BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!

Register for an account to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ceasar" data-source="post: 1248696" data-attributes="member: 26155">I've been a little under the weather lately so I am a bit late with my comments on this binocular.  As far as it's optical qualities go, I find myself largely in agreement with Frank's analysis in Thread #1 above.  The view is expansive.  It is quite sharp in about the 60% center of the view and, as Frank notes, it falls off rapidly toward the edges.  Much faster than in my Nikon 8 x 30 EII and especially my Nikon 8 x 32 SE.  It's sharpness in the center is very good; almost as good as it is in the centers of my SE and EII.   While examining a dove  perched 75' away on the peak of my neighbor's cinnamon colored, shingle covered roof in bright morning side lighting, I could see better color and more detail in the birds head, eyes and beak with the Nikons than with the Celestron.  Likewise with the details of a Song Sparrow that cooperated by perching in the same place.  The view of a TV tower several miles distant on a mountain was sharper in the Nikon's too.Color's are snappier in the Nikons.  Difference in  color contrast is hard to judge this time of year.  The colors in my area now run the gamut from medium light green to blue green except, of course, for the sky.  I liked the contrast and color rendition best in the SE, then the EII, then the Celestron.I didn't notice any "rolling ball" effect while panning with the Celestrons.  It has minimal pincushion distortion on horizontal and vertical straight edges; about the same as the Nikons.  I saw very little CA on these edges and none while while looking at crows against a bright sky, but I don't notice it anyway unless I look for it.I did a cursory examination of the interiors of the three binoculars through their objectives.  As one would expect, the quality of the work finish on the inside is much better (almost perfect!) inside the SE's than the other 2.  The Celestron's inside finish is crudest.  It shows some rather big globs of what I think is epoxy, which probably support the prisms.  They have a very thick, heavy rubber covered exterior.  Big hands help here.  Very rugged construction!  They weigh 30 Ounces, about 6 ounces more than the Nikons.  FOV is 429' to the SE's 393' or so and the EII's 460'.Sitting upright on their objectives with the eye cups in their down position, the Celestron is about 20mm longer than the EII and 10mm longer than the SE.Alexis asked about the IPD range of the Celestron.  I measured it best as I could, (center of Exit Pupil to center) at 60-61mm to 73mm.  With it's thick eyecups, I think a person with a high bridged nose, and an IPD of 62, might have some problems.  I note that these eye cups are uniform diameter throughout and not tapered inward up from the base like those on my LX L's and Trinovid.I'm keeping them.  I like them, especially at their price of $99.00.  They are handy to have, if you need a loaner pair for a ham handed friend, or just to keep around the house or to take along in the car.Cordially,Bob</blockquote>

Verification