Best marine binoculars? (1 Viewer)

[Gumball]

@Gumball - "compared favourably" (in your post #38) is a bit different to "still surpasses anything currently available" (in your post (#28). The list of four binoculars you've compared to includes two that - for want of a better expression - make one wonder just how well you know the best modern binoculars. And, given that this thread is about marine binoculars, I'd suggest a "star party" is not quite the same as using them at sea - though, to be fair, the 8x60 format ought to work well there.

Again, permit me to clarify . . . . . . . . the only opportunity to try other binoculars in a "dark sky" environment, was at a star party.
I do not own a boat, and I very seldom go out on the ocean.
I listed the binoculars that I used, from my memory, about 10 years ago. Obviously, I should have taken extensive notes. . . . . . . . . . . . .

I don't doubt your 8x60 and indeed the 7x50 are fine binoculars, and of course both are great collectors' items, but to say the former "surpasses anything currently available" needs a bit more comparison. IMO anyway.

"you don.t doubt" . . . .
Question, have you ever had the opportunity to use a Zeiss 7x50 "Fat Boy", a Zeiss 8x60 "Tall Boy", or a Zeiss 8x60 "Fat Boy" binocular ? ?
Under "dark skies" . . . . out on the ocean ? ? or, at another suitable environment ? ? ?

Just wondering about YOUR "comparison" ? ?

just MY . . . . IMO . . . . . . .

-------------------------------

 

[Patudo]

Question, have you ever had the opportunity to use a Zeiss 7x50 "Fat Boy", a Zeiss 8x60 "Tall Boy", or a Zeiss 8x60 "Fat Boy" binocular ? ?
Under "dark skies" . . . . out on the ocean ? ? or, at another suitable environment ? ? ?

Just wondering about YOUR "comparison" ? ?

I'm not the one stating that those WW2 Zeiss models surpass the best modern optics. I don't think anyone who owns or has tried them has claimed that, other than yourself. But if anyone fancies letting me try his, I'd be more than happy to do some comparisons ...

 

[Binastro]

Actually the darkest conditions are not at star parties, but under cloud cover, either on the ocean, say the North Atlantic, or at high altitude dark sites under cloud.

With clear skies, airglow, the Milky Way, even Venus or Jupiter give illumination.
Venus can easily cast shadows, as can Jupiter and probably Mars when brightest. The last two can reach magnitude minus 2.9.

With the Zeiss binoculars mentioned, if coated then if the glare control is superb as it might be, and the optical quality extremely good as it probably is, then it might match the best modern 7x50 say the Fujinon.

The Fujinon, although obviously very good, looks a tight fit for the optics.

The Zeiss may have a bit more space around the optics, which can result in an almost total elimination of glare.
I don't know as I haven't tried them.

I do know that my £5 Leitz 7x50 with thick rubber armour gave a surprisingly good image when I picked it out of the junk box.
It was clearly very well made, although I had no idea what the uncoated binocular was.

The darkest I have ever been was next to the Tenerife observatory under cloud cover at about 7,000ft.
I came within 2 metres of falling into the caldera, as I could see nothing even though dark adapted.
I was not warned the caldera was there.

On La Palma with a clear sky, although the locals said it wasn't a good night because of Saharan dust, it didn't seem particularly dark although my zenithal limiting magnitude was 7.2.
The zodiacal light was very bright and M33 was easily seen with direct vision without optical aid, although few of the others could see this.

The Zeiss and Fujinon would probably give the best chance of seeing a dark ship under cloud cover in the north Atlantic, but this might be beyond their ability also.

Incidentally, at 37,000 ft in a 747 cockpit in mid Atlantic the stars went down to the horizon probably 240 miles away and just cut off by the invisible horizon. They were still bright at the cut off point.
I used a 10x25 to look at a comet. I cannot remember which one.

Regards,
B.

 

[Binastro]

I am pretty sure those Zeiss WW2 binoculars, if not made under pressure, are better optically than any modern binocular, except maybe the Zeiss 20x60S and Nikon WX.

I have 3 or 4 Zeiss Telikon 75cm f/6.3 lenses from the Zeiss RMK survey camera (Made by Busch or Zeiss).
The camera weighs 75kg complete.
The optical quality exceeds that of any modern lens I have tested, although broadcast quality £200,000 lenses may equal them.

The problem, though, is that the Telikon lenses are uncoated.

And the Zeiss binoculars mentioned probably only have single coatings.
It is only the coatings that may impair the transmission of these binoculars, but the actual accuracy of the polished surfaces is probably unmatched in production binoculars.

In some cases Zeiss doublets were found to stick together without balsam, so good were the curves.
It was difficult to separate the two elements, probably heat or cold was used so the different coefficients of expansion allowed separation.
I cannot remember, but it may be that some were left stuck together without balsam if centred properly.

The problem with the Zeiss lenses were that they were too good and took too long to make.

The Dallmeyer 36 inch f/6.3 are very poor by comparison, but stopped down to f/11 or f/8 and with a yellow or red filter on black and white film, millions of photos were taken, which were good enough to give excellent results on the very reliable F52 cameras.

The RMK cameras weighed three times as much and adversely affected the performance of the aircraft carrying it.
These cameras were too good and just too heavy.

Regards,
B.

 

[Gumball]

I'm not the one stating that those WW2 Zeiss models surpass the best modern optics. I don't think anyone who owns or has tried them has claimed that, other than yourself

AGAIN . . . . . I made it clear (on several posts) that these are MY perceptions and observations, and NOT backed up by Scientific Fact.

so . . . . it is acceptable for others to post their "perspectives" and "perceptions" . . . . . . . . well then . . . . . . .

.

 

[Gumball]

Actually the darkest conditions are not at star parties, but under cloud cover, either on the ocean, say the North Atlantic, or at high altitude dark sites under cloud.

. . . . thank you for clarifying that . . . . . . . .very helpful . . . . . .

Hello all!
Trying to find the best binoculars for a sailing yacht.
Already own Steiner 7x50 commander and I don’t like it at all
I bought EL 10x42 it’s good but FOW sometimes is not enough and 10x is too much on the waves.
What do you recommend and why it is no alpha marine binoculars?
Thank you!

I read several posts to your thread, and attempted to answer the question of "best" from my personal experience, and with some attempted levity added.
I hope my posts have been of assistance to you, or at the very least, entertaining.

 

[Gumball]

I posted a few replies to the thread question, with a little additional levity.
I have attempted to answer all questions from my perspective, and from my experiences.
I have stated time and again that I am a very amateur observer. I have a small binocular collection.
I have no optical training.

. . . . and the replies have varied from mild disagreement (which I am happy with), to invective, to confrontational.
It appears that some post their "feelings and observations" at will . . . . . . but then any disagreement is taken as a personal insult . . . . . .
.
very well . . . . . .

.

 

[Binastro]

'Nobody's perfect'

Ending, Some like it hot.

B.

 

[WJC]

Nice job.
Did you cut it by yourself?

Jan

Yes, Jan. A diamond saw can work wonders!

 

[Maljunulo]

AGAIN . . . . . I made it clear (on several posts) that these are MY perceptions and observations, and NOT backed up by Scientific Fact.

so . . . . it is acceptable for others to post their "perspectives" and "perceptions" . . . . . . . . well then . . . . . . .

.

This post is precisely why you should always actually look through the binocular(s) you think you want to buy.

Reading spec sheets, or asking for recommendations is folly, but it keeps this place humming along in fine fettle.

To say nothing of the discussion that would result from attempting to define “best”.

 

[Patudo]

This post is precisely why you should always actually look through the binocular(s) you think you want to buy.

That's indeed the counsel of perfection - yet how many of us have bought binoculars sight unseen (off Ebay etc) or with a less intensive trial than we would like to have had? I have to put my hand up to both...

 

[Gumball]

This post is precisely why you should always actually look through the binocular(s) you think you want to buy.

Reading spec sheets, or asking for recommendations is folly, but it keeps this place humming along in fine fettle.

To say nothing of the discussion that would result from attempting to define “best”.

.
I have purchased over a dozen binoculars from ebay, "sight unseen"
.
First, I judge by the seller's "feedback" . . . ie. if the seller's feedback is 100% over a few hundred sales and several years, I judge him trustworthy.
If it is a "new" seller, or has a lower feedback, then you roll the dice.
Second, I usually have several questions for the seller, I listen to his answers.
Occasionally, I ask for more photos.
Third, I ensure that ebay's money-back guarantee is in effect.

I have yet to regret a purchase. . . . . . . . . . (obviously your folly is more prevalent than mine . . . . . . . .)

.

 

[Maljunulo]

.
I have purchased over a dozen binoculars from ebay, "sight unseen"
.
First, I judge by the seller's "feedback" . . . ie. if the seller's feedback is 100% over a few hundred sales and several years, I judge him trustworthy.
If it is a "new" seller, or has a lower feedback, then you roll the dice.
Second, I usually have several questions for the seller, I listen to his answers.
Occasionally, I ask for more photos.
Third, I ensure that ebay's money-back guarantee is in effect.

I have yet to regret a purchase. . . . . . . . . . (obviously your folly is more prevalent than mine . . . . . . . .)

.

My comment was addressing whether or not the instrument would “fit” the buyer, and had nothing to do with whether the seller is “trustworthy”.

Perhaps I wasn’t clear.

 

[Pinewood]

Hello,

I have several 7x50 binoculars dedicated for marine use. Optically the brightest and newest is the Zeiss 7x50BGAT.



However, I think that Romanian clone of the Zeiss Jena 7x40 military glass

pictured on the left above, would do very nicely without the bulk of the 7x50. The 7x40 should have a larger FOV than the Habicht 7x42. The binocular on the right, the Zeiss 7x42 ClassiC would not be suitable for marine use because of its lack of reliable waterproofing. Unfortunately, neither is in production.

Stay safe,
Arthur

 

[jan van daalen]

Currently one for sale on the catawiki auction site (binoculars) the Zeiss 7x50 T* West Germany in mint condition. Last bid is 630,00 dollar/700,00 euro. 1 day to go.

Jan (who has no part in this)

 

[Patudo]

I'd be surprised if the winning bid wasn't higher!

The only problem with this binocular model as a working binocular is that now that Zeiss have discontinued it, it's become desired by collectors (ZOMG it's Zeiss's LAST EVER PORRO!!!). Fortunately Fujinon and others offer alternatives that at least in the case of the FMTR are pretty damn good - I suppose if the Asian products weren't competitive quality wise, Zeiss wouldn't have stopped production.

7x50 is noticeably more stable than 7x42 in a small boat from what I've seen. Not by a huge amount, but still noticeable.

 

[jan van daalen]

I'd be surprised if the winning bid wasn't higher!

The only problem with this binocular model as a working binocular is that now that Zeiss have discontinued it, it's become desired by collectors (ZOMG it's Zeiss's LAST EVER PORRO!!!). Fortunately Fujinon and others offer alternatives that at least in the case of the FMTR are pretty damn good - I suppose if the Asian products weren't competitive quality wise, Zeiss wouldn't have stopped production.

7x50 is noticeably more stable than 7x42 in a small boat from what I've seen. Not by a huge amount, but still noticeable.

I was told by Zeiss that the reason was economics.
It was to expensive to built.

Regarding the bin on the auction. According to the given specs the built period would be between 2000 and 2010.
Unfortunately it is Made in West Germany but it is a T* so the building period lies between '78 and '89 (however Zeiss used that stamp also 'till 91).
According to the ##142319 I suspect the mnfr date will be around 1985.

......and sold for 750,00 euro's.

Jan

 

[Foss]

@ Arthur: The Zeiss 7x50BGAT is hard to beat.