inexpensive binoculars - recommendations

[geolindon]

i want/need some binoculars mainly for terrestrial viewing, checking scenery/wildlife/livestock/fences and of course they would be pointed skywards occasionally. i can look after them fairly well in the 4wd ute e.g. get a suitable plastic toolbox to keep 'em in but it is tropical up 'ere. would it be wise to smear silicon sealant on joins against humidity?
appreciate some advice please.

the below GSOs from Andrews binocular page caught my eye - the price is in my range - the zoom feature seems like a good idea.

thanks, L

High performance ZOOM
12~36 X 70 binoculars

**SUPER DISCOUNTED**

$169 AUD
Limited stock!
High performance and high quality lightweight zoom binoculars.

BAK4 prisms and fully coated optics
Rubberised body weighs 1.5kg
Central focusing with right ocular diopter fine adjustment
Soft nylon case included!

[doppler]

Hi Lindon, I use 12 x 60 bino's, but I find that a lot of people have trouble keeping them steady at 12 x magnification. I would think that you would need to use a tripod to take advantage of the zoom function. I have had mine for a couple of years, they are rubber coated with tight fitting lens caps and have shown no deteriation from the tropical climate.
I got mine online from China for $60 and free postage and they even came with a pair of badder solar filter lens caps.

Cheers Rick

[dannat]

Those zoom binos at high magnification range are rubbish, image degraded & like looking thru a straw.
As Rick suggest 10-12x power is the most you can keep steady
The 12x60 is good, if you want more mag get a mall spotting scope-aUSfriend used to use it to check stock across the valley, look for coyotes etc..needs a tripod of some type though

[geolindon]

thanks Rick n Daniel, you have saved me a disappointment.

[yoda776]

I agree zoom binds are no good. Have a pair and was disappointed. I have two binoculars - 10 x 50 Pentax whitetails from the U.S. can't speak more highly of them. Clear view and good magnification although 10x is still a little shaky for me. They can be mounted on a tripod. Can see the Orion Nebula and others reasonably well. Craters on the moon as well. These binos wee about $90 including international postage from US on ebay.

Also have 25x100 celestron's and they need a tripod definitely. I have to say since using them the big binds just are not stable enough on a tripod and tend to wobble. They give a fantastic view but need to be careful not to bump into them. Cost about $300 - $400 in the US. Got mine from Woodland Hills cameras.

Both binos came with bag and strap. The 10x50s were the best investment I made in binos. Buying from US is ok so long as you buy under $1000 AUD to avoid import duties and taxes. The US is also cheaper in a number of cases even with postage.

Hope is helps :) that's my 2 cents worth.

[NTgazer]

I have some Bushnell 7x50 which are Supposedly 'waterproof' and think they're really good (in my limited experience). Its hot and humid here too that's why I went for these ones and I haven't had any problems with moisture. I read that 7x50 was a good beginners size so went for that and I haven't been disappointed. Daytime use they're also great

[PeterEde]

There was a post of bino reviews from IIS not too long ago. Celestrons were the winner for 7x50 from memory for under $100
http://www.space.com/26021-best-binoculars.html

[SkyWatch]

Most 10x50's would do the job nicely. Fairly easy to hold steady, and give nice views at night.
Depends on your budget, but if you look at around the $200 mark you wont go too far wrong. Pentax, Nikon, Olympus, Celestron: all make nice binos around that price.
The best ones that Andrews have are the MB Ultras; but they are quite heavy. They also stock the "High Grade" HG series: these are about 1/2 the price of the MB's, and a lot lighter to hold/carry. Optically they are very good. I have had a pair of these for some time, and the only complaint I have is that the rubber "armour" around the barrel has come loose: they aren't waterproof any more!
Speaking of which: for your use it is a good idea to look for armoured ones that are weatherproof and shock resistant. The "marine" types are designed for boating use, so worth a look.
Olympus DPS I are very good value: excellent optics for the price. See: http://procular.com.au/olympus-10x50-zoom-dps-i-binoculars/

Happy shopping, and all the best,

Dean

[geolindon]

Thanks very much Matt, Chris, Peter and Dean. some really good feedback and leads there for me to check out. Great stuff.

[Tropo-Bob]

Lindon,

I recommend that you purchase the 'Z' shaped porro prism binoculars. The straight through binoculars are not so well suited to Astronomy, unless U pay a much higher price.

Since U plan to use them mainly for terrestrial viewing, I suggest 8X40 as being a good all-round binocular. However, anything from 8 to 10 magnification would be suitable and anything from 30mm to 50mm front objectives would also suit. (30mm is less useful for astronomy, 50mm is most useful, but the smaller sizes are less expensive and IMHO give a richer texture when terrestrial viewing- maybe because they are better colour corrected at around F4 than larger sized objectives).

[mental4astro]

Cheap binos CAN have a range of problems. Zoom binos have already been mentioned as over problematic. Inexpensive binos can have an exceedingly narrow field of view. The optics can be mismatched so to give a distorted image, normally really only noticed at night with point sources of light on a black background. This can be terrible chromatic aberration, field curvature, astigmatism, pin-cushion, etc. Just as bad is a set that won't give a single image, but double, and there is no way to adjust the optics.

But, there can also be gems within this lot.

Also mentioned is the stability problems with high magnification. Sure, these binos can be mounted onto a tripod for a more stable platform, but high magnification also means a narrower true field of view, and a smaller exit pupil. One aspect in astronomy that binos excel in is as rich field scopes. This means binos that have a large exit pupil to very close to the maximum the human eye can open to. The advantage here is it maximizes the total amount of dim light that an extended object has into a very condensed space. It is the only way many objects can be seen easily, and even without filters. So much so, that there are some objects that are just about totally invisible in telescopes are actually visible in binos that are smaller in aperture. This is why the quintessential astro binos are the 7X50. These have an exit pupil of a tick over 7mm, the largest human pupils can open.

This was the ultimate factor that swayed me to selecting the 11X70 binos I got. 70mm is plenty of aperture grunt. 11X makes them also usable for terrestrial use, and the 70mm aperture is lighter to handle than 80mm for this too. This set also gives an exit pupil of 6.4mm (70 / 11), which for my older eyes is a better match. The pair I got also has a healthy 4.5deg true field of view, which is great for both astro and terrestrial use (I really love this wide field of view, :D).

Bonus was they were the inexpensive Andrews Communications branded set, :) . Not the cheapest, but not the most expensive either. These binos can also be individually collimated to give a single image, which I've had to do (binos get knocked about with life and the optics shift, but easy to adjust with this set). I am very happy with the optical performance of this set too. I'm sure there are binos that can give a better image, but I feel I've got one of the 'gems' I mentioned earlier.

Now, you need to understand the strengths and weaknesses of binos, the potential pit falls of cheapies, the potential quality of more expensive sets, and what best suits your requirements. I'm happy with my set, but it is not an absolute product endorsement. They suit me for the reason I detailed, nothing more.

Food for thought.

Mental.

[skysurfer]

You forgot to mention the inadequate mechanical properties, particularly the eyepiece bridge. I had a TS 15x70 for $150 (now available for a two digit price) which had adequate optics for its price, but I had to refocus and align focusing at every use. Later on, one of the barrels broke off and after a few 2-component glue attempts followed by another breakage it got a funeral.
Another issue is often the 'square' exit pupils due to too small prisms or inside baffles which reduce the aperture. My 15x70 had the same issue : it was actually 65mm.
A simple flashlight test (shine through the eyepieces and hold the objectives about 10cm from a flat wall) should show projection images with the same diameter as the objective.

[CJ]

These are very cheap at Ted's Cameras
http://www.teds.com.au/olympus-dps-1-10x50
I've no affiliation.
I have a pair and think they are very good.
Cheers

[geolindon]

thanks heaps Bob, Alex, Skysurfer . . . and Chris.

all of your replies are much appreciated and have helped me to quickly narrow it down;

- not less than 50mm aperture for the night skies,

- 7-10(11) magnification for viewing stability/ease,

- under $300 for shock resist N purged 'cos there are goodns for that $;
Procular-Bushnell 7x50 H2O Poro $249 incl pp
Procular-Fujinon 7x50 WP-XL Mariner $329 incl pp
Andrews-HG 7x50 n 10x50 $229 +pp
Bintel-Nikon Action Ex 7x50 n 10x50 $249 n $279 +pp
Bintel-Pentax 10x50 $239 +pp

- under $200 for non w/proof for the same reason;
Procular-Olympus 10x50 DPS 1 $225 incl pp
Ted's- Olympus 10x50 DPS 1 $140 reduced to $110 incl pp
Andrews-Hi Contrast 11x70 $169 +pp
Bintel-Pentax 10x50 $139 +pp


i'm writing this post and erring towards either Alex n Andrews' 11x70 or most likely paying the extra for a shock resistant N purged 7/10x50. . . . and along comes Chris n Ted :eyepop: and just . . . well . . . reinforces my already low opinion of lotsa retailing . . as well as really putting non waterproofed right back into the mix :lol: Much appreciated fellas, Lindon

[geolindon]

A bit more www surfing;
Bushnell H2O Porro $150 incl pp from Camera Sky.
Pentax PCF WP II 10x50 $207 incl pp from Value Basket

at these prices as long as all else is equal or at least pretty similar, the non waterproof ones (best value being Olympus $110 at Ted's) loose out to these two for mine, but a coupla questions;

these are 'good name brands' out competing Andrew's so are they not as 'good in reality'?
they will apparently suit the bush applications but will they be 'OK' for AA?
the Pentax has an internal focus arm perhaps helping with the problems skysurfer had?
because they are water proof does that make then non collimate-able?
any other considerations?

i hate shopping!! but like it when the effort and help gets a good buy! i have the time atm and i look foward to the years of enjoyment, :thanx: again Lindon

[dannat]

the andrews ones are generic branded, you arent paying for the pentax/nikon name

the bushnel h20 are not very good, most pentax binos are of good quality but stick with their WP variants
both the nikon action EX & pentax get good reviews -can be hd a bit chepaer O/seas
if you want 70mm check out telescopes-astronomy in SA at this link (http://www.telescopes-astronomy.com.au/telescopes_astronomy_newsletters.ht m#BINOCULAR SPECIAL 11x70mm or 13x70mm $120AUD)

the space.com review linked to earlier is most likely paid advertising -some of the binos they link to are poor astronomy binoculars

being waterproof does nothing to affect collimation, it just means they are [usually] rubber o-ring sealed to stop water getting in.

if you want a really good pair of waterproof binos, suitable for bush & astronomy you need to spring for the 10x50 MB ultra at andrews for 399, they are very solid [heavy] but are built to last. if you could find a used pair for 250-280 they will be a good buy

[julianh72]

For anyone who is looking for very good quality binoculars at a great price, I bought a pair of Pentax XCF 10x50s on eBay for well under $100 (including postage to Australia), and can't speak too highly of them! (They're noticeably better in both optical and build quality than the Pentax Whitetails that you'll see all over eBay - get the XCF if you can find them at a comparable price!) They're bright, sharp, and wide-angle, and comfortable and light enough for extended hand-held use. They're good for both daytime terrestrial use, and night-time usage - here's my quick review:
http://julianh72.blogspot.com.au/2014/08/quick-review-pentax-xcf-10x50-binoculars.html

And for something with a bit more light-gathering power, I bought a pair of Barska X-Trail 15x70s for just under $100 (including postage). The optical and build quality isn't quite as good as the Pentax XCF, but the extra light-gathering more than makes up for it when star-gazing, as long as you can hold them steady. You'll definitely want a tripod or monopod to use them, but they are a great budget buy! Again, here's my quick review: http://julianh72.blogspot.com.au/2014/10/barska-x-trail-15x70-binoculars-quick.html

[geolindon]

thanks Julian n Daniel.

it seems XCF = Xtra large Central Focusing and PCF = Porro prism Center Focusing (with the internal arm).

yes i always prefer good second hand at 50-70% of new (non ripoff) price, but for binoculars i am wary unless through a site such as IIS where there is ethical obligations around quality, . . and youse fellas juz don't seem to sell 'em?

i think with the AUD$ v US$ fallen and ?falling it may not be so cheap to buy from US n maybe some stock already in Australia might be the bargain?

i think i need WP but perhaps not shock proof for the xtra $ as long as it can be re-collimated in the event of a not too disastrous disaster.

others will have a different balance so all good infoo, thanks again, Lindon

[geolindon]

thanks Julian n Daniel.

it seems XCF = Xtra large Central Focusing and PCF = Porro prism Center Focusing (with the internal arm).

yes i always prefer good second hand at 50-70% of new (non ripoff) price, but for binoculars i am wary unless through a site such as IIS where there is ethical obligations around quality, . . and youse fellas juz don't seem to sell 'em?

i think with the AUD$ v US$ fallen and ?falling it may not be so cheap to buy from US n maybe some stock already in Australia might be the bargain?

i think i need WP but perhaps not shock proof for the xtra $ as long as it can be re-collimated in the event of a not too disastrous disaster.

others will have a different balance so all good infoo, thanks again, Lindon

[geolindon]

a very comprehensive review of 30 binoculars over 8 months;

http://www.cloudynights.com/page/articles/cat/cn-reports/binocular-reports/

this has tipped me more firmly towards the Pentax PCF WP 10x50 for my particular requirements because;

value for $200 ish,
nitrogen purged water proof,
manageable aperture and magnification for terrestrial,
AA reviewed good for hand held astronomy performance, one of the best behind Fujinon FMT-SX 10x50 benchmark.

a negative is the lense caps, reckon i'll have to improvise something :) Lindon

[julianh72]

I'm not sure that the "X" in "XCF" actually "means" anything in particular (although the "CF" bit does mean "Centre Focus".

According to official Pentax / Ricoh support:
http://support.us.ricoh-imaging.com/node/529

Not all PENTAX binocular models are designated by letters that define a specific acronym or meaning. Some letters are merely used to denote a specific model. However, the following are definitions of specific acronyms used by PENTAX for certain binoculars: These acronyms denote specific binocular types (or designs):

DCF - "Dache" Center Focus (Dache is roof in German) which denotes a Roof Prism binocular.
PCF - Porro-Prism Center Focus “ - this denotes a Porro-Prism binocular.
UCF - Uni-body Center Focus “ - this denotes an inverted Porro-Prism binocular; (this design is for compactness).

These acronyms denote attributes of a binocular:

WP - Water Proof
SP - Superior Performance
ED - Extra-low Dispersion (denotes glass type)
HRc - High-Resolution / center diopter adjustment

[geolindon]

thanks again Julian,

indeed most of the letters in names took some working out AND were no real help in deciding what suited.

that's why it was great to have members' experiences to draw on to narrow down the type of binos that suit me.

the AA at Cloudy Nights has done lotsa well structured comparisons that helped me eliminate some other possibles and informed my 'half good luck and half good management' choice of the Pentax. I could not find his name to give him his due credit. a small bio says he has been involved in CN and writing articles/reports since its inception.

i'll now keep an eye out for the best deal, and check out any that come up . second hand. . . until i just order 'em new :) L

[julianh72]

The PCF WP are certainly very good binoculars, and 10x50 pretty much hits the "sweet spot" for general multi-purpose binoculars for handheld day-time and night-time use.

However, something else you might want to think about is the actual and apparent field of view.

The PCF WP 10x50 have an apparent field of view of "only" 50 degrees (actual field of view = 261 feet @ 1,000 yards, or 5.0 degrees). There is something truly magical and immersive if you can find a pair with a wider field of view. The cheaper XCF 10x50 whcih I bought have an apparent field of view of 65 degrees (actual field of view = 342 feet @ 1,000 yards, or 6.5 degrees), and even though the optical and build quality of the PCF is better, and the XCF are not waterproof, the extra field of view is really nice!

[geolindon]

Julian, that's a very good point u raise re. fov . . . . and as i go for 100D and 82D fov eps for the dobs . . . . hmmm ...

Water Proof is important for me for (the dominant) terrestrial use.

Ed Zarenski the AA from CN rated the PCFs sharp 80-85% to the edge and no design flaws reducing actual aperture, but still only giving an actual fov of 4.0 - 4.3 deg. . . . hmmmm . . .

And in your blog you really enjoy the 6.5 fov of your XCFs compared to your old fov of 4.5. . . . .:question: . . .

real cause to reconsider.

also the Andrews High Grade (HG series) premium 10 x 50 binoculars look VERY similar to the Pentax XCF . . . . . .maybe a way of getting your fov in a WP case ???

more research is warranted . . 'cos i have the time atm :shrug:

[geolindon]

i emailed Andrews for info re actual aperture and fov for their HG 10 x 50 and Luke kindly replied with a copy of the manufacturer's specs, including fov of 114m at 1000m.

i now see that Andrews include a link to their Chinese manufacturer - Kunming Optical Instruments Company Limited, at the top of their binocular web page :/soz Luke.

this fov compares very favorably with Julian's commended Pentax XCFs (under $100 incl pp) which i convert to be 113m at 1000m AND jumps all ova (68% more fov) the Pentax CPFs which i convert to be 87m at 1000m. (best price a bit over $200 incl pp)

soo. . . the Andrews HGs which are WP, look like the XCFs which are not WP and have the same fov. but Luke said; "They do look similar but I could not say if they are the same as the Pentax model you mentioned."

the Andrews HGs at $229 +pp are nitrogen purged WP, Bak 4 prisms and BFMC :) Broad-band Fully Multi Coated. so it all looks good for my requirements, though the manufacturer does not specify actual aperture nor fov edge sharpness.

Alex aka Mental is happy with his Andrews 11x70s so in the absence of any other reviews that's the only extrapolated guide i have to the likely optical quality of the HGs. that and Andrews reputation seems pretty good.

:help: any one wanna do a review please? Lindon

[julianh72]

The Pentax XCFs are made in the Philippines, not China, so the Andrews HGs may or may not be optically similar, but they don't come out of the same plant.

[geolindon]

thanks again Julian, clears up that suspicion :)

i just read back through the posts in this thread and Skywatch Dean has already given a good review;
"They (Andrews) also stock the "High Grade" HG series: these are about 1/2 the price of the MB's, and a lot lighter to hold/carry. Optically they are very good. I have had a pair of these for some time, and the only complaint I have is that the rubber "armour" around the barrel has come loose: they aren't waterproof any more!"

i wandered up some dry gullies, n Dean had already found the waterhole :thumbsup: