• 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.

What's your favourite bins of all time..... and why? (1 Viewer)

It might be a bit of a stretch to say "of all time" because I've only owned them for about 9 months, but I predict that I will be using them for years to come. My favourite is the Leica Trinovid aka Retrovid 7x35. I've used little else since owning them.
If there were other top notch 7x35s available to compete with the Leicas I may feel differently but I suspect not because I am a long term user of the UV+ 7x42 which is my favourite of many 7x42s I own or have owned. I just love something about the Leica view.
The Retrovid takes top prize for their small size and lightweight making them a (almost) compact bin with a 5mm exit pupil and just as nice a view as the UV+.
 
It might be a bit of a stretch to say "of all time" because I've only owned them for about 9 months, but I predict that I will be using them for years to come. My favourite is the Leica Trinovid aka Retrovid 7x35. I've used little else since owning them.
If there were other top notch 7x35s available to compete with the Leicas I may feel differently but I suspect not because I am a long term user of the UV+ 7x42 which is my favourite of many 7x42s I own or have owned. I just love something about the Leica view.
The Retrovid takes top prize for their small size and lightweight making them a (almost) compact bin with a 5mm exit pupil and just as nice a view as the UV+.
I had the Retrovid 7x35 and UVHD+ 7x42 at the same time and I would often compare them side by side, and it always surprised me that the smaller Retrovid 7x35 was just as good as the larger UVHD+7x42, and you have the advantage of the smaller size and lighter weight with the Retrovid. The Retrovid is a surprisingly good smaller binocular with excellent light transmission.
 
Favorite bins of all time? Zeiss 7x42 BGATP, Leica 8x32 Ultra BA, Nikon 8x32 SE, Zeiss 8x32 FL, Leica 8x20 Ultravid, B&L 7x26 Custom are all sentimental favorites, but the following offer all I've ever needed or wanted for birding and butterflying:

Swarovski 8.5x42 EL SV late production pre-FP. Everything I ever wanted in a birding bin optically and ergonomically, and 7 ft close focus makes it OK for butterflying in a pinch (but too bad Swarovski never incorporated variable-ratio focus in the design, which would have made its close-focus ability much easier to use). Unlike earlier production has very smooth focus. Unlike later FP version, lacks the big bumps that interfere w/my preferred grip. Unlike NL, has locking diopter, smaller size, and has rain-shedding coatings. Unlike smaller 32mm EL has the mass in the hand that I prefer for best stability and allows even more comfortable off-axis viewing so eyes can dart about the FOV.

Zeiss 8x25 Victory Pocket. A very tiny bin with optical performance to match or exceed that of past premium 8x32 models, which themselves gave up little to full-sized bins. Consequently, unbeatable for travel, hiking, everyday carry because of no-compromise birding optics in an incredibly low weight and small pack size. Works well for butterflying too. I like the Leica 8x32 Ultra BA/BN, but these have very similar view in smaller package with better eye-relief and much less CA.

Pentax 6.5x21 Papilio (original or II). Unbeatable for butterflying. Nothing like them. No competition at any price (These are only $125).

--AP
 
The absolute best, though thoroughly impracticable for birding, are the 7x50 and 10x50 Nikon WX. I preferred the former for its better eye relief but the 10x50 still allows exceptionallly wide views for glasses wearers.
Personal favourite is my 8x56 SLC, a sort of poor man's WX at half the weight and with central focussing. It's still bulky and heavy but can be carried quite comfortably on a suitably shortened neoprene strap. The ease of view is unsurpassed.
Runner up would be my 2003 vintage 7x42 SLC. With its 3-layer multicoatings it's not quite as bright as the 8x56 but has good DoF and also excellent ease of view.
Compacts are an abomination ;).

John
 
Canon 10x42 L IS. Has rendered every other binocular I have owned or tested redundant except for the times when I truly need something really small and light.

- Kimmo
Even with the artifacts? That is what I don't care for with IS, and they all seem to have them to a certain extent. The view will be steady for a while, and then it will change as the IS steadies the image, creating an artifact. The Canon 10x42 IS-L has artifacts just like the rest of the Canon line. The Fujinon IS are a little better, but they still have some artifacts.
 
The absolute best, though thoroughly impracticable for birding, are the 7x50 and 10x50 Nikon WX. I preferred the former for its better eye relief but the 10x50 still allows exceptionallly wide views for glasses wearers.
Personal favourite is my 8x56 SLC, a sort of poor man's WX at half the weight and with central focussing. It's still bulky and heavy but can be carried quite comfortably on a suitably shortened neoprene strap. The ease of view is unsurpassed.
Runner up would be my 2003 vintage 7x42 SLC. With its 3-layer multicoatings it's not quite as bright as the 8x56 but has good DoF and also excellent ease of view.
Compacts are an abomination ;).

John
You obviously are a big aperture lover. So bar none, the WX is the best binocular you have ever looked through? Is it because of the huge corrected FOV? What does the WX and the 8x56 SLC have in common that makes it a poor man's WX?
 
I don't think I have a real favourite but I do like my Tasco #116 7x35. But I don't own it long enough to claim it's my all-time favourite.
And I haven't tried nearly enough binos to crown a winner yet.
 
You obviously are a big aperture lover. So bar none, the WX is the best binocular you have ever looked through? Is it because of the huge corrected FOV? What does the WX and the 8x56 SLC have in common that makes it a poor man's WX?
Well, owners such as Canip or Holger Merlitz could answer that better than I, but the WX is so impressive for its tremendously wide FoV (188 m @ 100 m for the 7x50 and 157 m @ 100 m for the 10x50) and very good edge sharpness. Nikon specify AFoV figures of 67° and 76° but those are conservative ISO calculations so in reality I would expect around 10° more for the 7x50 and over 80° for the 10x50.

One of the advantages of large exit pupils is that under normal circumstances one only uses the central part of the objective, i.e. using an 8x56 with eye pupils at 2,5 mm the objective is effectively stopped down to 20 mm and an f/3,5 objective becomes f/10, hence spherical and chromatic aberration are minimized. Of course, the 8x56 SLC doesn't have the edge sharpness of the WX or an EL or NL, but you don't notice any deficiencies in terrestrial use. The AFoV is also a moderate 60°, but as I mentioned, the ease of view is unsurpassed.

I don't buy the argument that one only needs an exit pupil as large as ones maximal pupil dilation. Any lateral movement of the eyes can cut off part of the exit pupil. Normally, of course one just redirects the binocular, but there are exceptions.

Each year NABU (the German equivalent of the RSPB or Audubon Society) calls on the public to count the garden birds seen within an hour. Using the 8x56 from my balcony I could point the binocular in the direction of movement seen in the foliage and roam around the field of view searching for the bird. I can't imagine being able to do that with a compact or even an 8x30.

Excuse the military comparison but there must have been good reasons for the 10x80 flak binoculars and the Zeiss 8x60 U-boat binocular.

John
 
Compacts are an abomination ;).
Wow... quite a statement.
I completely disagree. I think that for their size, they are the most remarkable optics out there. Just incredible.

If anything, massive binoculars are an 'abomination'.... but we put up with the ridiculous size for the optics!

To get that performance from such a small package is to be applauded. My CL 8x25's get the best reaction, especially from 'non binocular' people. I think the perception is that they will be crap, but the brightness and sharpness of image punches WAY above expectation.

I can't imagine walking around a city centre looking for peregrines, or be at a concert carrying a WX, or even my old Zeiss FL8x56's.
Compacts these days are mindblowing for what they can achieve.

Compacts will always sit above full size for me, solely due to their usefulness, and portability. It doesn't make them better than my 10x42's, but they would definately be the ones left if I had to go to one pair.
 
Even with the artifacts? That is what I don't care for with IS, and they all seem to have them to a certain extent. The view will be steady for a while, and then it will change as the IS steadies the image, creating an artifact. The Canon 10x42 IS-L has artifacts just like the rest of the Canon line. The Fujinon IS are a little better, but they still have some artifacts.
For me, the worst image artefact by far is image shake. The tiny annoyances remaining in the 10x42 pale by comparison with the artefact of not seeing a steady image and not being able to discern the detail in it. This latter artefact is abundantly present in all other alpha binoculars unless supported by a tripod, a rock, a sandbag or such.

- Kimmo
 
For me, the worst image artefact by far is image shake. The tiny annoyances remaining in the 10x42 pale by comparison with the artefact of not seeing a steady image and not being able to discern the detail in it. This latter artefact is abundantly present in all other alpha binoculars unless supported by a tripod, a rock, a sandbag or such.

- Kimmo
I think the only reason to have an IS binoculars is to see increased detail. If you like detail, get an IS binocular, but if you like a higher quality view with better colors, more "pop" and better ergonomics get a regular alpha binocular. I prefer the view through a regular alpha binocular even with the shaking because I like the view better between the shaking better than the artifacts of IS, and if you find ways to hold 8x steady you can eliminate a lot of the shake. I have had almost all the IS binoculars and regardless of the advantage of IS, the optics don't WOW me like an alpha. It is just personal preference in what kind of view you like better. Do you want detail or quality of view? For me, an alpha 8x42 works best for birding because I also like the bigger FOV and better DOF and the much better ergonomics versus the Canon 10x42 IS-L which is an ergonomic nightmare with extremely uncomfortable eye cups. That is why you see very few birders using IS binoculars in the field. I have never seen a birder using an IS binocular.
 
Last edited:
Well, owners such as Canip or Holger Merlitz could answer that better than I, but the WX is so impressive for its tremendously wide FoV (188 m @ 100 m for the 7x50 and 157 m @ 100 m for the 10x50) and very good edge sharpness. Nikon specify AFoV figures of 67° and 76° but those are conservative ISO calculations so in reality I would expect around 10° more for the 7x50 and over 80° for the 10x50.

One of the advantages of large exit pupils is that under normal circumstances one only uses the central part of the objective, i.e. using an 8x56 with eye pupils at 2,5 mm the objective is effectively stopped down to 20 mm and an f/3,5 objective becomes f/10, hence spherical and chromatic aberration are minimized. Of course, the 8x56 SLC doesn't have the edge sharpness of the WX or an EL or NL, but you don't notice any deficiencies in terrestrial use. The AFoV is also a moderate 60°, but as I mentioned, the ease of view is unsurpassed.

I don't buy the argument that one only needs an exit pupil as large as ones maximal pupil dilation. Any lateral movement of the eyes can cut off part of the exit pupil. Normally, of course one just redirects the binocular, but there are exceptions.

Each year NABU (the German equivalent of the RSPB or Audubon Society) calls on the public to count the garden birds seen within an hour. Using the 8x56 from my balcony I could point the binocular in the direction of movement seen in the foliage and roam around the field of view searching for the bird. I can't imagine being able to do that with a compact or even an 8x30.

Excuse the military comparison but there must have been good reasons for the 10x80 flak binoculars and the Zeiss 8x60 U-boat binocular.

John
Once I had an 8x56 SLC and I compare it to my Habicht 8x30 W in the daytime. The view through the Habicht was just as good if not better than the SLC because the FOV was larger and of course the Habicht has 95% transmission. The Habicht was very bit as bright and relaxed as the much bigger SLC 8x56. It kind of surprised me. I don't really think huge aperture binoculars are that advantageous in the daytime, at least. Now the SLC was brighter in low light but in daytime really not much difference, so I don't think it is practical or beneficial to carry a huge aperture for birding in the daytime. That is just my opinion.
 
Last edited:
I don't really think huge aperture binoculars are that advantageous in the daytime, at least. Now the SLC was brighter in low light but in daytime really not much difference, so I don't think it is practical or beneficial to carry a huge aperture for birding in the daytime. That is just my opinion.
Agree 100%. The reason is that in the daytime our eyes would need a much bigger difference in brightness between binos than in low light where every percent transmission may count.
We discussed that in the thread I linked below - it is because of the "Weber-Fechner Law". It basically says that our senses notice differences in stimuli according to a logarithmic scale. So when it is already rather bright, you maybe only see a difference in transmission above around 10-15 percent while in low light you might actually notice 4% difference. An analogy is weight -- when holding a 50 gr weight you would notice an increase of 1 gram so you could feel the difference between 50 and 51 gr. But when the weight is 500gr you only notice a much larger increase like 10 gr. Same with brightness, same with sound.
 
Once I had an 8x56 SLC and I compare it to my Habicht 8x30 W in the daytime. The view through the Habicht was just as good if not better than the SLC because the FOV was larger and of course the Habicht has 95% transmission. The Habicht was very bit as bright and relaxed as the much bigger SLC 8x56. It kind of surprised me. I don't really think huge aperture binoculars are that advantageous in the daytime, at least. Now the SLC was brighter in low light but in daytime really not much difference, so I don't think it is practical or beneficial to carry a huge aperture for birding in the daytime. That is just my opinion.
I agree completely. I feel I have lost nothing, in reality, going from 8x56 to 10x42.
Perhaps a few minutes at dusk, but my viewing isn't generally at dusk, and I have to say the 10x42's are perfectly good here too.
The 8x56's benefits, are for me, outweighed by the sheer size and weight, as good as they are optically. But the 10x42's are close enough, and in daytime, dare I say it, I prefer the Meoptas over the Zeiss.
This is just how I see it, or I guess I wouldn't have jumped on the Meoptas when I had the chance to sample them.
 
I agree completely. I feel I have lost nothing, in reality, going from 8x56 to 10x42.
Perhaps a few minutes at dusk, but my viewing isn't generally at dusk, and I have to say the 10x42's are perfectly good here too.
The 8x56's benefits, are for me, outweighed by the sheer size and weight, as good as they are optically. But the 10x42's are close enough, and in daytime, dare I say it, I prefer the Meoptas over the Zeiss.
This is just how I see it, or I guess I wouldn't have jumped on the Meoptas when I had the chance to sample them.
I also prefer the view through the Meopta Meostar B1.1 Plus 8x42 over the NL 8x42 or Noctivid 8x42 also. The ergonomics and build quality are really nice on the Plus also, and the focuser is excellent. I am not sure what it is about the Meopta's view, but they are special. 1/2 the price of the alpha's also.
 
I also prefer the view through the Meopta Meostar B1.1 Plus 8x42 over the NL 8x42 or Noctivid 8x42 also. The ergonomics and build quality are really nice on the Plus also, and the focuser is excellent. I am not sure what it is about the Meopta's view, but they are special. 1/2 the price of the alpha's also.
Coming from a guy who proclaimed the NL Pure the greatest binocular with the best optics the world has ever seen. You can't make this stuff up.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top