLY buy. The FMTR-SX fills that bill, nicely.

Across the board, professional navigators love the Steiners. But then, they have been TAUGHT that is what they are supposed to do. Some people would enjoy looking through a rusty pipe if it had a German name on the side. And, there are mariners who would reach for a Steiner who have never heard of Zeiss; I’ve seen that many times. It does not matter that the importer is from the western US or that the many of their products are as German as … “Kunming.”

Do you need to spend $2,000 to have a really good bino? No way! You will have to spend more than the average consumer thinks is the cat’s meow. I think my 8x32 SE was $8 something when I bought it. Although I didn’t pay that, I saw no reason going further up the foot chain. I’m not into bragging rights as much as I’m into a good view. Some people complain of “black outs” with the SE, but it has never caused me any trouble. To me the problem resembles the person LOOKING for a mis-collimation of his bino. If you’re looking for the “circles” to overlap, you will see them overlap, even on a wonderfully collimated bino.

Why? When you look closely for that, you are looking at the primary field stop, only about 3-inches from your eyes. And what happens when you try to focus on something 3 inches from your face. Under normal circumstances, this is the part where I would say … DUH! However, with some people already thinking I’m snotty, I won’t go there.

The sad thing in all this is that the big boys have backed themselves into a financial corner, and they’re gonna have to cut costs to stay in business. THEY have spent the money to do the research and development that ASIA is now glad to take advantage of.

“They say that all good things must end, someday.” —A Summer Song, Chad & Jeremy, June 1964

Hope this helps,

Bill :t:
 
Last edited:
. Last week on the TV in the programme about the US aircraft carrier Ronald Reagan I was very surprised to see a Canon 10 x 30 image stabilised binocular on the bridge. This is a pretty low price item for such an expensive and massive ship. But somebody on the bridge must like them and they do resolve very well. They are not however waterproof so this seems to me a strange choice. They probably just throw them away if and when they are affected by moisture.

A few days earlier I saw a Zeiss 7×50 B GAT I think being used on the bridge of a very large cruiseship.

A Mariner tells me that they use Fuji binoculars on his ship.

There are very many different binoculars that are used on ships when you see these shown on the TV.
 
Presumably the mechanicals of the premium binoculars are the principal differentiator now that good glass and good coating technologies are widely available in Asia.
Unfortunately, there is essentially no consumer information available that would usefully inform consumers. Apparently, buyers do not want to see their optics as mechanical contrivances, they should be 'all solid state', not something screwed together that can need tightening or repair.
It is a puzzlement, at least to me, why the alpha makes do not try harder to relate their longer warranties to their more robust mechanicals. After all, competing on optical specs is a dead end, the products are as undistinguishable as the copy used to promote them.....
People don't care about the details, they just want a result, whether a good look at a distance or a photo on demand. That is surely the lesson the photography industry is painfully learning, that the overwhelming majority of the customers just want a picture and are only willing to pay for a quality photograph on rare occasions. The binocular makers are still in denial about this, by all appearances.
 
Bushnell=7x50if-waterproof-marine- Navy?

https://www.flickr.com/photos/95019762@N07/with/15418886425

I bought this really nice Bushnell, sharp and bright, good depth of field,waterproof, solid build, very good quality marine binocular, individual eye focus, made in Japan, JB133, decent 394ft@1000yds FOV. No idea how old, and it has a graticule in the left ocular and USN 0350 on it, which makes me wonder if it was made for the Navy? If anyone knows, grateful for info, Bill maybe?
 

Attachments

  • BUSHNELL=7X50IF-WATERPROOF-MARINE.JPG
    BUSHNELL=7X50IF-WATERPROOF-MARINE.JPG
    88.8 KB · Views: 116
  • BUSHNELL=7X50IF-WATERPROOF-MARINE.JPG2.JPG
    BUSHNELL=7X50IF-WATERPROOF-MARINE.JPG2.JPG
    94.7 KB · Views: 83
  • BUSHNELL=7X50IF-WATERPROOF-MARINE.JPG3.JPG
    BUSHNELL=7X50IF-WATERPROOF-MARINE.JPG3.JPG
    77.3 KB · Views: 85
https://www.flickr.com/photos/95019762@N07/with/15418886425

I bought this really nice Bushnell, sharp and bright, good depth of field,waterproof, solid build, very good quality marine binocular, individual eye focus, made in Japan, JB133, decent 394ft@1000yds FOV. No idea how old, and it has a graticule in the left ocular and USN 0350 on it, which makes me wonder if it was made for the Navy? If anyone knows, grateful for info, Bill maybe?

So, there I am, sleeping soundly, then somebody pulls my chain.

That's the Bushnell Navigator/Swift Seahawk/ Fujinon AR/ etc. I ALWAYS dealt with Kama Tech (Kamakura USA) in Chula Vista (Just South of San Diego), as they were Fujinon's OEM, though others say KATSUMA. It has been a contract piece for the US army and Navy. The JB code will solve that completely, but I don't know where I have that stuffed in my computer.

If you remove the graticle, you will find that the focal length of that EP will be different causing it to be less extended that the other.

I think those interested in such will find the attached PDF to their liking. It helps explain the Asian cottage industries.

Hope this helps a little,

Bill
 

Attachments

  • HiroshiFukushima.pdf
    213.9 KB · Views: 273
I have one of those as well, but it does not have the reticle. It is a pretty decent sort of binocular. The only Individual Focus binocular I've used much that is worth actually using. Bushnell marked. I always assumed it was the same as the Fujinon AR, Swift Seahawk, and was the Bushnell Navigator, despite lacking any model designation other than Bushnell.
 
I have one of those as well, but it does not have the reticle. It is a pretty decent sort of binocular. The only Individual Focus binocular I've used much that is worth actually using. Bushnell marked. I always assumed it was the same as the Fujinon AR, Swift Seahawk, and was the Bushnell Navigator, despite lacking any model designation other than Bushnell.

Just before Humphrey Swift died, it was fitted with much larger (Adlerblick style) EPs, as in the attached photo. With Hop's death, things started changing quickly at Swift. Allison started letting the Bino staff go, concentrated on the microscopes on the west coast, and has since gone her own way in another industry.

Bill
 

Attachments

  • Dockside Seahawk 4.jpg
    Dockside Seahawk 4.jpg
    343.6 KB · Views: 197
Last edited:
Warning! This thread is more than 3 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