You get what you pay for...

[E621Keith]

i had a wake up call when down on my father in laws boat last year. i had my pentax 10x50 bins with me,and had the chance to do a side by side comparison with his bins ,which had markings on the lens (something to do with sailing ?) any way i dont recall what make his were but they blew mine out the water. i thought my bins were respectable but after looking through those marine jobby's i can really tell the difference. sold my pentax now !

If they were £500+ 7x50 Fujinon, Steiner, or Zeiss, then you shouldn't surprise they blew a cheaper Pentax out of the water.

[rowan46]

you may get what you pay for but cheap bins are ok for me. I paid £50 for my pentax bins and I know you can get better but I can grab and go and they do the job. I don't have the money for televue, zeiss or takahashi I just make do with what I can afford none of my equipment is as good as many people's stuff here but I enjoy my hobby. The point about eyepieces costing more is well made but I don't think it applies. thousand more binoculars are sold than astroscopes so economy of scale make them cheaper.

We don't tell everybody that looking through anything other than a tak with televue eyepieces is a waste of time. so why the implication only high end bins are worth the money? I agree that more expensive bins are probably better but don't agree that cheap is rubbish, maybe not so good but good enough for many. Many people come onto the forums interested in starting to learn, the advice from many is to get a pair of binoculars as they are cheaper and a good way of learning. if people are saying you need leica's or something then perhaps it's not such good advice. Having said all that I can't disagree with the main thrust of the argument that you get what you pay for. I just think that cheap can be better than nothing if it's used to start your interest. I think that applies to scopes as well as bins. my first look into space was through a mate's low end scope but it fed my love affair with the universe. I am not a great believer in the notion that bad equipment puts people off there are plenty of skywatcher scopes for sale on ebay and not all by people upgrading.

[E621Keith]

you may get what you pay for but cheap bins are ok for me. I paid £50 for my pentax bins and I know you can get better but I can grab and go and they do the job. I don't have the money for televue, zeiss or takahashi I just make do with what I can afford none of my equipment is as good as many people's stuff here but I enjoy my hobby. The point about eyepieces costing more is well made but I don't think it applies. thousand more binoculars are sold than astroscopes so economy of scale make them cheaper.

We don't tell everybody that looking through anything other than a tak with televue eyepieces is a waste of time. so why the implication only high end bins are worth the money? I agree that more expensive bins are probably better but don't agree that cheap is rubbish, maybe not so good but good enough for most. Many people come onto the forums interested in starting to learn, the advice from many is to get a pair of binoculars as they are cheaper and a good way of learning. if people are saying you need leica's or something then perhaps it's not such good advice. Having said all that I can't disagree with the main thrust of the argument that you get what you pay for. I just think that cheap can be better than nothing if it's used to start your interest. I think that applies to scopes as well as bins. my first look into space was through a mate's low end scope but it fed my love affair with the universe. I am not a great believer in the notion that bad equipment puts people off there are plenty of skywatcher scopes for sale on ebay and not all by people upgrading.

The economy of scale does work in favour of binoculars, but only to a certain extend. Some binoculars eyepieces are extremely good, yet the whole binocular cost less than a pair of astronomical eyepieces of the same quality.

I think the cheap bino point was aimed at people who have spent a bit more on the hobby, like owners of big apos and huge dobs, rather than beginners.

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

I think the point mainly is that there are cheap rubbish ones, and there are cheap ones that do a very good job. Check them out before buying. I only got the more expensive ones when I had shown to my satisfaction that (i) I was bothered by the limitations of the cheap ones I had, and (ii) I was using them enough to justify the expense.

The same holds for EPs. I had a lot of fun with the cheaper EPs (Plossls and Circle-T Orthos), but at some point started noticing their limitations (field of view more than image quality). I now have a really good set of EPs, and they are certainly better. That does not mean the view through a 20mm Plossl I got for the kids is bad. In fact, it is rather good for a 15 euro (!!) EP, even in their F/4.4 scope. Besides, if they drop that I will not have a fit, which if course I would have if they dropped my 22mm Nagler.

[BinocularSky]

Just to be clear, I am not "knocking" inexpensive kit. I think (hope?) I make my opinion sufficiently clear here. My point is that expectations of inexpensive kit should be realistic.

[JB80]

I learnt my lesson the hard way, I bought a pair from a street market and when I got home to test them they were rubbish. They were cheap knock off's of Bushnells. Granted it was only 20 or 25 euros gone to waste but I was left extremely disappointed afterwards.

I guess the moral of the story is don't buy cheap binoculars from 80+ year old grandmothers on the street.

[SwampStar]

Update from my e-bay purchase.

Seller has agreed that the bins don't quite match up to the 'outstanding' description and has agreed a full refund.

So...shockng product (not fit for purpose at AN price) but superb service.

Well done that seller!

And I have ordered some Celestrons.

[Parus major]

I trust not a certain £20 pair?