We discuss our choices and preferences of different binoculars constantly on Birdforum and although many would immediately respond to the question ‘what is the most important factor in your choice of binoculars’ with a rousing IT’S THE OPTICS! It is clear from the more detailed and calm discussions that other factors are often as important as optical performance.
Looking back over the binoculars I have owned since the first in 1971, I have been surprised at how often non-optical factors have played a vital role. Let’s take a look at these.
My first binoculars were a Swift Audubon 8.5x44 and after using them during several holidays in my home county my abiding impressions were that they were very bulky and very prone to fogging up after use in the rain.
After 3 years I decided the Swifts were just too enormous and the fogging made them useless until sent back to the importer for cleaning so they just had to go. In desperation I decided to replace them with Zeiss Dialyt 10x40Bs which were much more compact and had a good reputation for being weather proof. Was I interested at all in the optical differences between the Swift and the Zeiss? Not a bit. I just fell in love with the compact and smoothly streamlined shape and with the fact that despite the Zeiss’s focusing not being fully internal (the objective lenses moved to and fro inside the barrels) they were absolutely weather proof.
However, over the next 12 years, during which I had a Leitz 10x40B as well as two Zeisses, our holidays became more and more adventurous in that we spent increasing amounts of time on remote, rocky coasts and hills in Scotland. During our scrambling on, over and around boulders of all shapes and states of slipperiness and unsteadiness, both next to the sea and on mountain tops, I became more aware of the size of the investment hanging from my neck and the fact that although I tried hard to always follow my rule of ‘one hand for me, and one hand for my binos’ I frequently needed both hands to prevent accidents to myself, during which my precious and unprotected binos were swinging free and prone to knocks and bangs on the rocks. This is when I began to take notice of what the GA meant in the Zeiss adverts.
So my next choice of binos in 1986 was a pair of Dialyt 10x40 BGA T* and once again my investment was driven by a non-optical factor. I simply felt reassured by the heavy rubber armour and although I of course still tried to keep them safe at all times, occasionally over the next 17 years when these were my only binoculars, they did bump or scrape against rocks and boulders but always escaped unscathed.
In 2003 I became hazily aware of a brand that was new to me, Swarovski. It’s new EL 8.5x42 WB looked fascinatingly different so I tried one out and was immediately hooked. For sure the optics were sharper than the old Dialyt but what seduced me was the relatively smooth armour (no chunky bars of rubber), the comfort of the open-hinge grip and adjustable (not just foldable) eyecups. All in all it simply felt and performed better than the old Zeiss so I bought one. Now, the optics played a part in this decision but it was the other factors that were really the crucial persuaders.
It was a disappointment then when the focus mechanism began to deteriorate and despite sending it to Absam for repair, this only improved matters, it didn’t solve the problem, so it had to go. I moved on to Zeiss FLs after this and they had similar armour to the old GA Dialyt with chunky bars of rubber on the side. The FL 8x32 was my first 32mm and it alerted me to the fact that 32s were serious and capable instruments contrary to my ill-informed impressions, in fact I was so taken by the compactness of the 32 that I was rash enough to try a Conquest HD 8x32 and with its smooth-textured armour it immediately felt friendly and accessible in a way that for me eluded the FL. For sure the FL performed to a higher optical level but the Conquest just spoke to me in a way the FL never did, and it has remained a favourite ever since. At this point I should say I always felt a kinship between how Zeiss HT 8x42 felt in the hands and the little Conquest. Shame Zeiss never produced an HT 32.
Then, along came the mighty Zeiss SF 42s with their cunningly altered point of balance. These were a revelation at the time and the best accolade I can award them for this centre of gravity shift was that I could hold the 10x42 steadier for longer than any other 10x I had tried. Much later Zeiss released the SF 32mm models just around the time when I was coming to terms with having to reduce the weight I normally carry in the field due to medical reasons. Not long before this I had reviewed a Meopta 10x32 and discovered this format is eminently usable and not at all as fussy to use as theory suggests, so I was happy to sell off my SF42s and end up with both SF8x32 and 10x32. They perform to a very high standard indeed during the daylight hours in which we observe nature.
I hope you can see from this that for me at least, factors other than optical performance have played an important role in which binoculars became my favourites over the years. So please allow yourself to let these factors enter into your choices too.
Lee
Looking back over the binoculars I have owned since the first in 1971, I have been surprised at how often non-optical factors have played a vital role. Let’s take a look at these.
My first binoculars were a Swift Audubon 8.5x44 and after using them during several holidays in my home county my abiding impressions were that they were very bulky and very prone to fogging up after use in the rain.
After 3 years I decided the Swifts were just too enormous and the fogging made them useless until sent back to the importer for cleaning so they just had to go. In desperation I decided to replace them with Zeiss Dialyt 10x40Bs which were much more compact and had a good reputation for being weather proof. Was I interested at all in the optical differences between the Swift and the Zeiss? Not a bit. I just fell in love with the compact and smoothly streamlined shape and with the fact that despite the Zeiss’s focusing not being fully internal (the objective lenses moved to and fro inside the barrels) they were absolutely weather proof.
However, over the next 12 years, during which I had a Leitz 10x40B as well as two Zeisses, our holidays became more and more adventurous in that we spent increasing amounts of time on remote, rocky coasts and hills in Scotland. During our scrambling on, over and around boulders of all shapes and states of slipperiness and unsteadiness, both next to the sea and on mountain tops, I became more aware of the size of the investment hanging from my neck and the fact that although I tried hard to always follow my rule of ‘one hand for me, and one hand for my binos’ I frequently needed both hands to prevent accidents to myself, during which my precious and unprotected binos were swinging free and prone to knocks and bangs on the rocks. This is when I began to take notice of what the GA meant in the Zeiss adverts.
So my next choice of binos in 1986 was a pair of Dialyt 10x40 BGA T* and once again my investment was driven by a non-optical factor. I simply felt reassured by the heavy rubber armour and although I of course still tried to keep them safe at all times, occasionally over the next 17 years when these were my only binoculars, they did bump or scrape against rocks and boulders but always escaped unscathed.
In 2003 I became hazily aware of a brand that was new to me, Swarovski. It’s new EL 8.5x42 WB looked fascinatingly different so I tried one out and was immediately hooked. For sure the optics were sharper than the old Dialyt but what seduced me was the relatively smooth armour (no chunky bars of rubber), the comfort of the open-hinge grip and adjustable (not just foldable) eyecups. All in all it simply felt and performed better than the old Zeiss so I bought one. Now, the optics played a part in this decision but it was the other factors that were really the crucial persuaders.
It was a disappointment then when the focus mechanism began to deteriorate and despite sending it to Absam for repair, this only improved matters, it didn’t solve the problem, so it had to go. I moved on to Zeiss FLs after this and they had similar armour to the old GA Dialyt with chunky bars of rubber on the side. The FL 8x32 was my first 32mm and it alerted me to the fact that 32s were serious and capable instruments contrary to my ill-informed impressions, in fact I was so taken by the compactness of the 32 that I was rash enough to try a Conquest HD 8x32 and with its smooth-textured armour it immediately felt friendly and accessible in a way that for me eluded the FL. For sure the FL performed to a higher optical level but the Conquest just spoke to me in a way the FL never did, and it has remained a favourite ever since. At this point I should say I always felt a kinship between how Zeiss HT 8x42 felt in the hands and the little Conquest. Shame Zeiss never produced an HT 32.
Then, along came the mighty Zeiss SF 42s with their cunningly altered point of balance. These were a revelation at the time and the best accolade I can award them for this centre of gravity shift was that I could hold the 10x42 steadier for longer than any other 10x I had tried. Much later Zeiss released the SF 32mm models just around the time when I was coming to terms with having to reduce the weight I normally carry in the field due to medical reasons. Not long before this I had reviewed a Meopta 10x32 and discovered this format is eminently usable and not at all as fussy to use as theory suggests, so I was happy to sell off my SF42s and end up with both SF8x32 and 10x32. They perform to a very high standard indeed during the daylight hours in which we observe nature.
I hope you can see from this that for me at least, factors other than optical performance have played an important role in which binoculars became my favourites over the years. So please allow yourself to let these factors enter into your choices too.
Lee
