Thanks Bryce!I have the 10x43's! Spent alot of A-B,ing against others. To tell you the truth I have never regretted the purchase one bit! Some will say they lack the fov??? I have yet to come across a situation that the fov has enabled me to miss an ID or have a problem following a moving object!!! There are times when cal is present, but what glass doesn't exhibit some cal? What you get is excellent saturation of color, sharp highly resolved details!!! I have posted here as well as other forums on the brands that I compared to! If you want to spend the money $999.00 or whatever you can get them for you won't be at a disadvantage because you didn't pay $1,800.00. I never feel handicapped, I just smile knowing I didn't have to pay $2,000.00 to get alpha quality views!!! Bryce...
Thanks Bob.It is good to see some discussion on the Pentax DCF ED series. I own the 10x50 size and like it very much. I have also used the the 8x32 size, which I returned because I found the strap post rubbed one of the bones in my hand a bit. I do not have any problems with the placement of the strap post in the larger 10x50 size. The view in the 8x32 is wonderful, as is the 10x50. I highly recommend this series.
Good Stuff! Not the positive review I was hoping for, but good honest stuff nonetheless. Hopefully more people will chime in with DCF ED observations.I've partially tested two pairs of of Pentax 8x32 DCF ED. I say partially tested because I only did a quick artificial star-test and measured the resolution with the magnification boosted to 64x. I intended to do a complete review, but never got around to it.
The 8x image looked just fine, but closer scrutiny at boosted magnification revealed a consistent defect in both pairs (and also a non-ED 8x32 SP tested at the same time). Both barrels in all three pairs had pinched optics which compromised resolution to varying degrees. As I recall the best barrel measured 5-6 arcsec and the worst about 7 arcsec. These figures are better than eyesight at 8x, but well below the best 8x32's which are around 4 arcsec.
Such consistent pinching suggested to me the possibility that, at some point in Pentax' assembly process, too much torque may be routinely applied to a retaining ring. Most of the time this defect will probably go unnoticed at low magnification. A friend bought one of these pairs and is perfectly happy, but the visible effects of pinching are unpredictable so other units with similar defects may show problems. I don't like to raise suspicions about an entire line of binoculars based on only 3 examples. Perhaps I saw the only three pairs with this defect, but that seems unlikely. My advice is to examine the image carefully, same as I would suggest for any binocular. Defects are not uncommon.
The ED are priced so they are out of the "casual" range of purchase. They are significantly more expensive and haven't dropped in price over time. They also don't appear too often on the second hand market (here for example ... though they're are on ePay).
I'm also not too sure how much they differ from the regular SP in design. Clearly they have an ED objective. But is it the same design? Did they get an LaK element or similar in the EP to help with transverse CA? The price differential seems large enough for a big change.
Finally Pentax have a particular design style: they like narrow FOVs in their 40ish mm bins. Which I don't like. And is rather different from the Top Four bins too. So that leaves me the choice of the 8x32 ED versus the 8x32 SP (and the 8x32 WP).