Best Binocular for... (1 Viewer)

[Maljunulo]

I guess I’m still confused by the question.

If it’s good at 30’ it’s good at infinity.

 

[chill6x6]

My most common "sub-optimal" condition is an overcast winter day trying to Id a bird in the top of a tree.

Okay thats great - it's fine if people give their point of view. there is no right or wrong answer here. I just wanted to rule out the potential that someone may enjoy an NL pure on a sunny day at 100 yards but choose a victory sf on a gloomy gray day at 300 yards...

I will say if it's a cloudy/overcast winter day I leave the 32mms and less at the house. I tend to use a 8X50 Leica or a FL 10X42 thinking the larger EP or the AK prism might help a little. Probably no real tangible difference. It makes me feel better tho!

 

[Maljunulo]

Okay thats great - it's fine if people give their point of view. there is no right or wrong answer here. I just wanted to rule out the potential that someone may enjoy an NL pure on a sunny day at 100 yards but choose a victory sf on a gloomy gray day at 300 yards...

Having thought about it, I still think the answer is “no”.

I can’t think of a single rational reason why this would be true.

You are introducing too many simultaneous variables. (I think)

 

[[email protected]]

Having thought about it, I still think the answer is “no”.

I can’t think of a single rational reason why this would be true.

You are introducing too many simultaneous variables. (I think)

You might use the Nl Pure because its neutral color wouldn't introduce any off colors on a sunny day, but the Victory SF would be good on a gloomy day because the slight green cast is better in low light. I believe that is why Zeiss designed the SF with higher green transmission.

 

[tehri]

I guess I’m still confused by the question.
If it’s good at 30’ it’s good at infinity.

🤪

 

[Maljunulo]

View attachment 1581859
🤪

 

[oldtimer88]

I just wanted to make sure I wasn’t using the wrong tool for the job. I also thought the maven b2 did better at distance than the conquest but closer distances I thought the conquest was clearer. I’ve become a hit supporter of that bino even with the narrow afov. I think I enjoy the distinct black outline which allows me to walk my eyes around the whole field and I guess it feels crisper at the edge. Personal opinion though.

Thanks for responses

 

[Patudo]

There are a couple of aspects here - first is viewing conditions, which no one can control and which no binocular can meaningfully resolve (I remember at the last Birdfair I attended there was so much heat haze that it didn't matter whether you were looking through a 10x42 NL or something much lower down in price, the seeing was awful).

The other is characteristics of binoculars that make them suited for observing at particular distances - in which I find some real differences. I agree with this post from one of the members here (link):

longer the view distance gets, higher the chances of 'other things' such as eye comfort, color, atmosphere, hand shake, lens diameter...etc have much larger influence then short distance.

It's a combination of optical characteristics (exit pupil size, which affects eye comfort) and handling/ergonomics (better balance, steadier grip allows tiny objects at long distance to wobble less and be seen more easily - IS and tripod-mounted binoculars are the ultimate expression of this).

so for birding at short distances (sub 50m) where you are often spotting the birds by eye and need only a fairly quick look to discern field marks, I find the modern fast focusing 8x32 or 8x42 birding binocular (Conquest HD, FL) works very well. For scanning further afield I prefer something I can hold as steadily as possible, larger exit pupil and slower focusing helps, and for really significant distances higher mag (10x).

I've visited (albeit only briefly) the SF Bay Area where, from what I gather, the OP lives, so to attempt to use local examples - if I were walking around Golden Gate Park, just general birding, I'd use his 8x42 Conquest HD (ought to work great for that situation). If up on the Spencer Battery trying to follow peregrines off the top of the Golden Gate Bridge 300-odd metres away (and which could fly a lot further), I'd use his 10x50 Maven from a sitting position, elbows braced on my knees - but if wind was forecast to be strong that day would go back to the 8x42 to minimize wind buffet. Of course, in practice, it isn't necessary to have the perfect binocular for every situation - I've brought my 10x40 Dialyt to California and many other places, used it in a wide range of birding situations, and truth be told, have had very little reason to complain.

 

[Maljunulo]

Any binocular is likely to be much better than your bare eyeballs, but fussing over which individual glass out of a stable would be the absolute optimum, strikes me as impractical, to say the least.

 

[oldtimer88]

There are a couple of aspects here - first is viewing conditions, which no one can control and which no binocular can meaningfully resolve (I remember at the last Birdfair I attended there was so much heat haze that it didn't matter whether you were looking through a 10x42 NL or something much lower down in price, the seeing was awful).

The other is characteristics of binoculars that make them suited for observing at particular distances - in which I find some real differences. I agree with this post from one of the members here (link):


It's a combination of optical characteristics (exit pupil size, which affects eye comfort) and handling/ergonomics (better balance, steadier grip allows tiny objects at long distance to wobble less and be seen more easily - IS and tripod-mounted binoculars are the ultimate expression of this).

so for birding at short distances (sub 50m) where you are often spotting the birds by eye and need only a fairly quick look to discern field marks, I find the modern fast focusing 8x32 or 8x42 birding binocular (Conquest HD, FL) works very well. For scanning further afield I prefer something I can hold as steadily as possible, larger exit pupil and slower focusing helps, and for really significant distances higher mag (10x).

I've visited (albeit only briefly) the SF Bay Area where, from what I gather, the OP lives, so to attempt to use local examples - if I were walking around Golden Gate Park, just general birding, I'd use his 8x42 Conquest HD (ought to work great for that situation). If up on the Spencer Battery trying to follow peregrines off the top of the Golden Gate Bridge 300-odd metres away (and which could fly a lot further), I'd use his 10x50 Maven from a sitting position, elbows braced on my knees - but if wind was forecast to be strong that day would go back to the 8x42 to minimize wind buffet. Of course, in practice, it isn't necessary to have the perfect binocular for every situation - I've brought my 10x40 Dialyt to California and many other places, used it in a wide range of birding situations, and truth be told, have had very little reason to complain.

Thank you! The conquest has served me well at Golden Gate Park. Definitely put any doubts I had to rest. Don’t think I’ll try to find a substitute at that price level.