max. weight for hiking? (1 Viewer)

Hello,
What is the weight or rather the model that best fits the hiking and by observation of birds? Ergonomics and view in open field...
best

albatrosviajero said:

Hello,
What is the weight or rather the model that best fits the hiking and by observation of birds? Ergonomics and view in open field...
best

Click to expand...

That's kind of a tricky question and quite vague? That would be more of a personal observation and really with out knowing any more you would have endless options. If you might be a little more specific at what your looking for i'm sure others will gladly help you spend your money wisely!!! Bryce...

albatrosviajero said:

Hello,
What is the weight or rather the model that best fits the hiking and by observation of birds? Ergonomics and view in open field...
best

Click to expand...

When I'm hiking, weight is not as important a consideration as size and ease of handling. Binoculars are light weight compared to everything else in my pack, but I like them to be small enough to be able to keep them on a strap around my neck at all times, but have the option of tucking them into a smallish vest pocket or under a strap (with the bino strap still around my neck) to keep them from swinging around and getting in the way when I'm using a camera or doing things like catching lizards by hand. It is important that they hang flat against my body so they don't get in the way when I'm juggling other equipment (camera, field guide, backpack, etc). So I prefer a compact 8x32 roof (e.g. Zeiss 8x32 FL), or a premium pocket roof (e.g. Leica 8x20 Ultravid BL). The latter is smaller and lighter, but sometimes that is not an advantage when hands shake during strenuous hikes.

--AP

Alexis Powell said:

When I'm hiking, weight is not as important a consideration as size and ease of handling. Binoculars are light weight compared to everything else in my pack, but I like them to be small enough to be able to keep them on a strap around my neck at all times, but have the option of tucking them into a smallish vest pocket or under a strap (with the bino strap still around my neck) to keep them from swinging around and getting in the way when I'm using a camera or doing things like catching lizards by hand. It is important that they hang flat against my body so they don't get in the way when I'm juggling other equipment (camera, field guide, backpack, etc). So I prefer a compact 8x32 roof (e.g. Zeiss 8x32 FL), or a premium pocket roof (e.g. Leica 8x20 Ultravid BL). The latter is smaller and lighter, but sometimes that is not an advantage when hands shake during strenuous hikes.

--AP

Click to expand...

That is the same reasoning Terry Wieland, the shooting editor of Gray's Sporting Journal, used when he wrote an article in Feb/Mar 2006 issue entitled 8 x 30 Who could ask for anything more? with the stipulation that it be a top quality 8 x 30/32.

Most certainly I would choose 10x binoculars on hiking, because you cannot use a spotting scope. Plus, hiking typically means open mountainous areas, where you can expect very distant views.

There are ways to economise your load, like using bino harness instead of strap or reducing snacks you take with you. But saving 50-100g on binocular weight seems a very bad choice.

I generally carry my 19oz 8x32s on hikes,
but when I offered my son in law my 10 oz 6.5x19s for his trip to the bottom of the Grand Canyon, he declined saying they were too heavy.

edj

a lot obviously depends on your specific budget and needs but IMO there's not much reason to carry "subcompact" (below 30mm objective) bins when there are so many good, 32mm class roofs below 20oz in weight. The difference in optics and handling for a "serious" birdwatcher will far outweigh saving a few ounces.

with this explosion of open bridge 32mm clones there are so many good choices now, but in my experience the Sightron 32mm is the best for this application considering its ultra low 17oz weight. They are practically weightless when carried with a good strap or harness. But any of the various Vixen / Kenko / Theron / Opticron clones will also do fine in a pinch. And if you can afford the big guns, like 32mm Zeiss FL or Leica Ulravid (both well under 20oz), then all the better.

if you aren't as serious of a birdwatcher and just want to take an occasional gander at something distant, then a subcompact or even a nice monocular might be a good choice. But when you can get great optics with a 32mm objective, around $200US or less, nice wide field and well under 20oz, any serious birdwatcher needn't venture far afield without a "real" pair of bins.

I'd recommend an 8x32, just whatever you like and can afford. My 8x32 is a clunky IF military style, but judging from the views alone, I think that a nice one would hit a sweet spot where weight is an issue.
Ron

When I hike 5 miles or less I take the 10X32 if possible. Good performance in the forest and on the peaks.
If I am loaded down with gear I take the 10X25 light and compact
Backpacking I have no other choice than the 10X25
Car camping or where weight and distance are not a factor 10X42.
Kayaking Pentax 9X28 which are “good enough” (in case they get away and sink to the bottom).
Road bicycling 10X25
Mtn bicycling 10X25

Without the case the Ultravid 10X25 weighs 10.1 ounces or 285 grams (including neck strap and eye caps)
With the case the Ultravid 10X25 weighs 11.3 ounces or 325 grams (including neck strap and eye caps)

Without the case the Ultravid HD 10X32 weighs (1 pound 7.3 ounces) or 660 grams (including neck strap and eye caps)
With the case the Ultravid HD 10X32 weighs (1 pound 10.8 ounces) ounces or 760 grams (including neck strap and eye caps)