Do the optics greatly improve with the price? (1 Viewer)

I'm new to birding and after reading an Audubon article about binoculars, I decided to buy these Eyeskey 8x42 binocs. I like them so far, but I don't know how they would compare to a more expensive pair. If I decided to spend $500, would the optics be way better? Or is the difference in detail not very noticeable? The same question goes for a $500 pair versus a $1000 pair and a $1000 pair versus a $2000 pair. If any of you have used a cheaper binoc and then tried an expensive binoc, can you tell me what the difference was like? Thank you.

Depending which model you choose, I believe for the most part yes. I've owned everything from the cheapest to the best, I will never be satisfied with anything less than the best now, but lesser optics can definitely satisfy the majority of people.

Morgothaod,

Welcome to the forum.

I don't know the Eyeskey brand, but it rather looks like an inexpensive model from one of the co-operatives from Kunming China. They are quite capable of producing some very good binoculars, but the fact that the specification or does not mention phase coating or the nature of the miror coatings on the prisms, let alone more advanced features like ED glass suggests it's not one of their best. As you go up the price scale you should notice a significant increase in brightness in low light, an improvement in the colour rendition, a reduction in colour fringing (CA), possibly an improvement in detail, an all round sharper image and better engineering.

In nice sunny conditions the improvements may not be very obvious, but when the light is tricky the difference is much more evident.

These days you can get a very usable binocular for under $200, a pretty good one for $500, but yes, you can tell, at least some of the time, that a $1000+ one is better.

David

Hi,

first of all, welcome to birdforum!

Regarding your question - the answer is yes, especially from very low end to mid range (around $500) huge quality improvements can be seen. Past mid range the law of diminishing returns kicks in and while the view usually still gets better from there to $1000 and on to the alphas, it's usually little improvement for lots of money (oh my, did I really say that on this forum - I smell tar & feathers ;-)

Unfortunately very cheap chinese roof bins like your pair are best avoided - the image quality is usually not really usable due to lack of phase coating, cheap mirroring on the roof prism and not very tight tolerances, ymmv.
For the $100 price point and a bit below porro bins are usually a better choice - there's some available which are quite usable.

Joachim

I feel that you used to get a better binocular if you paid more but that is changing with the direct marketed binoculars like the Maven and the Trac Toric. By cutting out the middleman and selling direct to the consumer you can get a binocular for less than 1/2 the price for nearly the same quality. There really is no reason to spend $2K on a binocular any more for the big three. For $1000.00 or less you can get a Trac Toric 8x42 or Maven 9x45 that will challenge any alpha level binocular.

Hi Morgothaod,

I have owned binos in different price ranges over the years and last year I splurged on
my first top tier bino which was over 2k - Leica Ultravid HD Plus (7x42). I really love it and
I'm happy I have it, but I did not need to spend that much money for a good birding bino.
I purchased it out of pure desire , as I admired the Ultravid model for years and always wanted one.

I found over the years that a $500-600 range bino gets the job done no problem and they have very nice optics. You can find some nice compact and light binos with really nice image quality in this price range (sharp, good contrast, good correction of chromatic aberration, bright etc).

If you want a step up from that and have something really outstanding you can go up to 800-1200 range:
Zeiss Conquest HD, vortex Razor HD, Kowa Genesis, new Nikon Monarch HG and some others you will find mentioned here.

I've used bins with a modest field of view for several years in the range of 360 - 380ft@1000yds which is ok and over time I actually became quite skilled at tracking birds, but I do suggest you find something with a wider field of view to help track quick moving birds better especially since you are new to birding. My Leica has 420ft FOV and I just find it easier to track birds ...less effort now. Also, don't discount the smaller 8x32 bins which have wide FOV and if you don't wear glasses then you will get along well with 8x32. There are some really great ones out there.

Good luck on your search !

morgothaod said:

I'm new to birding and after reading an Audubon article about binoculars, I decided to buy these Eyeskey 8x42 binocs. I like them so far, but I don't know how they would compare to a more expensive pair. If I decided to spend $500, would the optics be way better? Or is the difference in detail not very noticeable? The same question goes for a $500 pair versus a $1000 pair and a $1000 pair versus a $2000 pair. If any of you have used a cheaper binoc and then tried an expensive binoc, can you tell me what the difference was like? Thank you.

Click to expand...

As long as the binoculars are properly aligned,( so that you can use them without getting eyestrain or headaches ) you will get most of the benefit from even a cheap model. The gains from more costly offerings are relatively subtle, seen more in A vs B comparisons than when using the glass.
It helps to remember that the world worked for decades with binoculars that offered 50-70% light transmission, rather than the 85-95% achieved in top tier binoculars today. Even low cost binoculars today do better than 70%, so the incremental additional improvement provided by higher end gear is modest.
Image stabilization is the one large step forward that some higher end binoculars provide. Nikon, Fuji and Canon all offer this feature on some models, with Canon the least expensive, starting at US $300.

Confused by now? Don't be. Educating yourself on this is easier than you think.

If you are near any of these 3 Bass Pro Shops in Florida visit one and see what binoculars they have in stock. Look for 8x42 binoculars made by Nikon, Vortex, Bushnell and Leupold and try them out there if you can. Most of them will be in the lower priced range under $500.00. Vortex has the best warranty of the group.

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=bass+pro+shop+locations+in+florida

On the internet you can review the Binoculars sold by Eagle Optics and read the reviews about them from buyers who purchased them. Eagle Optics has a unique 30 day return policy which you should inquire about if you decide to buy from them. They cover the spectrum in prices and they have their own house brand which is very popular.

https://www.eagleoptics.com/collections/binoculars

Check out their product buying guide:

https://www.eagleoptics.com/pages/learn


Bob

etudiant said:

As long as the binoculars are properly aligned,( so that you can use them without getting eyestrain or headaches ) you will get most of the benefit from even a cheap model. The gains from more costly offerings are relatively subtle, seen more in A vs B comparisons than when using the glass.
It helps to remember that the world worked for decades with binoculars that offered 50-70% light transmission, rather than the 85-95% achieved in top tier binoculars today. Even low cost binoculars today do better than 70%, so the incremental additional improvement provided by higher end gear is modest.
Image stabilization is the one large step forward that some higher end binoculars provide. Nikon, Fuji and Canon all offer this feature on some models, with Canon the least expensive, starting at US $300.

Click to expand...

Your points are good, but I am not a fan of image stabilized binoculars.

Tell us which ones are found for $300.00 ?

Jerry

Do the optics greatly improve with price?

Up to $1,000.00 yes, better quality control, better customer service and a better binocular.
In my limited experience mid range companies like Leupold and Vortex provide really great customer service.
After that you begin to pay for small incremental improvements in mechanics and optics, usually superior quality control and better ergonomics.
At the high end you get really great customer service from Swarovski and good customer service from Zeiss, this is my opinion only but here in the USA ,Leica and Nikon customer service can be spotty and at times non existent.
For many years I used very good quality mid priced optics and really enjoyed them, now I can afford the top tier and enjoy their handling qualities, optical quality and customer service.
I still enjoy my old B&L 8x32's and 7x50's and regret giving away my B&L 7x42's.
Go out, bird, have fun with what you have and at some point where you begin to feel the need, then look for the best glass you can find in price range.
Don't worry about "the best" until start to miss id's.
Art

NDhunter said:

Your points are good, but I am not a fan of image stabilized binoculars.

Tell us which ones are found for $300.00 ?

Jerry

Click to expand...

Canon 8x25IS, $281.00 on Amazon

https://www.amazon.com/Canon-8x25-I...2983&sr=8-1&keywords=canon+8x25+is+binoculars

morgothaod said:

I'm new to birding and after reading an Audubon article about binoculars, I decided to buy these Eyeskey 8x42 binocs. I like them so far, but I don't know how they would compare to a more expensive pair. If I decided to spend $500, would the optics be way better? Or is the difference in detail not very noticeable? The same question goes for a $500 pair versus a $1000 pair and a $1000 pair versus a $2000 pair. If any of you have used a cheaper binoc and then tried an expensive binoc, can you tell me what the difference was like? Thank you.

Click to expand...

This is a very sensible question and is something I have been mulling over for a while. The short answer is yes - you get what you pay for etc. However I believe there is a ratio in improvement. for example pay £200 you get an ok pair of bins, pay £400 and you probably get something twice as good for twice the price. Pay, say £800 and are they twice as good again, possibly but maybe not. Pay £1600 and they are not twice as good as the £800 pair - they are better, no doubt about that, but usually not massively so. So here's the thing, I think your improvement per £/$ ration gets smaller as the price gets larger. At the top end I would suggest you pay a little more for the name, and with some manufacturers a superb warranty also.

The question in my mind is how does this all compare to our individual eyesight - would I spend £2000 if I had £800 eyesight if I couldn't see the difference? Probably not.

My other thought is about comfort over long term use. I have found that the higher end bins give me a lot less eyestrain when used over an extended period - if you're out for hours on end, and some are, it is probably worth the extra money.

What do you guys think?

Paul1963 said:

This is a very sensible question and is something I have been mulling over for a while. The short answer is yes - you get what you pay for etc. However I believe there is a ratio in improvement. for example pay £200 you get an ok pair of bins, pay £400 and you probably get something twice as good for twice the price. Pay, say £800 and are they twice as good again, possibly but maybe not. Pay £1600 and they are not twice as good as the £800 pair - they are better, no doubt about that, but usually not massively so. So here's the thing, I think your improvement per £/$ ration gets smaller as the price gets larger. At the top end I would suggest you pay a little more for the name, and with some manufacturers a superb warranty also.

Click to expand...

The more you pay, the less of a difference you get. Go to an optics shop and see for yourself. Above £500 and the differences get less and less for the money.

NDhunter said:

Your points are good, but I am not a fan of image stabilized binoculars.

Tell us which ones are found for $300.00 ?

Jerry

Click to expand...

The Canon 8x25 IS can be found that low. Although I'm not sure if I would by an 8x pair with stabilization... 12x sounds like the point to start there, maybe 10x...

Joachim

The problem is that the "small" improvements are very expensive to achieve, if they we`rent a Conquest HD would match the performance of an SF, surely no one would deny that the SF is optically superior, we are given to believe by those who have tried it that the Noctivid is a real improvement on the Ultravid, and correspondingly it costs more.

I have good friends who don`t see much difference between they`re £250 bins and my £1800 bins, for me the difference is huge, so as always try before you buy, and enjoy what you choose safe in the knowledge that they show you all your eyes can use.

Paul1963 said:

My other thought is about comfort over long term use. I have found that the higher end bins give me a lot less eyestrain when used over an extended period - if you're out for hours on end, and some are, it is probably worth the extra money.

What do you guys think?

Click to expand...

Totally agree here.

Morgothaod,

Hope you're not too confused at this point.

The consensus here on the forum for roof prism binoculars seems to be:

Stay away from bins under about 200 bucks.

You may find a decent bino in the 200 to approx 400 range. Many are made in China and quality control is not consistent, so there is an increased chance of getting a lemon. But, you may find a decent bino here and some specific models have a cult following here such as the Sightron Blue Sky II which seems consistently good (made in Phillipines).

400-600 range gets you something noticeably better optically , mechanically and constructed. I like this price range ... there are lots of good ones here mostly made in Japan (not all). These are very good quality binoculars which will be made well and provide a very nice view. You can find something you could really be satisfied with here.

Going to the range of 850 to 1200 you'll find outstanding binoculars. The difference won't be huge as others have already said, but the improvemens are there.

Going from 1k to 2k you will we see only minimal improvements and some people don't even notice it.
Those who have tried a ton of binos and have been interested in optics for years will see the improvement here...I do, but I agree the improvemnt is small.

You certainly don't need to spend 1k to 2k to have a nice birding bino.. You can find a durable and very good quality bino for 550 or so and one you can use for a very long time if you take good care of it.

The above only applies to roof prism binoculars and not porro prism which are different and good porro can be had for pretty cheap. However, roofs are more popular for more durability, smaller size and less weight and easier portability. Some porros are not waterproof. Porros have great optics however and I find the smaller sizes very nice ergonomically. Plus, they have a bit of a noticeable 3D effect which roofs lack.

Also, check out reviews by Frank D. who specializes in reviewing affordable to mid-priced bins. He also reviews top binos as well, but he seems to focus on affordable bins especially. He is highly regarded here on the forum. He reviewed the Sightron Blue Sky which has become a popular affordable bino.

NDhunter said:

Your points are good, but I am not a fan of image stabilized binoculars.

Tell us which ones are found for $300.00 ?

Jerry

Click to expand...

I agree. IS bins have to advance quite a bit more to get my attention.
Size, weight , eye relief, battery life all need to improve quite a bit.
I'll wait for them to evolve and continue to happily use my old fashioned lower power non-stabilized binos. I've never even tried an IS bin and no doubt I would be impressed by the stability, but I can't use one with glasses according to the specs and they seem bulky and awkward. Also, I'm just not ready to put batteries in my binocular. Plus, battery life seems to top out at 10 hours or so (?)...that stinks ...lots of money and very wasteful constantly having to discard and buy new batteries.
Also tracking birds I hear is difficult ... even a 10x IS seems best for static views like ducks sitting in a pond...correct me if I'm wrong about that.

gulf1263 said:

Up to $1,000.00 yes, better quality control, better customer service and a better binocular.

Click to expand...

I think this cuts through all the caveats and gets to the point - when you pay more you may not get a very big or even noticeable improvement in the field optically but your instrument will be reliably better (lemons weeded out) and backed by good service

optics

best advice is go somewhere you can try a good range for yourself. I recently went to buy a spotting scope and was shown a cheaper model made by Acuter which was so good compared to scopes £100 dearer that I bought the Acuter straight away.