Binoculars

[Yankee]

If you're looking at less expensive binoculars, the best advice I can give you is to keep trying individual sets, examining and comparing the quality of the optics until you find one you like. I currently use Leica 8x40s, which are very expensive, but had a $35 Tasco 7x35 set I was very happy with for 20 years or so too. I also bought a set of Bushnell 8x40s after examining about 30 sets - the dealer's entire inventory (of that model - I also looked at at least a couple dozen other models, and through his inventory of a couple of those). The optics quality varies wildly in less expensive sets, which means you can sometimes find a gem.

Concentrate on a few things, including how well you can set the initial focus for your eyes and how well it holds when changing focus near to far, brightness, and color and focus aberrations - particularly at the edges of the field of view. Less than perfect focusing ability will make your eyes ache after a while. Lack of brightness compromises use at dawn and dusk. The aberrations are irritants. People tend to evaluate binoculars by looking at something small and far away in the center of the field, which you can usually make even the crummiest binoculars do well if you fiddle enough. When you use them for real, though, you're going to want as wide a clear field as possible.

 

[gsganzer]

I like the 8 x 30's. They just seem to be the best size for all around use. If you want to spend some money for some heirloom quality glass, then the swarovski 8 x 32 EL's or SLC's are just the thing. You might also look at the Kahles in 8 x 30. I looked at the Kahles last weekend and was pretty impressed with the quality and feel. They're a little better priced.

If you need something that fits a more modest budget, the Nikon's are pretty good. I have some 10 x 50 I keep on the back porch. They're great, but you wouldn't catch me lugging them around in the field.

 

[GregJ]

I know they have already been mentioned here, but I have the Canon 10x30 IS binoculars. I did a lot of shopping and found these to be the best value by far. The depth of field and image quality was so much better than anything else I tried, I jumped on them. I bought them about 2 years ago on the net for about $265. I think that is a pretty good value. Since I bought them, 4 of my friends and family have bought the same pair.

Greg

 

[GerardC]

You can buy binoculars that have a digital camera built in. Thinking of getting a pair for myself. G

 

[DAP]

Rat .. someone else has hit the nail ... the key for a bird watcher is light weight and not too large a field of vision. Stay away from anything that touts auto-focusing and image stabilization. These are bells that compesate for bad imaging and sub par quality glass.

7 or 8 x 23 is a good size.

If you want the best, get Zeiss or Leica . Their pricey, but will provide the rest of your life (lifetime gurantees) with the best possible image.

If you want cheap, go with Nikon. They're the best of the "chinese tractor' version of glasses. You DO get what you pay for in this case.

 

[Yankee]

"If you want the best, get Zeiss or Leica . "

Bingo! There's no comparison when you compare other brands with similar specs to them side-by-side (e.g., comparing 8x40 roof prisms to 8x40 roof prisms). That said, there are lots of excellent binos out there and you pay a lot more with Zeiss and Leica to get that extra quality increment.

Something to note on the Leicas, however, is that they are heavy. You can offset weight to a degree, no matter what brand, by buying better optics. A top-quality 8x30 bino can be quite a bit brighter than a lower-quality 8x40 because of better glass, lens design, and coatings. The smaller objective lens sets cost less than their full-size brethren, too.

 

[DAP]

8x30 can be too large for birdwatching.

For me, I find 7x23 just about perfect.

a 6 or a 7 mag. is perfect. If you want greater magnifcations, you should complement the glasses with a good field scope on a tripod.

 

[IrTxRx]

RaT,

i have the large Bushnell from wallyworld. Large view window, not terribly heavy and very clear. Cost $27 and change /forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif

I know there are lots of "better" glasses out there, but FYI, I have no problem spotting where on the tin can end my beeman R9 .177 pellet hit at 45 yards. Detail on mockingbirds, cardinals and bluejays is great at 35 yards.

However, this is really only a "porch binocular" probably too heavy in the field and lens covers ore not attatched in any way. Not certain if lenses are coated or not and it is not armored against 3 year old abuse. But for my purposes of pellet and bird spotting, it works pretty good

 

[Yankee]

"8x30 can be too large for birdwatching."

Interesting comment as most birders are going to 10x these days and a lot of them haul around tripods and scopes. The 10s are too much for me, I can't hold them steady enough. I don't see much difference, if any at all, between 7 and 8, though. (I do between 6x and 8x).

 

[DAP]

I got lucky years ago. Nikon came out with a pair of 7x23 compact glasses. They were excellent and a good value at about 150$ (20 years ago). They 'upgraded' the model which resulted in what I called a discontinuance. The quality was never the same.

Then I bought a pair Zeiss 8x28s. They were much larger, very heavy, around $1,800 and left me speechless everytime I put them up to my eyes. Unbeatable image. I had them a 3 days before my home burnt down to the ground with them in it.

People don't visualize holding 2 pounds up their eyes for hours at a time. It takes its toll in the form of putting them down usually.

GO with small glasses and a field scope I tell ya.