Critical first time bin purchaser seeking advice (sorry, I tried searching) (1 Viewer)

[AdrianB]

Good day all

I regularly bird and observe nature with my partner behind cameras (Nikon 70-200 VR general main stay with a few other more specialist lenses). However, watching often brings more pleasure than capturing any moment. Binoculars are really essential to getting closer and just observing. What binoculars should I be considering?

I'm looking for appropriate binoculars (two pairs) that have:

> Good eye relief (both glass wearers)
> Mid size or below (8x32 being mid size) - need portability, too much gear already!
> Excellent optics (detest colour fringing and distortion)
> Very good comfort (only one way to judge this I guess...)
> Water proof (will be used in rain at times - but also humid tropical environments)
> Dust proof (also be used in desert)
> Used 90% for nature observing (particularly birds - small wrens, finches - less waterbirds and large animals)
> Observation also done around dusk/dawn and in heavily covered forest (low light)

Do I need to look to the Ultravids, FLs and EL in 8x32 or are there other choices? My budget stretches to the 'top end' but wondering about other alternatives (particularly for the second pair - perhaps a compact version).

Am I wasting my money by going 'all out' and would I be better off with something mid-range to get technique, etc down pat?

Any point looking at Canon's IS binoculars as a second pair for an experiment or are the optics not up to scratch?

I assume that it's best to have a bin for each observer? Sharing would be difficult with diopeter adjustment and eye spacing?

Reading extensively I keep leaning towards the top end 8x32s but wonder if it's overdoing it...

Hopefully you can point me in the right direction...

 

[Otto McDiesel]

I recently wrote about the three 8x32's side by side. For eyeglass users, FL and EL would work. I find the EL 8x32 more pleasant to use and with a nicer and more relaxing image. The Nikon LX 8x32 also is excellent and has long eye relief.
You are not wasting your money, the top binoculars are exactly that, top, and if you can afford them, get them - you do get what you pay for. From what you describe, the FL or the EL should do the job for you - most likely the EL will be comfortable, easy to use, beautiful optics etc. Unfortunately the Ultravid has short eye relief. The LX is the heaviest of the bunch. The Swarovski SLCnew 8x30 is also fantastic - i don't know how it works with eyeglasses.

 

[Tero]

I assume that it's best to have a bin for each observer? Sharing would be difficult with diopeter adjustment and eye spacing?

Yes, each observer should have one. If there are two of you, get one good one and one slightly cheaper*, switch when needed if one is a lot worse. Nobody should be without one, you will miss all the fun.

*Minox and Pentax make a decent compact in the 8x30 or so range.

Observation also done around dusk/dawn and in heavily covered forest (low light)

In that case you may want your second pair to be 7x42.

 

[bradshrike]

Unfortunately the Ultravid has short eye relief.

I've decided that those that think the Ultravid doesn't have enouigh eye-relief haven't screwed the eyecups out far enough... they are quite stiff and difficult to fully extend and I didn't notice mine weren't fully out until several days after purchasing them. I too thought the eye relief was short until I got them fully extended. They're every bit as good as the 8x32 EL eye-relief wise but not quite as nice as the FL's.

Regarding 8x32-ish glass, that's all I've used for over twenty years. I've owned a variety including Swaro 7x30 and 8x30 SLC's, and Leica 8x32 BN's and BR's. I've also tried all the top 8x32's including Zeiss, Swaro, Leica, and Nikon. Of these four, the 8x32 EL doesn't belong in the same sentence as the others IMO. I love the 8.5x42 EL's but, to my eyes, the 8x32 EL's fall quite short image wise of other glass in this category despite wonderful ergonomic's and the best US customer serice of the top four.

The Zeiss is beautiful in nearly all respects but I'm leary of their construction type and quality of construction. Zeiss US customer service is an unknown to me.

The Nikon LXL is absolutely on par image-wise with the Leica Ultravid but I can't like its ergonomics and controls compared to the Ultravid. Here in the US Nikon's warranty service doesn't have much of a reputation.

I went with the Ultravid and love them. I swapped out the Ultravid rainguard for the BN rainguard and am now absolutely satisfied. My only wish is they were 7x32's. The Leica is utterly robust and beautifully detailed. The accessories are perfect for my needs. The Zeiss was my only other consideration (could have gotten them for $150 US less) but, in the end, the Leica is a known quantity in terms of durability and customer service.

 

[FrankD]

I've decided that those that think the Ultravid doesn't have enouigh eye-relief haven't screwed the eyecups out far enough... they are quite stiff and difficult to fully extend and I didn't notice mine weren't fully out until several days after purchasing them. I too thought the eye relief was short until I got them fully extended. They're every bit as good as the 8x32 EL eye-relief wise but not quite as nice as the FL's.

Brad,

Help me out here. I have seen other comments such as these and I need a bit of clarification. Eye relief is the distance that the image focuses correctly behind the binoculars eyepiece and that allows the fullest field of view without blackouts, yes? If a given binocular has an eye relief of 17 mm with the eyecups twisted down tight against the eyepiece then twisting the eyecups up to avoid blackouts effectively shortens the eyerelief, right? I mean the eyerelief is still the same amount from the eyepiece but the individual is shortening the distance that the eye can be placed back from the eyepiece.

I guess I am operating under the assumption that the binoculars "natural state", for lack of a better term, is with the eyecups fully collapsed around the eyepiece. If you were beginning your comments with the perspective that the natural state was for the eyecups to be fully extended then I understand your original comments.

As to the original question, would everyone be ruling out the 8x32 Trinovid BNs because of the 15 mm of eye relief? Would that be considered too short for eyeglass wearers? If not then I think they would be an excellent suggestion as their ultrawide field of view, 22 ounce weight and top grade optical design would be perfect for this gentleman's situation. Add to that the fact that they are less expensive than the current top offerings from Zeiss, Leica and Swaro (but in the same price range as the Nikon when they [the Leica] are on sale).

 

[Tero]

The trinovid specs are in these somewhat useless American units on the Eagleoptics site
Field of View 405 ft./1000 yds.
Eye Relief 14 mm
Close Focus 7.2 ft.
Weight 22 oz.
Dimensions (HxW) 4.5 x 4.6 in.
Weatherproofing Waterproof/Nitrogen Purged

Those are pretty good. If I paid that much for a binocular, I would expect the FOV to be at least 400. I can get about 370 with my cheap store brand 8x32s. Victory goes to 420ft, but eye relief still just 16mm

Zeiss Victory FL 8x32 T* Black Binoculars
Field of View 420 ft./1000 yds.
Eye Relief 16mm
Close Focus 6.5 ft.
Weight 19.75 oz.
Dimensions (HxW) 4.6 x 5.1 in.
Weatherproofing Waterproof/Fogproof

 

[Alexis Powell]

Brad,
Help me out here. I have seen other comments such as these and I need a bit of clarification. Eye relief is the distance that the image focuses correctly behind the binoculars eyepiece and that allows the fullest field of view without blackouts, yes?

Brad is writing about eye-relief, but not in the way we usually discuss it w/respect to using binos with glasses. Some binos have such short eye-relief (like 10 mm or less) that they are not comfortable to be used with naked eyes because one's eyelashes and lids graze the oculars when blinking. Having enough eye-relief such that the eyecups are deep enough to place the eye 10+ mm behind the ocular make them more comfortable. I don't see many binos these days that fail to do this.

As to the original question, would everyone be ruling out the 8x32 Trinovid BNs because of the 15 mm of eye relief? Would that be considered too short for eyeglass wearers?

The 8x32 Trinovid and Ultravid only have about 14 mm of eye-relief, so they are not an option for some glasses wearers. I wear glasses and usually prefer 18 mm or so. I find that I have to check for myself whether binos with less than a claimed 18 mm will be comfortable. Many binos that supposedly have 16 mm do not work for me, but many others do. The 8x32 Ultravids and Trinovids happen to be the largest ocular binos with the shortest eye-relief that fit within my comfort limits (my beloved Nikon 8x30 EII are just on the other side of my limits--they do not have quite enough eye-relief to allow me to comfortably see the full field). The 8x32 Trinovid is one of my favorite bins of all time, and I use them regularly. Whether a given amount of eye-relief works depends on eyecup design, one's pupil diameter (more needed when pupil is contracted--so beware testing inside stores!) and on the ocular assembly diameter (an often unrecognized issue, but one that has been discussed in older threads on this topic.)
--AP

 

[ceasar]

The trinovid specs are in these somewhat useless American units on the Eagleoptics site
Field of View 405 ft./1000 yds...............

Jeez Tero!

We won WWI and WWII with these "somewhat useless American units.... ."

You want we should go back and do things over the "right" way?

Cordially,
Bob

 

[Tero]

I've been measuring things to 1/4 inch accuracy, it gets fuzzy to me after that, seems to be a binary sytem, 1/4, 1/8, 1/16, 1/32, 1/64, etc.

and it messed up a Mars landing.

 

[ceasar]

I've been measuring things to 1/4 inch accuracy, it gets fuzzy to me after that, seems to be a binary sytem, 1/4, 1/8, 1/16, 1/32, 1/64, etc.

and it messed up a Mars landing.

Were they using the metric system when they messed up the Hubble Telescope before they put it in orbit?
Just curious,
Bob

 

[Otto McDiesel]

Were they using the metric system when they messed up the Hubble Telescope before they put it in orbit?
Just curious,
Bob

No, because they did not understand it.

By the way, that Fahrenheit guy was another complete idiot. Why would water freeze at 32F and boil at 212F and not 31F/211F? It makes logical sense to use a decimal system and have water freezing at 0C and boiling at 100C.
Inches? Yards? Miles? 1/16, 3/8. The creation of contorted minds.

 

[Curtis Croulet]

Were they using the metric system when they messed up the Hubble Telescope before they put it in orbit?
Just curious,
Bob

That was an error in figuring the primary mirror. The error was independent of the measurement system employed. A brother-in-law of mine is just now retiring from many years of employment with a company that makes major structural components for satellites, including the still-functioning Chandra X-ray Observatory and the forthcoming James Webb Space Telescope. He has told me that American spacecraft are still often built with English measurements. Whether it's to be English or SI is specified in the contract documents. I don't know how it works with projects that are done in cooperation with the ESA.

 

[Curtis Croulet]

No, because they did not understand it.

By the way, that Fahrenheit guy was another complete idiot. Why would water freeze at 32F and boil at 212F and not 31F/211F? It makes logical sense to use a decimal system and have water freezing at 0C and boiling at 100C.
Inches? Yards? Miles? 1/16, 3/8. The creation of contorted minds.

Fahrenheit's system used the freezing point of a fully saturated solution of salt water as his zero point. 32 deg F as the freezing point of pure water was not arbitrary. The difference between 32 deg F and 212 deg F is 180, a semicircle, which he thought had some significance.

In a pre-industrial culture, it would have been much easier to divide things into halves, quarters, etc., (fold the rope in half; double the length of the current piece to make a larger one) than into tenths.

Wasn't there a recent revolt of some shopkeepers in the UK over demands that they convert to SI?

All that being acknowledged, I personally favor the immediate adoption of SI in the US wherever possible. But my recent career has been selling new homes, and I've become very aware that some functions will not change in our lifetime, if ever. Land is laid out in acres, and since much of it was surveyed into sections and townships over 200 years ago, it's not going to change -- ever. Even land in California that was outside the Spanish ranchos was divided by the land survey system soon after Calif. became a state. Homes and all of their components are built to English standards, and that's not going to change. Even the National Weather Service still publishes all weather data in English units.

 

[Tero]

And we still have quarters for coins. And half of something is a bit.

 

[Sancho]

And we still have quarters for coins. And half of something is a bit.

In Ireland, we used to have Sterling money (pounds, shillings, pennies, halfpennies, farthings, all that mullarkey...=, then we went "new" money (100p to an Irish Pound), now we have the Euro. A great currency. Decimal and international. And we used to have miles, and Fahrenheit, and all that, but everything converted to Celsius and Kilometres (even all the road-signs) recently, without so much as a whimper from the Old Guard. Not sure if the quality of life has improved, but it makes things a lot easier for schoolkids having to learn all that stuff. (Never could figure out what a bloody guinea was in Primary School in the sixties).

 

[ceasar]

Luca: Alas, human beings are not logical creatures. Listen to any talk show!

Curtis: Thanks much for your short essays on the above subjects. They are informative and interesting.

Sancho: I'd like to observe, without starting an argument, that the citizen's of the British Isles have, in the last 50 years or so, accepted an awful lot of changes without whimpering or worse. Only you know if they have all been beneficial.

Cordially,
Bob

 

[Curtis Croulet]

In Ireland, we used to have Sterling money (pounds, shillings, pennies, halfpennies, farthings, all that mullarkey...etc.

In the 1950s I subscribed to a publication called RAF Flying Review. It was for aviation enthusiasts, with all kinds of cool photos and articles. Subscription rates and everything else were stated in pounds, shillings and pence. I took great pride in being one American who knew how many shillings were in a pound and how many pence were in a shilling and their US dollar equivalents (exchange rates were fixed in those days). Wasn't it something like 20 shillings to a pound and 12 pence to a shilling? My apologies if that's not right.

 

[MacGee]

...Wasn't it something like 20 shillings to a pound and 12 pence to a shilling? My apologies if that's not right.

That's right, Curtis. And a guinea was 21 shillings. We've had a decimal system since 1971. We started introducing the metric sytem in 1973, but the coffee still comes in 454g bags.

Michael

 

[kmonty1950]

Not sure if the quality of life has improved, but it makes things a lot easier for schoolkids having to learn all that stuff.

Sorry Sancho, the quality of life has not improved - I can't get a pint of cider for one shilling and threepence any more!! 8-P

All the best

Ken.

 

[AdrianB]

I'll see your obsolete coins and raise your a sequin!

Sorry -- to get back to the subject -- thank you for your responses. After much searching have managed to locate a great shop in Melbourne which carries almost every contender (except the Zeiss). Will be making final decision today!

Kind regards
Adrian