I like slower focus (1 Viewer)

[Troubador]

The other stupid, IMO, trend is close focus. I don't care to see fleas on a butterfly 10 feet away.

I guess if you specialise in only looking at birds then maybe close focus seems unnecessary but if you are interested in the whole of nature then close focus opens up a wonderful world. I am sure bino brands want their binoculars to be usable by all nature observers not just folks who specialise only in birds. And even with birds there are plenty of occasions when a fast focus has been useful to get views of small birds in scrub or reed beds that pop into view but don't linger for long.

The fast vs slow focus question is a tricky one. I certainly find fast focusing binos (eg Zeiss Conquest HD 8x32) very useful indeed when in habitats where a small bird or reptile or amphibian or dragonfly might come into view very close to me and then moments later, a bird appears in the distance followed very soon by maybe another small bird or butterfly close by. In the UK I can think of big wetlands where this can happen such as Minsmere, Leighton Moss or Wicken Fen or mixed heath such as at Thursley, and certainly almost anywhere in Europe where there are so many species we don't have here. But in habitats where this kind of event is rare then I too prefer a slower focus. So I personally don't associate fast focus with following a fast subject, more a case of being able to switch between subjects near and far and back again quickly enough so as not to miss getting a look.

I am myopic too but have worn spectacles since the early 1970's and have always regarded them as the same kind of instrument as my binos: they improve my vision, so I have always worn them while using binos because they vastly improve my ability to spot things that I can then observe through my binoculars.

Lee

 

[YuShan]

How do you define "close"? To me close is 10m.

10m is not close in my book! I would have missed so many birds if I cannot focus much closer. Especially skulkers like tapaculos, quails, pheasants, wrens, pittas, antbirds etc.

Close focus for me is 2-3m maximum.

 

[chill6x6]

How do you define "close"? To me close is 10m.

"Close" focus to me is 5-6 feet. For my uses around 10 feet is just fine.

 

[etc]

Nothing wrong with that. As long as I get what I want on the other end of the spectrum, namely adequate overdrive past infinity. I don't want to sacrifice diopter value to gain super close focus but if you can have both, great.
The Zeiss HT 10x54 appears to have both. Super close focus and generous diopters at infinity.

 

[Maljunulo]

i don't mean to sound rude here, but why can't folks who are severely myopic just wear their glasses, or other corrective lenses while using binoculars?

What am I missing, different errors such as astigmatism in addition to the refractive one?

 

[etc]

I did that with Leica Trinovid I had, it did not not have enough overdrive past infinity (about 4D versus 6D I needed). The view is sub-normal as the eyepiece does not seal completely with the face and there is a gap of light on both sides and from top and bottom. It's much harder to hold versus when pressed into face to gain steadiness.
And I have expensive eyeglasses (Zeiss) so don't want to press too hard into them and leave marks.
When you press the ocular piece into face, it's much more steady and firm than when using eyeglasses, there is no light coming in sideways, the view is much superior.

The real solution is to use contact lenses. That solves that problem. But it introduces another problem. If you wake up in the middle of the night and want to do some astro viewing. Kind of a pain to put contacts in in the middle of the night just for 20 minutes. I do wear contact lenses when doing a lot of outdoor stuff so the focus overdrive past infinity often becomes a moot point. You don't want to take your eyeglasses off, use binos then put them back on.

 

[Hermann]

I don't like fast focus at all - really fast focus. I've got a really nice Nikon 8x32 HGL that I rarely use because the focus is too fast. I simply can't get used to it no matter how much I try. Too slow doesn't work either, I find I miss too many birds in the bushes at migration hotspots. For those oldtimers here who still know the Zeiss Dialyt 10x40 BGAT: That's the perfect focuser speed ...

Close focus - 2-3m is close enough for me. What many people here don't realize is that you actually pay a price for very close focus - correcting the binoculars becomes more difficult (glare!),, the focuser becomes more complex (and thus more prone to malfunctions) and so on.

Hermann

 

[willisoften]

Most of my nature watching seems to be 10 to 30m but I do like to be able to focus on closer subjects but rarely do I require less than 3mtrs, (10').
What I like is a fair amount of resistance over a short throw. Much as I enjoy my ELs they're too easy. The Habicht is just too much resistance anti-clockwise but good clockwise. The Kite Lynx is almost there just a little more resistance and sometimes I feel I have to move it a lot to go from say 3m to 20m.
Nikons E2 is for me the closest to what I like. I do like the resistance and throw on Vortex binoculars but that anti-clockwise to infinity is hateful.

I've never been interested in collecting lists, nor worried about missing a fleeting glance of some rarity. maybe that informs my choice.

 

[AlanFrench]

I like a fast change of focus and have not found it makes it more difficult to focus precisely. Their slow change of focus was one of several deal breakers for me with the Canon 10x42Ls.

Not really a fan of finding I'm a bit too close to get good focus, especially for a Black-backed Woodpecker, so I finally embraced close focus ability and replaced my Canon 12x36 IS IIs with the 12x32 and am much happier.

Clear skies, Alan