• 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.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

ED glass usage in PORROS (2 Viewers)

Back in the day when Celestron, Swift, and Vixen ED porros were made in Japan, they were not cheap. I had the 9.5x44, 8.5x44, 8x44, and 10x50 models; they made a 6.5x44 and a 10x44 too.

The ED porros sold for btwn $400-$500. That's when good quality non-ED porros we're selling for about $100 to $150. So they seemed pricey to me, but little did I expect how extreme binocular prices would go in both directions, from the $2K+ ED alphas down to the $279 Bushnell Legend Ultra HDs.

We also keep hearing that porros are less expensive to make, but look at the prices of roofs coming out of China. Yeah, still higher than the cheapest porros, but only by about $100-$150. However, the roofs are WP and most of the porros are not, so for many, it's worth paying extra $ for the roof.

Anyway, that's why I thought $279 was too cheap for an ED porro. If it's made in China, it could be, but according to Steve's post above, the Promaster Infinity Porros do not have ED glass.

In a way I'm glad, because that would have seemed too cheap to me for an ED glass porro, and I would have suspected they cut corners somewhere else such as fuzzy edges, mediocre mechanics, and/or cheapo accessories. Unless I read rave reviews, I probably would have lost interest.

As a general rule, I see less CA in birding porros than I do birding roofs too (though the reason why is still not clear), but I like the ED glass anyway for the enhanced color saturation, contrast, and image sharpness.

Brock
 
Last edited:
Back in the day when Celestron, Swift, and Vixen ED porros were made in Japan, they were not cheap. I had the 9.5x44, 8.5x44, 8x44, and 10x50 models; they made a 6.5x44 and a 10x44 too.

The ED porros sold for btwn $400-$500. That's when good quality non-ED porros we're selling for about $100 to $150. So they seemed pricey to me, but little did I expect how extreme binocular prices would go in both directions, from the $2K+ ED alphas down to the $279 Bushnell Legend Ultra HDs.

We also keep hearing that porros are less expensive to make, but look at the prices of roofs coming out of China. Yeah, still higher than the cheapest porros, but only by about $100-$150. However, the roofs are WP and the porros are not, so for many, it's worth paying extra $ for the roof.

Anyway, that's why I thought $279 was too cheap for an ED porro. If it's made in China, it could be, but according to Steve's post above, the Promaster Infinity Porros do not have ED glass.

In a way I'm glad, because that would have seemed too cheap to me for an ED glass porro, and I would have suspected they cut corners somewhere else such as fuzzy edges, mediocre mechanics, and/or cheapo accessories. Unless I read rave reviews, I probably would have lost interest.

As a general rule, I see less CA in birding porros than I do birding roofs too (though the reason why is still not clear), but I like the ED glass anyway for the enhanced color saturation, contrast, and image sharpness.

Brock

"As a general rule, I see less CA in birding porros than I do birding roofs too (though the reason why is still not clear), but I like the ED glass anyway for the enhanced color saturation, contrast, and image sharpness."

I thought the Nikon 8x30 EII was your favorite binocular and it doesn't have ED glass because it doesn't need them. A porro has less optical surfaces which cause CA(I can see Henry now looking through his optical books to find something wrong in that statement.Thinking to himself I am going to make that troll look like a fool ). Also, what porro with ED glass is sharper than a Nikon SE or even an EII on axis.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 12 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top