William optics 10x50 ED information request

[Astro_noob]

I have been searching online for real reviews of these binoculars and side by side comparisons against other 10x50 binoculars and have come up with very little information. I am swaying between Pentax PCF WP, Opticron Imagic and these William Optics 10x50 ED. On some sites there are claims that WO may be misinterpreting the ED glass in the objectives while others are claiming they are ED.

Could I ask anyone who has used the WO 10x50 ED binoculars and compared them against other similarly priced 10x50 if they would purchase these over the Pentax or Opticrons or if there are other alternatives worth purchasing? I have no way of testing these binoculars other than buying them and returning them if I felt they were not good value and I would prefer not wasting FLOs time by buying going down this route. 

There is also the matter of weight, at 1.6kg these are heavy. I own a sturdy tripod which easily took the weight of a 20x80 so I have the option of mounting them but for hand held use I am not too sure? I may in the future invest in wide field binoculars i.e. 6 or 7 x35 so this point may be less important than the binoculars quality.  These will be my main tool for stargazing, my 200p on an EQ5 takes 30mins at least to setup then an additional 30mins to collimate so for those quick break in the cloud observation I want a pair of high quality sharp binoculars that can be handheld. 

Kind regards,

Richard.

[ronin]

Problem of asking for a comparison is that someone has to have bought the WO binoculars and another set of similar cost to compare. People do not buy 2 sets of £200 binoculars. They take a chance on one set and hope they are OK. Also WO binoculars are not exactly common in the UK. You have no location so I have to assume UK.

Sort of:- You buy the WO and the Opticron's then tell us which you consider best and why. You could give the worst set away to someone here on SGL.

As to the ED glass, I cannot see WO getting it wrong, what is it that makes some people suspect it is not, however what is ED glass? I know of no specific definition for it. We consider FPL-51 and FPL-53 but what is NSL-5, BSL-7, BSL-5.

Look up Ohara glass charts there are lots of glass's that I suppose could be ED, then there are Russian glass's, American and Chinese ones.

[Alfian]

Hi Richard,

I have the WO 10x50 "ED"s and are very pleased with them. They are part of the United Optics BA8 series od binos, so most of what you can read about the Helios Apollo/Oberwerk Ultra/Garrett Signature 15x70 in terms of build quality and optical performance applies to them. They are heavy compared to the vast majority of 10x50s but in my somewhat shakey hands this at least for a short "quick look" while has a bit of a stabilising affect. However for any length of time I put them on a monopod/trigger grip ball head mount which hardly makes them any less portable but improves views considerably. The "ED" bit is, as you say, not certain and its worth reading the posts about the Delta 15x70s (BA8) ED credentials. My view is that although there should be some industry standard  as to what is/is not claimable as "ED" the fact remains that the BA8 series of binos is optically very good in tests and in practical use.

The problem as to how they stack up against the Pentaxs or the iMagics I can't comment on - I had the same dilemma when choosing. The Pentax 10x50s are reputedly very good but to me 5 degrees (albeit mainly sharp ones) seems a bit "mean" for 10x50s. The iMagics have plenty of fans out there and if weight is a worry for you (hand held)- they could be worth a punt.

[Astro_noob]

Thanks Alfian,

Do you mind if I ask how the WO 10x50 compare with the 12x60? I understand that 12x60 and 10x50 are not the same however my understanding is that the BA8 series are true 10x50 and the 12x60 will be more like 11x54 so they are actually very close in spec! How does the sharpness of the WO ED compare i.e. are stars more pinpoint and sharp, do galaxies and nebula show more detail?

Thanks in advance,

Richard.

[Alfian]

In truth there is quite a gulf between them. When I first bought the 12x60s some years ago  with  just my 7x42s to compare them to I thought they were OK - bright image and certainly sharp to the eye when looking at terrestial objects. However, for astronomy purposes,  I found them increasingly frustrating. Only a smaller centre part of the image was sharp. Outside that lots of distortion, spikey stars etc. I found myself constantly re-focussing thinking I could improve matters which of course I couldn't. On brighter objects like Jupiter there was a lot of flare. I eventually found myself using the 7x42s much more.(originally bought for bird watching). Lower power, less bright image, but much sharper across the field - stars the pinprick images I wanted.

The WOs are in a different league. Bright, sharp across  about 80% of the field with only the very edges falling off the cliff. Pin sharp stars (assuming half decent seeing) with open clusters  a real treat. M31 has a noticeable bright centre with well extended nebulosity (no dust lanes!). In the 12x60s M31 was just a pale fuzzy blob.  Initially I wanted a centre focus bino, to use terrestially as well, but the individual focus eyepieces of the WO are superb. Once carefully set up - they stay put, as does the IPD so the binos are instantly useable. The eye relief is probably less than quoted in the spec because the eyepiece lens are well recessed (out of harms way) but I find it perfect for me using specs. Though big - they fit in my my hands really comfortably - there is something very reassuringly solid in the feel - and are just very good to use. The build quality makes the 12x60s look very lame - but of couse the 12x60s are half the price. So I'm a happy bunny. I'm not saying they are better than the other two binos you mention, I don't know, but they suit me.

[Astro_noob]

Thanks Alfie. I'm very tempted by the William optics 10x50. Your impression suggests that they do indeed perform better than a larger binocular.

[Alfian]

My limited experience so far is that quality optics inevitably show, and would suggest that the WOs perform better than some larger binoculars with inferior optics in a cheaper price band (which the Visionary 12x60HD are) but be careful not to compare apples with  pears. I would guess that many 10x50s in the £150+ category will perform well. Before I got the WOs I tried some Barr & Stroud 10x56EDs (the "ED" again!) roof prism binos and they were impressive. I did not get on with diopter adjustment and exchanged them for the WOs (courtesy of the great service at FLO - thanks) but were it not for that I would have undoubtedly kept them. Are the WOs better? In some respects I think yes - but not by so much. Choices, choices!

[Crebles]

Is there much chromatic aberration with the WO ED 10x50's?

[Joseki]

Not actual hands on experience but I've just been making this decision myself.

In the end I ordered a pair of WO 10x50's from FLO.  I guess you're choosing between the models on their web site?  All bins around that price are probably going to be good - especially if they're on a site like FLO.  I chose the WO's because I see them mentioned/recommended/topping lists on sites like Binocular Sky,  http://www.binocularsky.com/binoc_choosing.php#3  people seem generally happy with them from trawling forums.  I also like the Individual focus system rather than central focussing - I already have a small pair of Steiner bins that I use for terrestrial nature so I get the impression that IFS will make them more robust.. (who knows if it's still true or not but it can't make them worse, right?).  I have rather fallen in love with them though so in part I think the choice is a little irrational.  I couldn't quite decide what to make of their meagre warranty period - it's only 2 years (not listed on FLO but available on the WO website: http://www.williamoptics.com/binoculars/astro750_features.php).  It's the shortest of the three manufacturers (Opticon = 30 years, I think Pentax are 10 bit I can't find that anymore) - but does that mean the others have that extra cost to the manufacturer built in? - or perhaps it means the WO's are actually twice the real terms price of a similarly priced model with a longer warranty period.. It didn't really matter to me whether they had 30 year guarantee since they are expensive but not 1-2k expensive and I can afford to replace them in 5 years time. 

Anyway they're going to be a step up and a half from the cheap 12x60's I got off ebay a couple of years ago

[Astro_noob]

Thanks for you replies, I have gone ahead and purchased the WO 10x50 ed. I will write a report once I have had a chance to use them.

[Alfian]

CA? There is some but pretty minor - even on the moon.  Nothing remotely like the CA I get with the 70 travelscope.