Celestron Skymaster 8x56???

[stringbean]

Hi all,..

Is this, (Link Below), a decent respectable bino to own. I don't want large bins like 15x70, just a quick grab & go bino to compliment my scope. I already own a cheap pair of 10x50 bins I bought from Argos many years ago but they are getting a bit knackered. So I wondered, if I get 8x56, the mag would obviously be lower but the objective lens being 56mm would give me an extra 6mm hence more light light gathering. Thing is, are 8x56 bigger and heavier than 10x50 bins?

Your thoughts would be appreciated.

Thanks.

Celestron SkyMaster 8x56 Binocular

[BinocularSky]

Thing is, are 8x56 bigger and heavier than 10x50 bins?

No general rule: the Celestron 8x56 is heavier than some, but not all, 10x50s.

As for general comments on this binocular, I'm not convinced that 8x56 is a good idea -- in our generally light-polluted skies, we tend to benefit from the darkening of the sky background that comes with higher magnification. What you will get with the 8x56 is brighter objects, but they will be smaller and against a brighter sky background.

What may be a better option for you is to get a better 10x50. In the sort of price range you are considering, the 10x50 SR.GA is very good both optically and mechanically. You also have the option of fitting the x2.5 UTA to it, which would turn one side into a 25x50 scope, giving you much more detail on bright objects that can handle that sort of magnification at small apertures (it would need to be mounted for this, of course).

If you are determined to go up in size, a 9x63 or 11x56 may be better options than the 8x56.

Only my opinions -- solicit others!

[stringbean]

As for general comments on this binocular, I'm not convinced that 8x56 is a good idea......What you will get with the 8x56 is brighter objects, but they will be smaller and against a brighter sky background.

I'm a bit more confused now, I've read on hear that quite a few people like using 7x50 for quick grab and go bins for their lightness and wide field of views. That's why I thought maybe the 8x56 would give me nice crisp wide field of views with 8x mag and a slightly bigger appeture albeit 6mm.

Thanks.

[Peter Drew]

I agree with Steve on this issue, the current light polution level negates the traditional advantage of 7x50's, 10x50's, particularly if good quality, are now a better bet IMO.

[BinocularSky]

I'm a bit more confused now, I've read on hear that quite a few people like using 7x50 for quick grab and go bins for their lightness and wide field of views.

Sorry to have confused you more!

The 7x50 is theoretically better for low-light conditions because its exit pupil matches that of the traditional value for the pupil of the dark-adapted eye. However, 10x50 is almost always better for astronomy -- I can think of fewer than half a dozen objects that benefit from a 7x50. The historical reason that the 7x50 was developed is naval -- they are easier (than a 10x50) to keep an object steady from the heaving deck (or bridge) of a moving ship.

That's why I thought maybe the 8x56 would give me nice crisp wide field of views with 8x mag and a slightly bigger appeture albeit 6mm.

Width of field and crispness of image are due to design and quality, not aperture, of optics. A 56mm will give you approximately 25% more light than a 50mm, but that includes the light from the light-polluted sky -- so you don't get significantly improved contrast. Increasing magnification will darken the sky, so point objects (mostly stars) will have better contrast. More magnification also makes smaller extended objects (mostly faint fuzzies) more visible.

The other way to make objects more visible is to get better quality optics; also, they give an altogether more satisfying experience.

[stringbean]

Thanks for your replies. OK, so you advise that 10x50 would be better than 8x56. The Celestron Skymaster 8x56 are BAK 4, Nitrogen filled, 'Fully Multi Coated Optics and cost approx £245. The Celestron 10x50 'Naturesport' series and Helios 10x50 are also BAK 4 with multi coated optics. The word 'FULLY' isn't mentioned and they both cost under a £100. Why would the Celestron 8x56 cost two and a half times more if they are considered less superior?

Thanks.

[BinocularSky]

Why would the Celestron 8x56 cost two and a half times more if they are considered less superior?

1. Bigger lumps of glass.
   
2. More coated surfaces.
   
3. Waterproof (very difficult to achieve on a ZCF binocular).
   

The 8x56 may well be better than the two 10x50 binoculars that you picked, but we could just as easily pick (say) the Fujinon FMT-SX 10x50 (two or three times the price of the Celestron 18x56) or the Swarovski 10x50 SCL (five or six times as much). Price says little (for vanishingly small values of "little" ) about the suitability of a particular size of hand-held binocular for astronomy. For example, the Leica Ultravid 8x20 costs about the same as the Fujinon 10x50 -- that doesn't make them equally useful for astronomy, or make the Leica twice as suitable as the Celestron 8x56.

What Peter and I have suggested is that your viewing experience, as compared to the budget 10x50 you have, may be enhanced more by a 10x50 costing approximately the same as the 8x56 than it will by the 8x56 itself (assuming that is indicative of what you are able to spend). But these are only opinions (which you solicited in the OP) -- you won't know until you try, which may be your best option, i.e. find a way to try before you buy. Binoculars can be a very personal thing but I know if it was me having to choose between the Celestron 8x56 and the Opticron 10x50 that I suggested in a previous post, it would be the Opticron, without hesitation. YMMV -- no big deal.

[stringbean]

So looking at Opticron 10x50s on FLO, (links below), which would be the more superior,. the Opticron Imagic TGA WP Porro Prism with FMC @£159.00 or the Opticron SR.GA Porro Prism without FMC, (it just says Combination Multi Coated), @£189.00?

Thanks.

First Light Optics - Opticron SR.GA Porroprism

First Light Optics - Opticron Imagic TGA WP Porro Prism

[4lefts]

i've very little experience with bins, having used my prinz 7x30s as a kid in the 80s, and a brief look through the celestron 15x70s, and the canon 10x30 image stabilized ones. i bought the imagic 10x50s - they're awesome. they're not too heavy, but there's a definite difference in what you can see if you mount them on cheap monopod (tenner off amazon) or rest them on a wall or something. this will apply to every binocular. when you mount them, they go from, "yeah, there's jupiter, i can see some moons, maybe 3" to, "there's jupiter, and i can 4 moons."

[BinocularSky]

which would be the more superior,. the Opticron Imagic TGA WP Porro Prism with FMC @£159.00 or the Opticron SR.GA Porro Prism without FMC, (it just says Combination Multi Coated), @£189.00?

Opinion only: Unless you have a need for waterproof, N2 filled glasses, the SR.GA is a better option; the optics are at least as good as in the Imagic and the field is a tad wider, without being so wide that it will be horribly mushy half way out. Theoretically, the combination multi-coat could be superior to FMC, but I've yet to compare in practice -- it might turn out to be just another gimmick -- you might want to see if you can find a reliable review of both of them -- birding forums may be useful for this.

However, whichever you go for, I imagine that you will be pleased with the purchase; for over a decade, Opticron has been possibly the most under-rated manufacturer of binoculars, excellent optically and mechanically, with thoughtful design. Not Leica or Swaro superbness, but then they aren't Leica or Swaro prices. And you can get a UTA for it, if you mount it (I echo what 4lefts says about that).

[terrym2002uk]

I have had the Opticron Imagics for a couple of weeks from FLO. I can say that they are of good solid build quality, sharp bright images and not to heavy to hand hold for periods of time. Im sure you wouldnt be disappointed with them.

[Peter Drew]

Whilst on the subject of Opticron, many years ago I went to a birding fair and amongst the binoculars on show was an Opticron 10x50 Elite. On what was a rather dull day they made it look as though the Sun had come out. I resolved to buy a pair one day when I could afford it, they were £275. Eventually they were discontinued as they proved to be a bit on the heavy side for birders and I managed to purchase one of the two left in the UK stock. They have a 7 degree field and give excellent refractor like star images unlike the flies on a windscreen appearance of some binocs. I've had them probably for some 20 years now and they still perform as new.

[Doug]

Hi

The Binoculars that you show us are $149.98 = £96.39 in the USA on sale at TheBinocularSite.com. postage + 20%VAT + handling at Customs about £176.00

and you pay the vat and handaling at the door when it's delivered if you use UPS

I would also say Opticron are very good I have a pair 15x80 with a tripod

clear skies

Doug

[BinocularSky]

Buying from abroad:

• You will need to pay import duty on the purchase price + shipping + insurance if the item is purchased outside the EEC.
  
• The rate of import duty depends upon the country of origin and the goods being imported. It varies between 0% and 85%, with the vast majority being between 5% and 9% (astro kit usually falls at the lower end of this bracket). For more information on import duty see: http://www.sloanefox.freeserve.co.uk/importukduty.htm
  
• You will need to pay VAT on the purchase price + shipping + insurance + import duty if the item is purchased outside the EEC.
  
• The carrier or his agent may (= "almost certainly will") charge you a fee for clearing the item through customs and, where appropriate, paying import duty and VAT on your behalf. You will pay VAT on this fee.
  

Please also note that warranties can range from difficult and expensive to downright impossible to enforce if things go wrong with stuff bought from abroad -- you'd be well advised to weigh up the risks versus the cost saving (if any).

[stringbean]

Thanks for all your help and advice. I went for the Optricon Imagic TGA 10x50. I ordered then from FLO on Thursday and received them less than 24 hours later. Excellent service from FLO and very helpful. Last night, Friday, was a clear (ish) night and checked the bins out. So nice to handle and hold and the viewing experience through them was,..wow! The moon was so bright showing little craterlets along the terminator. I could even see the Orion nebula as a smudge and Jupiter along with all it's visible moons. In fact, I couldn't put them down and eventually, my arms and shoulders were aching lol. So all in all, I am very happy with them. Today is Saturday and it's thick cloud cover,...bah.

[4lefts]

you are one of us now.