-
The BladeForums.com 2024 Traditional Knife is ready to order! See this thread for details: https://www.bladeforums.com/threads/bladeforums-2024-traditional-knife.2003187/
Price is$300$250 ea (shipped within CONUS). If you live outside the US, I will contact you after your order for extra shipping charges.
Order here: https://www.bladeforums.com/help/2024-traditional/ - Order as many as you like, we have plenty.
Recommend a folding binocular
- Thread starter madfast
- Start date
:barf: :barf: :barf: Unless you like looking through fuzzy tubes, don`t even bother. If your interested in good quality compacts, you may have to spend in the ~$100 range and make sure that you go with a pair of porro prism models. Also try to stay away from Bushnell. Although they do make some decent models, you will get more for your money if you go with Japanese makers such as Nikon, Pentax, Minolta, etc...
- Joined
- Aug 11, 1999
- Messages
- 1,111
Hi Madfast,
Bushnell makes some nice field optics but the Powerview is not one of them: poor optics and poor construction. (I don't own them but, yes, I've handled them.) If you're looking for inexpensive compacts, look at porro prisms (Objective lens offset from eye piece) rather than roof prisms (eye piece and obj. aligned along barrel). The least expensive decent compact I've handled is the Swift Micron 8x25; seen it offered for as little as ~$40. They pop up on eBay every so often, too.
If you're willing to spend $70-$90, I'd suggest Eagle Optics Triumph 8x25 (best compact optics under $170, IMHO), or Bausch & Lomb 8x24. In this price range, you can get crisp, reliable optics with good resolution and field of view; but they are mostly plastic cases without water/fog-proofing. (Or, you can get water/fog-proofing with absolute crap optics.) The EO and B&L noted here are rugged enough to handle the occasional bump or drop onto soft ground.
I'd also recommend going no higher than 8x magnification. Higher than that, esp. in a compact size, and you'll have a very "jumpy" image as the human eye cannot easily of fully compensate for hand movement in holding it. Good 10x will induce much faster eye fatigue than mediocre 8x; 12x will give a very narrow field of view, much lower resolution and sharpness, and can even cause headaches for any extended viewing.
If you're willing to spend more $, then your options open up appreciably, of course. But again, good optics can be found for under $100.
Glen
Bushnell makes some nice field optics but the Powerview is not one of them: poor optics and poor construction. (I don't own them but, yes, I've handled them.) If you're looking for inexpensive compacts, look at porro prisms (Objective lens offset from eye piece) rather than roof prisms (eye piece and obj. aligned along barrel). The least expensive decent compact I've handled is the Swift Micron 8x25; seen it offered for as little as ~$40. They pop up on eBay every so often, too.
If you're willing to spend $70-$90, I'd suggest Eagle Optics Triumph 8x25 (best compact optics under $170, IMHO), or Bausch & Lomb 8x24. In this price range, you can get crisp, reliable optics with good resolution and field of view; but they are mostly plastic cases without water/fog-proofing. (Or, you can get water/fog-proofing with absolute crap optics.) The EO and B&L noted here are rugged enough to handle the occasional bump or drop onto soft ground.
I'd also recommend going no higher than 8x magnification. Higher than that, esp. in a compact size, and you'll have a very "jumpy" image as the human eye cannot easily of fully compensate for hand movement in holding it. Good 10x will induce much faster eye fatigue than mediocre 8x; 12x will give a very narrow field of view, much lower resolution and sharpness, and can even cause headaches for any extended viewing.
If you're willing to spend more $, then your options open up appreciably, of course. But again, good optics can be found for under $100.
Glen
The big three carry 8X20 compact roof prisms that weigh about 8 oz.Swarovski $500 plus,Leica $450 plus,Zeiss $350 plus.All are waterproof,phase corrected,nitrogen filled.
They all carry 10X20 also but I would recommend the 8 power in a bino so small and light.
Here is a review of compact binos from a couple of years ago.
http://betterviewdesired.com/compacts/index.html
They all carry 10X20 also but I would recommend the 8 power in a bino so small and light.
Here is a review of compact binos from a couple of years ago.
http://betterviewdesired.com/compacts/index.html
- Joined
- Aug 11, 1999
- Messages
- 1,111
Well, asking about "best" compacts is sort of like asking about "best" folders -- there are lots of excellent candidates, so the "best" depends on what you want.
Many birders believe the very best compact optics can be found in the Bausch & Lomb Custom 7x26. I've glassed them and they are awesome. But they're not waterproof or fogproof, if that is important for you. (msrp $480, street price ~$230) Excellent eye relief, 16mm, pretty rugged and water-resistant. (My friend uses hers confidently in light rain with no problems.)
Two highly regarded compacts with excellent optics, waterproofing/ fogproofing and very rugged construction are the Swift Trekker 712 8x26 (msrp $360, street ~$190) and Brunton Eterna 8x25 (msrp $230, street $180). Both are truly excellent; I own the latter. The one possible negative of the Trekker is its relatively short eye relief for eyeglass wearers, 14mm; also, it has rubber fold-down eye cups, which some folks don't like. My only big complaint with the Eterna is its relatively narrow field of view (270' at 1000 yds. vs. 363' for the B&L Custom and 341' for the Trekker). But it is bomb-proof (some might say "overbuilt"), has excellent eye relief, 18.5mm with pull-up eye cups.
If money is truly no object, then Swarovksi and Leica both make excellent "ultra-compacts," 8x20. I own and EDC the Leica Trinovid 8x20 (msrp $440; got mine for $300). Their fine optics in the smallest possible package is very nifty and impressive for what it's worth; bust honestly, for quality of view I would rather go with the B&L, Swift or Brunton noted above. All three weigh in at ~12 oz, vs. 8 oz for the Leica Trins. The Leica and Swarovski ultra-compacts definitely have "gadget factor" appeal and smallest possible size for quality optics, but there is an inherent compromise in such small optical architecture. (Same, of course, is true for compacts vs. midsize and full.)
Glen
Many birders believe the very best compact optics can be found in the Bausch & Lomb Custom 7x26. I've glassed them and they are awesome. But they're not waterproof or fogproof, if that is important for you. (msrp $480, street price ~$230) Excellent eye relief, 16mm, pretty rugged and water-resistant. (My friend uses hers confidently in light rain with no problems.)
Two highly regarded compacts with excellent optics, waterproofing/ fogproofing and very rugged construction are the Swift Trekker 712 8x26 (msrp $360, street ~$190) and Brunton Eterna 8x25 (msrp $230, street $180). Both are truly excellent; I own the latter. The one possible negative of the Trekker is its relatively short eye relief for eyeglass wearers, 14mm; also, it has rubber fold-down eye cups, which some folks don't like. My only big complaint with the Eterna is its relatively narrow field of view (270' at 1000 yds. vs. 363' for the B&L Custom and 341' for the Trekker). But it is bomb-proof (some might say "overbuilt"), has excellent eye relief, 18.5mm with pull-up eye cups.
If money is truly no object, then Swarovksi and Leica both make excellent "ultra-compacts," 8x20. I own and EDC the Leica Trinovid 8x20 (msrp $440; got mine for $300). Their fine optics in the smallest possible package is very nifty and impressive for what it's worth; bust honestly, for quality of view I would rather go with the B&L, Swift or Brunton noted above. All three weigh in at ~12 oz, vs. 8 oz for the Leica Trins. The Leica and Swarovski ultra-compacts definitely have "gadget factor" appeal and smallest possible size for quality optics, but there is an inherent compromise in such small optical architecture. (Same, of course, is true for compacts vs. midsize and full.)
Glen
johnniet
Gold Member
- Joined
- Jul 12, 1999
- Messages
- 4,682
It depends on the maker and cost. The usual saying is you can get the same quality in $150 (or less) porros that you could get in $500 (or more) roofs.
That said, www.binoculars.org did some serious testing and thought very highly of Zhumell's compact roofs at less than $100.
You can't go wrong with Pentax's UCF porro series (e.g. at Optics Planet).
UCF are the ones that look like Darth Vader's space ship. They run about $80 - $120, depending on aperture and magnification; the waterproof one is a little more. My experience with them is very good. They're a little bit larger than compact roofs, but lighter than many of them.
[Ed. to add: like shoes, binoculars are very much "try before you buy". Go to a shop with a good selection and knowledgeable salespeople--and buy from them. You'll waste less money on stuff you don't want.]
That said, www.binoculars.org did some serious testing and thought very highly of Zhumell's compact roofs at less than $100.
You can't go wrong with Pentax's UCF porro series (e.g. at Optics Planet).
UCF are the ones that look like Darth Vader's space ship. They run about $80 - $120, depending on aperture and magnification; the waterproof one is a little more. My experience with them is very good. They're a little bit larger than compact roofs, but lighter than many of them.
[Ed. to add: like shoes, binoculars are very much "try before you buy". Go to a shop with a good selection and knowledgeable salespeople--and buy from them. You'll waste less money on stuff you don't want.]
- Joined
- Aug 11, 1999
- Messages
- 1,111
Porro isn't "better" than roof, but due to difficulties in design and much tighter tolerances required in the construction of the latter, you'd be hard pressed to find quality roofs under $500-$700+. There are exceptions, of course: Pentax and Bruton make excellent roofs in the $180-$300 range. I haven't glassed the Zhumells that Johnniet mentions but I'd like to.
Many quality porros, again, can be found under $100. Esp. in more affordable bins, porros also sport an interesting tendency to set off objects more distinctly from each other, vs. roofs. It's hard to describe, but the offset-lens design of porros results in sharper, more distinct images relative to even much more expensive roofs. In a sense, the bins do more of the work of delivering a clear image, resulting in less eye fatigue over the course of a day.
A good way to check out different bins, see how they feel in-hand, is to find a local group of weekend birders. Folks there would be more than happy to share their opinions and experiences, and to let you handle their binoculars.
Many quality porros, again, can be found under $100. Esp. in more affordable bins, porros also sport an interesting tendency to set off objects more distinctly from each other, vs. roofs. It's hard to describe, but the offset-lens design of porros results in sharper, more distinct images relative to even much more expensive roofs. In a sense, the bins do more of the work of delivering a clear image, resulting in less eye fatigue over the course of a day.
A good way to check out different bins, see how they feel in-hand, is to find a local group of weekend birders. Folks there would be more than happy to share their opinions and experiences, and to let you handle their binoculars.
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2004
- Messages
- 90
i went with the brunton eterna 8x25. excellent sight picture, absolutely bomber construction, and not too expensive in case i drop them into a crevasse or something equally as stupid.
I was given a Bushnell Powerview 8x21. These are very low cost ($15). These fold to a nice size but the field of view is small. They have center focus plus individual focus on each eyepiece. You will not want to use them long.
I also bought a Nikon NASCAR 8x25 ($60). These are bigger. They also have the widest field of view (429ft @ 1000yd) that I found. The wide view makes them comfortable to use.
I also bought a Nikon NASCAR 8x25 ($60). These are bigger. They also have the widest field of view (429ft @ 1000yd) that I found. The wide view makes them comfortable to use.