Fairly decent (and hope fully robust) 10x50's

[part timer]

Hi all,

Well another pair of bins bit the dust today. These were the strathspay 10x50 waterproof. Shame really as they were optically very good and quite sturdy. Poor focusser, diopter and eyecups but nice views.

Anyway they are now in pieces!

So I'm looking for something in the £1-200 region

Thinking of the Pentax Pcf

The william optics 10x50 is very tempting but doesn't seem to be avilable??

Jessops have the Nikkon action extreme which seems to be comparible with the Pentax.

Then theres the opticron imagic TGA

Anyone got experience of any of these (direct comparison would be ideal!!)

Any other suggestions are welcome as long as they are 10x50 and fall not very far from budget!

All help very much appreciated!!

[part timer]

Oh dear ! I've put this in the eyepiece Discussion.

Oops!

Should't do this sort of thig in the middle of the night!

Sorry mods, if you are able to move this I'm very greatfull (and rather embarassed!)

[Tinker1947]

Maybe look at Bins with more light gathering power, but keep to the X10 or go a bit lower, i do remember seeing some that were 10 X 60 but can't remember where...

[Tinker1947]

Maybe look at Bins with more light gathering power, but keep to the X10 or go a bit lower, i do remember seeing some that were 10 X 60 but can't remember where...

Seems the "Edit Buttons gone"....anyways there are theses 10 X 60's in the right price range....

http://www.firstlightoptics.com/helios/helios-quantum-4-binoculars.html

[E621Keith]

Anyone got experience of any of these (direct comparison would be ideal!!)

Any other suggestions are welcome as long as they are 10x50 and fall not very far from budget!

Have a look at this Cloudy night binocular review. I think the Pentax PCF was rated slightly better than the Nikon Action Ex.

http://www.cloudynights.com/item.php?item_id=1770

[part timer]

Thanks for the responses guys.

Keith,

I've read that review and a few others and that does draw me towards the pentax.

Thanks for the suggestion Tinker but I have no interest in more light gathering. I use my bins for all sorts of things (although astronomy is paramount) so 10x50 represents the largest physical size of objective that is handy for all sitiutions.

Shame I put this in wrong part of the forum.

Anyway thanks again

[alan potts]

I wouldnt spend that amount of money, I have been lucky enough to use most of the Zeiss range as my wife used to sell them. Frankly I think they are over priced. I was lucky to be able to use a pair of Opticron and Zeiss at the same time and I could tell them apart in excellent skies. I would save my money and buy a pair of Opticron, they do a lovely pair of 11X80 for about £330, Zeiss you will not see change out of £1000

Alan.

[part timer]

Hi Alan,

Thanks for responding.

I agree that the really top end brands are simply not worth it.

However I do not need any large binoculars. I find them much less satisfying than a telescope.

I do enjoy more casual observibg with binoculars though and I have used a lot of them over the years, in various magnifications and objective sizes.

I need a pair of 10x50's or possibly 8x42's (or even 10x42) Or very similar.

Does anyone have any experience with fairly decent to decent binoculars of these sizes? Lets say a budget change of anywhere between £100-400.

I am not bothered by brand or country of origin. I do want decent optical and construction quality though.

any suggestions gratefully recieved1

Thanks

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

The William's Optics seem to be in stock here: http://www.astroshop.eu/binoculars/20/m,William-Optics

I have had only good (to excellent) experiences with this retailer (and you get a packet of jelly-babies with your order, which makes them popular with my kids).

[jonathan]

I really like my Bushnell 8x42, they are light and compact, and give some fantastic views. Can easily see the Andromeda galaxy, Orion nebula, Pleiades, star clusters... good for birding or ship watching too.

I think they are called Bushnell Legacy now, there's also a 10x50 version.

[htj]

I have the Pentax PCF 10x50 and I'm very happy with them. Sharp, easy to focus. My main gripe is the cover for the eyepieces, which is too lose fitting and is just a piece of plastic. Can probably be solved with some filt though.

I have never looked through a pair of expensive binos, but the Pentax certainly outdoes my old Helios 8x42 (these still get used though as they are much more backpack friendly than the pentax.

I of course have a bit of aperture feber and would perhaps consider the Barr & Stroud Savannah 56 ED, but they are also more expensive and more heavy.

[glowjet]

I have a pair of 10x50 (Jap, Carton) Adlerblick, I sourced them after they were mentioned in The Back Yard Astronomers Guide. They were reputed to be the best of the middle to higher price range of bins, without paying silly prices, are they good ? yes they are very good indeed, but there again my eyesight is not the best. On one particular clear night I was observing Jupiter and was able to see three moons with my 15x70 Celestron, but with the Adlerblicks I could make out four little points of light, I thought this strange at the time but it could have been down to the quality of the lens and coatings. I was able to get these through the Canadian agent for Carton Optics and they were sent post free, its some time ago now, but if I recall they were then just over the couple of hundred quid mark. The Wife bought them as a present after my other expensive bins fell out of the case and hit the concrete driveway, after the case strap broke, lifting them out of the car

John.

[part timer]

Thanks to all the responces.

I have now blown my budget comoletey and got myself a pair of Vortex Viper 10x42 HD's.

Not well known in astronomy circles buit quite well spokn of amonst bird watchers.

I used them for a couple of days now and they are the best astronomy (or anything else) bins I've ever used.

I can see more than I could in my 20x60's or my 8x56 (which were pretty good qualty with very good coatings).

The vipers simply blow them away!

Add to that the they are tiny and easy to hold and I'm on to a winner!!

I'll spend a bit more time with them and then do a proper review.

so once again thanks to all!

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

Best of luck with the new bins!

[BinocularSky]

Vortex Viper 10x42 HD's ... best astronomy (or anything else) bins I've ever used ...

I can see more than I could in my 20x60's or my 8x56 (which were pretty good qualty with very good coatings).

The vipers simply blow them away!

Add to that the they are tiny and easy to hold

A classic demonstration of two very important principles:

• The classification of roof-prisms as "birding" and Porro-prisms as "astronomical" is entirely spurious.
  
• Optical and mechanical quality is far more important than size.
  

Glad you like it -- similar specs to my Opticron 10x42 BGA, which has been my reach-for purely-hand-held astro binocular for about 10 years. Sometimes difficult to imagine how you can improve on the quality of this class of binocular, but you can: next step up is something the Swarovski EL 10x50 Swarovision; my advice is don't look through one until you can afford it (I did, and now have this deep longing for the unattainable! )

[part timer]

Thanks guys,

Steve Your absolutley right. I thought that with a 42mm objective I'd limit myself to 8x to keep things bright enough for astronomy.

In the shop though i compaired many bins and the difference beween a £300 binocular and a £500 one really showed. Brightness in the vipers was better at 10x than at 8x in a very good £300 binocular.

The image is sharper and brighter than any 50mm I've used or tried including the Pentax.

When you you throw in Vortex's promise to repair or replace for free even if the damage is your fault and you have no receipt then the deal is made!

I did try one expensive set (over three times the price) but managed to console myself. If they had been maybee £800 I would have been pining, but to me the improvements (although noticable) did not warrant over £1000 extra!

I'm hoping my resiliance will last!

Cheers

Luke

[glowjet]

Those sound absolutely fantastic with the Vortex HD objectives, did you happen to try the 10x50 Vortex HD model ?, as when I did a search, the larger size seems to be only £30 more, but of course they would have been that much heavier

John.

[part timer]

Hi John,

The 10x50 wasn't in stock. A number of dealers are advertising it on their sites but few seem to carry stock in that size. Perhaps because most bird watchers use smaller bins. The 50mm lenses usually make roof prism bins seem a bit long and front heavy (although I never had much problem with my 8x56)

The 42's make for a really physically small binocular and still have a decent lightgrasp. It helps that the coatings are so good, little light is wasted.

The bins arn't perfect of course but they are very, very good.

As I say I'll spend a bit more time with them day and night and then give a more thorough review.

In the mean time, I will say that my wife spent at least 20 minutes looking at the moon through them and she has never, ever bothered for more than ten seconds in any other binocular or telescope I've had!

[part timer]

I've now put a short review of them on the review section.

Cheers

[cs1cjc]

Brightness in a shop in daytime when your pupil is contracted may well not correspond to to brightness at night when your pupil is dilated. However for a telescope with eyepiece, 4.2mm (42/10) is regarded as a large exit pupil, whereas people look to 5mm for binoculars.

[BinocularSky]

I've now put a short review of them on the review section.

And very informative it is!

[BinocularSky]

However for a telescope with eyepiece, 4.2mm (42/10) is regarded as a large exit pupil, whereas people look to 5mm for binoculars.

Hmm. I go for 6mm for my "large" exit pupil with the Dobbo; I would only consider 4.2mm as being large for people whose irises don't open beyond that. As for 5mm for binoculars, I've often heard it stated as being ideal (I've done so myself in the past) but, in practice, it doesn't stand up to examination, particularly for us oldies whose eyes are beginning to collect all manner of age-related aberrations. Also, if you look at specialist astronomical binoculars: 15x70, 16x70, 20x90, 25x100, etc., many do not have a 5mm exit pupil. Perversely, many of those that ought to, like a 10x50, may not have them either, because of internal baffling (the Bresser 10x50, for example, has a 4.2mm exit pupil, as does the Skymaster 15x70). The Takahashi Astronomer (covet, covet! ) had a 2.7mm exit pupil, and I tend to use my Miyauchi with that as well (I've not used the 4mm exit-pupil eyepieces for years).

I think there are "fads" for exit pupil size for astronomical binoculars; 30 years ago, it was 7mm -- but there are only maybe half a dozen objects that are show more with (say) a 7x50 than a 10x50 (I'm hedging here: I can only think of 3: M33, M101 and NGC7000).

I'd better climb off my hobby-horse...

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

Actually, I my best views of those three objects have been with a smaller exit pupil: the 4.4 of my 15x70s, or 3.67mm of the 80mm scope with 22mm Nagler, or 5.1mm with the same scope and 31mm Nagler. These obects do need a large FOV (which usually comes with a large exit pupil), but a smaller exit pupil and (ultra) wide-angle EP does a better job, usually. My old Brsser 10x50 have a 7 deg FOV, and gave a better image of M31 and NGC 7000 than the Yashica-built 7x50s with a 7.1deg true FOV.

[BinocularSky]

These obects do need a large FOV (which usually comes with a large exit pupil), but a smaller exit pupil and (ultra) wide-angle EP does a better job, usually.

Good point, and interesting. I must try it. Is it essentially a contrast thing?

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

Good point, and interesting. I must try it. Is it essentially a contrast thing?

I think it is. At low light levels, the human visual system has a non-linear response, which is why the darker backgrounds offered by smaller exit pupils work