Best Value Bins Under £150

[Steven_J]

Hi all,

I'm looking for a set of 15x70 bins that have a true 70mm aperture which rules out any BA1s as far as I know, despite the excellent £50 price.

I cannot stretch near to the mark for the Apollos, and will probably need a new monopod as well. These are what I'm looking at:

 - The Celestron Cavalry at £117/£129 from Microglobe/FLO

 - The Helios Quantum 4 at £137/£147 from Microglobe/FLO

 - The Visionary Neoma at £120 from Binoculars-UK

Questions:

 - Are the Cavalrys BA1s, and how do they justify the price if so?

 - Does anyone have any experience with the Neomas?

 - Are the Quantum 4s the best quality pair of the above three?

 - Is there better available at this price range?

Regards,

Steven

[Alfian]

Hi Steven, I don't think this will help much and I will be interested to see what othersmay say. I was pondering these very binos myself a while back and finished up buying the WO 10x50s, which is a whole different story.

I will be very surprised if that you will find anthing for £150 that will give a full 70mm aperture. There seems to be very little written about the Cavalry and on appearance I cannot  tie them into any of the United Optics series. Querying them to FLO, Martin recommended them over the Q4 15x70s about which also there is very little written - but they are almost certainly BA3s and equally will be about 63mm (ish) objective. The Neomas seem a bit the odd one out. Unless they are redressed Visionary 15x70HD (why?) in theory they should be bettet but I really don't know.

The Apollos are undoubtedly the ones that come best recommended - fulfil their spec and have really good optics - but they are pricey and heavy. There are some Apollos on Astro buy/sell for £200 - which is a good buy - but over the price limit.

If the price limit is absolute and accepting (?) a less than 70mm objective,  I would err towards the Q4's they just look better built than the Cavalrys. However I might also have a look at the Pentax 12 x50 PCFs, or the Nikon Action Ex 12x50s which reputedly have very good optics. Microglobe also do the Pentax 20x60s (very narrow field of view but very good optics) at a very tempting price.

[BinocularSky]

AFAIK the Q4 isn't a full 70mm (the 20x80 is a 19.1x73). Not sure about the Cavalry or Neoma.

[Steven_J]

There is an Apollo up for that value? That is hard since the whole reason I set the limit was that I think that over £200, it is more valuable to save up for the Apollo. I won't be able to get the sturdier monopod but that is a spanner. 

If I'm willing to stretch up to it, and I assume we're talking about this ad, I don't suppose it's worth considering anything less. I think I'll make some queries, see if Celestron will answer anything about the Cavalry. Not sure who to ask about the Neoma. Is it pretty certain that I'm not likely to find a full 70mm under £200?

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

£200 is a very good price for Helios Apollo 15x70s in good nick. I would try to save up for that. The Celestron Cavalry 15x70 look very much like the higher-end TS BA-1s: better coatings, but essentially the same mechanics. I am not sure they are the same, of course.

[Steven_J]

So it appears that the Visionary Neoma is made by Optical Hardware who refuse to give me any detailed information about the creation process, or confirm whether or not they build their own optics, and consider it unfair to mention or compare other brands to themselves and suggested I visit a local dealer to do my own comparisons. 

[NGC404]

 and suggested I visit a local dealer to do my own comparisons. 

Good idea. Forums and review sites are great. But nothing beats picking up a set and looking through them.

Best time to test binoculars is on a dull day. On a bright day, they all give a bright image

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

Good idea. Forums and review sites are great. But nothing beats picking up a set and looking through them.

Best time to test binoculars is on a dull day. On a bright day, they all give a bright image

Not quite sure about that. Many binoculars give a decent image in daylight, but are not that great on stars. Stars are very unforgiving targets, they show up any aberration instantly.

[NGC404]

Not quite sure about that. Many binoculars give a decent image in daylight, but are not that great on stars. Stars are very unforgiving targets, they show up any aberration instantly.

Many ways of checking for chromatic aberration in daylight. Easiest one it the "lamp post test"

Focus on a lamp post, and then put it right on the edge of field. With a bright back ground works best

The binoculars with lesser optics will show more colour fringing along the vertical edge of the lamp post.

While at it, this test shall also show any bowing of straight lines on the edge and will show

up how much of a flat field the binoculars have + test edge of field overall quality

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

Many ways of checking for chromatic aberration in daylight. Easiest one it the "lamp post test"

Focus on a lamp post, and then put it right on the edge of field. With a bright back ground works best

The binoculars with lesser optics will show more colour fringing along the vertical edge of the lamp post.

While at it, this test shall also show any bowing of straight lines on the edge and will show

up how much of a flat field the binoculars have + test edge of field overall quality

True, bright edges show CA well, but it is much harder to assess internal reflections or astigmatism by daylight. Internal reflections show up very clearly in the evening when looking at street lights, or in very clear weather with bright highlights. In dull weather internal reflections are not easily spotted 9or indeed as troublesome) as in clear conditions or at night. Looking through bins in a shop is always better than looking at bins (either on websites or in shops), but looking through them at night is the best test for suitability for astronomy.

[BinocularSky]

Focus on a lamp post, and then put it right on the edge of field. With a bright back ground works best

Ah. So you really need a bright day (sky) for better contrast, then?

While at it, this test shall also show any bowing of straight lines on the edge and will show

up how much of a flat field the binoculars have + test edge of field overall quality

Some bowing of straight lines (specifically: pincushion distortion) at edge of field is desirable: it counteracts the "rolling ball" effect that is present when pincushion is completely absent.

IMO with very few (expensive) exceptions, most binoculars have lousy edges. If it's not field curvature it's coma or astigmatism (but it's usually all three, in spades). It comes down to the degree of lousiness you're willing to tolerate. As Michael says, nothing like a nice bright point-source for testing the edge.

(Aside: I was interested in what you said the other day, Michael, about focus on a Venus crescent being more critical than on a star. Must try it.)

[NGC404]

As Manuel once said on Faulty towers

"I know nothing" 

[Scott]

As Manuel once said on Faulty towers

"I know nothing" 

I thought that was Shultz on "Hogans Heros"