Lot 139 - A FINE, POSSIBLY UNISSUED, PAIR OF 8 X 60
Lot 139 - A FINE, POSSIBLY UNISSUED, PAIR OF 8 X 60 - Estimate 4000-6000 GBP
-
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.
Best marine binoculars? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter VS007
- Start date
Wow!Lot 139 - A FINE, POSSIBLY UNISSUED, PAIR OF 8 X 60
Lot 139 - A FINE, POSSIBLY UNISSUED, PAIR OF 8 X 60 - Estimate 4000-6000 GBPwww.charlesmillerltd.com
Ordered
tenex
reality-based
Replacement eyecups may be scarce, and I don't see the cleaning cloth, which probably belonged in the loop with the brush.Lot 139 - A FINE, POSSIBLY UNISSUED, PAIR OF 8 X 60
Lot 139 - A FINE, POSSIBLY UNISSUED, PAIR OF 8 X 60 - Estimate 4000-6000 GBP
How much did one of these weigh?
Last edited:
Gumball
Member
Those 8x60 are known as "Commanders Glasses", or "Tall Ones"
They are excellent glasses (I have a pair), but they are not completely waterproof, as are the 7x50 in the photo that I posted.
Also, the price is vastly increased (probably because they are described as "unissued")
A decent price for Zeiss (blc) 8x60, is approximately $2000 to $3500.
Last edited:
Gumball
Member
Weight of the WW2 8x60 is about 2200 grams, where the 7x50 that I posted is about 1750 grams.
Gumball
Member
But, if you are looking for the BEST 8x60 glasses . . . . .
These are known as Zeiss "Captain's Glasses", or "8x60 Fat Ones"
There were only a few made before the end of WW2, and exclusively issued to the more successful U-boat Captains.
The focus adjustment is identical to the 7x50 "Fat Ones", and these are completely sealed against moisture as well.
These are heavy - 2600 grams. But the low-light view and depth of field still surpasses anything currently available.
Quite rare, and demand a price of $4K to $7K.
These are known as Zeiss "Captain's Glasses", or "8x60 Fat Ones"
There were only a few made before the end of WW2, and exclusively issued to the more successful U-boat Captains.
The focus adjustment is identical to the 7x50 "Fat Ones", and these are completely sealed against moisture as well.
These are heavy - 2600 grams. But the low-light view and depth of field still surpasses anything currently available.
Quite rare, and demand a price of $4K to $7K.
Last edited:
A pre 1920 uncoated Zeiss 7x50 probably has a transmission of 50%, possibly 60%.
I think my Nikon Marine 7x50 will probably provide a better view and will be just as or more relaxing.
I do have an uncoated Leitz coded 7x50 that provides a very nice view.
It has very thick armour.
I paid the asking price of £5 from a camera fair junk box.
Only when I got it home did I find any markings, as the thick armour covered everything.
The fact that the 7x50 Zeiss goes down to 150 metres is not useful to humans. Perhaps a deep diving marine creature might benefit.
As to increased depth of field, that is not optically correct, unless the field is curved
An 8x60 with a 7.5mm exit pupil makes it easier to get a full view, and young people can easily reach 7.5mm eye pupil.
The Ross 10x80 are probably much heavier than the Zeiss 8x60 and have an 8mm exit pupil.
I carried 6 boxed ones up the stairs to be serviced.
Some of the Zeiss 8x60s, maybe early ones, go for much higher prices than you mention.
One maybe fetched $80,000.
It also depends on condition.
Unfortunately binoculars don't fetch the $15,000,000 of a recently sold Leica camera.
Regards,
B.
I think my Nikon Marine 7x50 will probably provide a better view and will be just as or more relaxing.
I do have an uncoated Leitz coded 7x50 that provides a very nice view.
It has very thick armour.
I paid the asking price of £5 from a camera fair junk box.
Only when I got it home did I find any markings, as the thick armour covered everything.
The fact that the 7x50 Zeiss goes down to 150 metres is not useful to humans. Perhaps a deep diving marine creature might benefit.
As to increased depth of field, that is not optically correct, unless the field is curved
An 8x60 with a 7.5mm exit pupil makes it easier to get a full view, and young people can easily reach 7.5mm eye pupil.
The Ross 10x80 are probably much heavier than the Zeiss 8x60 and have an 8mm exit pupil.
I carried 6 boxed ones up the stairs to be serviced.
Some of the Zeiss 8x60s, maybe early ones, go for much higher prices than you mention.
One maybe fetched $80,000.
It also depends on condition.
Unfortunately binoculars don't fetch the $15,000,000 of a recently sold Leica camera.
Regards,
B.
Gumball
Member
150 meters
I merely mentioned that to illustrate that these were completely waterproof.
(I was not suggesting that anyone take them to 150 meters depth to find out)
Depth of field:
I have my 7x50 "Fat Boys" focused to read script at a distance of 150-200 meters, and when viewing stars in the sky, they appear correctly.
(unsure about "optically correct" or "curved field", but the view is crystal clear at any distance)
Ross:
I have a pair of 10x70, the weight is 3.5kg, and the exit pupil is 7 degrees, FOV - 92 m/1000m
(nice binoculars, but much too heavy to hand-hold.
,
WJC
Well-known member
"Optically correct" probably means "collimated." As for curved field, please note my sales tool from Captain's Nautical.
Attachments
jan van daalen
Well-known member
Nice job.
Did you cut it by yourself?
Jan
Did you cut it by yourself?
Jan
Gumball
Member
. . . . "probably means" ?? " . . . . YES, they are accurately and correctly collimated.
. . . . "curved field" . . . I am not an Optical Physicist, but the Zeiss 7x50 and the 8x60 "Fat Boys" do have the view that I described.
.
I posted these pics a simple example of a couple of the binoculars available for very specific applications.
And I have tried to answer every question to the best of my knowledge.
As well as attempting to add a light note to this thread.
My desire was not to post a subject of contention, nor to initiate an argument.
.
Last edited:
Perhaps you could inform us which modern binoculars you have compared the 8x60 to, under what circumstances, and provide some of your observations as to why they "surpass anything currently available"?
Probably artistic licence.
The depth of field comment is probably not accurate but a feeling.
The low light level might be close to reality if a coated example.
The actual binocular probably cost more to make than any currently made consumer binocular.
Personally, I have no desire for such an 8x60 binocular or to haul around an 8x56 in daylight.
But some like to do this.
As to values.
There is new. Never been sold.
As new, similar but maybe missing paperwork or boxes.
Mint. No marks or sign of use.
Mint minus. minimal signs of use.
Excellent. Self explanatory.
Good. the same.
Used. Signs of considerable use.
Well used. Pretty poor cosmetically, but should work properly optically.
Faulty. Needs a professional overhaul.
Parts only. Not commercially fixable.
The 8x60 is probably Used.
Regards,
B.
The depth of field comment is probably not accurate but a feeling.
The low light level might be close to reality if a coated example.
The actual binocular probably cost more to make than any currently made consumer binocular.
Personally, I have no desire for such an 8x60 binocular or to haul around an 8x56 in daylight.
But some like to do this.
As to values.
There is new. Never been sold.
As new, similar but maybe missing paperwork or boxes.
Mint. No marks or sign of use.
Mint minus. minimal signs of use.
Excellent. Self explanatory.
Good. the same.
Used. Signs of considerable use.
Well used. Pretty poor cosmetically, but should work properly optically.
Faulty. Needs a professional overhaul.
Parts only. Not commercially fixable.
The 8x60 is probably Used.
Regards,
B.
Gumball
Member
Please permit to address your questions:
- "probably artistic license"
. . . . . . as I have previously stated, the observations that I posted were my personal perspectives
- "The depth of field comment is probably not accurate but a feeling"
. . . . as I stated, I do not have a degree as an Optical Physicist, therefore all I can do is relay my "feelings", and because I have 20/15 vision. . . . .
. . . . . I have not had my binoculars tested by a Certified Optical Laboratory
- "The low light level might be close to reality if a coated example"
. . . . . . . yes, in the later years of manufacture (1944-1945) the optics in the "Fat Boys" were coated
- "Personally, I have no desire for such an 8x60 binocular or to haul around an 8x56 in daylight"
. . . . . . . . how about in low light, or at night (which is what these binoculars excel at)
. . . . . . . . Congratulations, that would be your personal choice . . . . . . . .
- "The 8x60 is probably Used."
. . . . . . . . considering that the 7x50 and the 8x60 "Fat Boys" were manufactured during the WW2 (1941-1945) era, that would be an accurate assumption.
.
Last edited:
Gumball
Member
I have had the opportunity to do a side-by-side comparison (at night) with a few other binoculars:
- Zeiss 10x50 Night Owl
- Fujinon 7x50 FMTR
- Nikon 10x50 EII
- Swarovski 10x50 EL
To clarify:
- I do not own, nor do I have available a pair of the Zeiss 8x60 "Fat Boys"
My memory tells me that the "Fat Boys" were marginally better (but that is my memory)
- the comparisons were performed with my Zeiss 8x60 "Tall Boy" binoculars (manufactured in 1944)
- I was fortunate enough to find a pair in optically very good condition.
- I had them serviced (disassembled, cleaned and collimated) by a professional (Mountain Optics in Oceanside, Ca)
- my vision is 20/15
- my comments are my personal perspectives, I have done no scientific tests.
- the comparisons were performed at a "star party" a few years ago.
The Zeiss 8x60 "Tall Boy" compared favorably with all of the above. The light-gathering and clarity were equal to any of the comparison binoculars that I had the opportunity to try. Because mine were 8x60, the perceived field of view was better.
The negative - the 8x60 binoculars are large and heavy (2200 grams/4.8 lb)
,
Last edited:
At night I prefer my good Japanese 1975 20x80 or the specially made Soviet 20x60.
Or a 12x56.
I have no interest in an 8x56 or 10x56.
15x60 Zeiss.
15x70 Quantam.
Canon IS 10x30, 12x36 Mk I, 18x50, 10x42 L.
I have never had a liking for a 7x50 but prefer a 10x50 or 12x50, even when young with 7mm pupils.
This includes dark sites in La Palma, Tenerife and Finland National parks.
My eyes were also 20/15 or maybe a bit better when young.
I could see 13 Pleiads from sea level and 15 or 16 on La Palma in not very good conditions without optical aid in my late forties.
M33 easily seen with direct vision on La Palma with Saharan dust in the air.
Incidentally the EII is 10x35, so maybe a different Nikon 10x50.
Regards,
B.
Or a 12x56.
I have no interest in an 8x56 or 10x56.
15x60 Zeiss.
15x70 Quantam.
Canon IS 10x30, 12x36 Mk I, 18x50, 10x42 L.
I have never had a liking for a 7x50 but prefer a 10x50 or 12x50, even when young with 7mm pupils.
This includes dark sites in La Palma, Tenerife and Finland National parks.
My eyes were also 20/15 or maybe a bit better when young.
I could see 13 Pleiads from sea level and 15 or 16 on La Palma in not very good conditions without optical aid in my late forties.
M33 easily seen with direct vision on La Palma with Saharan dust in the air.
Incidentally the EII is 10x35, so maybe a different Nikon 10x50.
Regards,
B.
@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.
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.
-------------------------------
I've just returned from three days on the water targeting tuna, which in that area is best done by scanning for flocks of birds. The number of birds, their species and their manner of flight can be critical in finding the fish and figuring out what species they are and how likely they are to bite. This can be done by the unaided eye, but binoculars significantly extend your search range and came in very useful on my previous trip. So I spent a lot of time - around 4-5 hours each day - looking through my 7x42 Dialyt (P model) and a Swaro 8.5x42 Fieldpro. There weren't many fish around and I felt as though I turned my eyeballs inside out by the end of the trip with all the scanning. But I did get a good perspective of both binoculars.
Notes as follows:
8.5x42 SV FP - I thought image quality was better and the flat field seemed to be an advantage, seeming to give greater apparent depth of field. Great in calm seas, with the higher magnification enabling longer reach, but at times, especially when moving around, it would get bumpy enough that it became difficult to use. On a larger boat (I think our vessel was only about 22ft?) they'd be great. Fully waterproof and could be rinsed off with a tap.
7x42 Dialyt - noticeably steadier, and better when conditions were bumpy for that reason. Definitely better than relying on the naked eye, but I felt the 8.5x42 had better reach, and shifted to those whenever I could. Sweet spot is large, but I thought the edges being less sharp was unexpectedly distracting.
I also tried an older Japanese single coated 7x50 which I had purchased for my host. I couldn't use it fully, as it didn't have enough eye relief to use with glasses and didn't have enough focus beyond infinity for me to use it without. But this format had the greatest perceived steadiness. The image was distinctly more yellow than the two more modern roofs, but brightness wasn't a real issue (most times it was really bright and sunny). Field of view is narrow (only 7.2 degrees) but I don't think this is a serious disadvantage as the arcs you are scanning are relatively small.
I have also used my 8x42 FL for this purpose and it compares quite well to the 8.5x42 Swaro but I would prefer it to be sharp all the way to the edge. For some reason I seem to find this quite important when at sea.
For general marine observation I think the 7x50 Fujinon would be hard to beat - 7x50 would give the greatest ease of view/perceived steadiness, especially on a smaller vessel, and I think the flat field/sharpness to the edge would also help. It's more available than the 7x50B Zeisses (both out of production). You don't have to worry about the electronics breaking down. And it's fully waterproof. For more specialist use, like what I was doing, the Fujinon 14x40 (image-stabilized), which I haven't yet tried, would probably be very useful. I'm told Fraser-Volpes are better yet, but are extremely expensive - not worth the cost unless you're a professional fishing boat that depends on spotting birds (IMO anyway).
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.
-------------------------------
I've just returned from three days on the water targeting tuna, which in that area is best done by scanning for flocks of birds. The number of birds, their species and their manner of flight can be critical in finding the fish and figuring out what species they are and how likely they are to bite. This can be done by the unaided eye, but binoculars significantly extend your search range and came in very useful on my previous trip. So I spent a lot of time - around 4-5 hours each day - looking through my 7x42 Dialyt (P model) and a Swaro 8.5x42 Fieldpro. There weren't many fish around and I felt as though I turned my eyeballs inside out by the end of the trip with all the scanning. But I did get a good perspective of both binoculars.
Notes as follows:
8.5x42 SV FP - I thought image quality was better and the flat field seemed to be an advantage, seeming to give greater apparent depth of field. Great in calm seas, with the higher magnification enabling longer reach, but at times, especially when moving around, it would get bumpy enough that it became difficult to use. On a larger boat (I think our vessel was only about 22ft?) they'd be great. Fully waterproof and could be rinsed off with a tap.
7x42 Dialyt - noticeably steadier, and better when conditions were bumpy for that reason. Definitely better than relying on the naked eye, but I felt the 8.5x42 had better reach, and shifted to those whenever I could. Sweet spot is large, but I thought the edges being less sharp was unexpectedly distracting.
I also tried an older Japanese single coated 7x50 which I had purchased for my host. I couldn't use it fully, as it didn't have enough eye relief to use with glasses and didn't have enough focus beyond infinity for me to use it without. But this format had the greatest perceived steadiness. The image was distinctly more yellow than the two more modern roofs, but brightness wasn't a real issue (most times it was really bright and sunny). Field of view is narrow (only 7.2 degrees) but I don't think this is a serious disadvantage as the arcs you are scanning are relatively small.
I have also used my 8x42 FL for this purpose and it compares quite well to the 8.5x42 Swaro but I would prefer it to be sharp all the way to the edge. For some reason I seem to find this quite important when at sea.
For general marine observation I think the 7x50 Fujinon would be hard to beat - 7x50 would give the greatest ease of view/perceived steadiness, especially on a smaller vessel, and I think the flat field/sharpness to the edge would also help. It's more available than the 7x50B Zeisses (both out of production). You don't have to worry about the electronics breaking down. And it's fully waterproof. For more specialist use, like what I was doing, the Fujinon 14x40 (image-stabilized), which I haven't yet tried, would probably be very useful. I'm told Fraser-Volpes are better yet, but are extremely expensive - not worth the cost unless you're a professional fishing boat that depends on spotting birds (IMO anyway).
