Which first binoculars

[Von_Ryan]

I am looking at purchasing my first binoculars, I was considering either something like the Olympus DPS-I 10x50 or the Opticron Adventurer 10x50, but I did find these at £65.  Are the Opticron Adventurer WP's worth the extra £15? Or should I pick one of the other two? Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

[billyharris72]

Either of these would do a good job - I've never had any kit from Opticron that wasn't excellent for the price.

The main difference between binos you mention is that the WP ones use roof as opposed to porro prisms. Generally more expensive, hence the extra £15. Used to be optically they were also not quite as good, but those days are long past - you will be very unlikely to see any difference.

The advantages of the roof design are better weatherproofing and they are sturdier - you really don't need to worry about collimation on roofs at all, provided they are okay when they arrive (if not, send them back and get a replacement; I've never known roofs to arrive other than perfectly collimated though, even through the post).

Generally, the roofs are more advantageous for birding and general use, but if it were me, I'd spend the extra and get them anyway.

Billy.

[Putaendo Patrick]

Looks like you could save a fiver and buy the same in green: http://www.uttings.co.uk/p123743-opticron-adventurer-wp-10x50-dcf-ga-binoculars-green-30067/#.WN-yg1Uw601

[Ben the Ignorant]

Hi, Von_Ryan. The Porro Olympus DPS-I 10x50 has only single-layer antireflection coating, and non-descript prism glass, which means it is the less transparent BK-7 kind. Because when they put in the more transparent BaK-4 glass, they always say it. Same for the Opticron Adventurer Porro.

The other unexpensive roof binocs are too cheap to have two important features: phase coatings to keep light waves coherent, and highly reflective coatings on some prism faces. No phase coating means less contrast, and no improved reflection coatings causes a dimmer image.

To make roof binocs as good as Porro binocs demands about twice the expense, but since you ask about affordable optics, you should stick to Porro's. The best 10x50 I know of, and its least costly clone, is the Lacerta 10x50 Nature from Teleskop Austria (109€). The second best value from what I've found is the 10x50 Lacerta Explorer (89€).

I can't link them because posting a link to a Teleskop Austria particular page is useless, it leads to their homepage only because of a little bug. But you'll find them easily. My brother has the 12x50 Explorer, quite good in all respects for the cost, and I just offered the 8x45 Explorer to a friend's daughter as a travel gift (lost of fine landscapes to see). I didn't have the time to make a full nighttime and daytime review, but the smaller Explorer is fine too, with no optical or mechanical weakness (relative to the price, obviously).

The 10x50 Nature is the go-to 10x50 I recommend these days, couldn't find a better value elsewhere.

There's also this very affordable GSO unit, but I've never read or heard a review about it, however it has all the right features, even weatherproofing:

https://www.astromarket.org/verrekijkers-5/other-brands-5/delta-optical-entry-10x50---bk4-5

 

[Von_Ryan]

Thank you gentlemen, you've given me some food for thought.

 

 

[Stormbringer]

see if Steve Tonkin has done a review on the bins your thinking off

Just navigate to the review section 

http://binocularsky.com/

[Von_Ryan]

6 hours ago, Stormbringer said:

see if Steve Tonkin has done a review on the bins your thinking off

Just navigate to the review section 

http://binocularsky.com/

Steve Tonkin has done a review on the  Opticron Adventurer 10x50, which he praised.  So hopefully the Opticron Adventurer WP's will be just as good, if not better.

[Von_Ryan]

Well the  Opticron Adventurer WP's arrived today.  Optically they seemed fine, unfortunately the rubber armour was deformed around the objective lens. 

[BinocularSky]

On 02/04/2017 at 10:35, Ben the Ignorant said:

... which means it is the less transparent BK-7 kind. Because when they put in the more transparent BaK-4 glass...

Ermmm - not quite. The distinction has nothing to do with transparency, but with refractive index. In fact, BK7 is more transparent than some Chinese BAK-4, which is not the same as Schott BaK4 (and it's not just the capitalisation of the 'a' and the addition of a hyphen!); it is actually a phosphate crown (BaK signifies barium crown) and has a higher permitted inclusion count. Also, BaK4 (and BAK-4) has a higher dispersion than BK7.  If BK7 glass was as poor as some people try to make out, do you really think it would be used in the best binoviewers?

In binoculars, the use of BaK-4 eliminates the grey segments you see at the periphery of the exit pupil which, in the image you get equates to vignetting at the edge of the field of view. Quite frankly, if someone who is hand-holding binoculars can't figure out how to shift the target from the vignetted edge to the bright centre, they should probably be considering switching to another hobby.

[Von_Ryan]

Replacement binoculars arrived today.. All OK.   Look forward to a clear night sky.

 

[Sonny Boy Baker]

Hello Von_Ryan.

I'm looking at getting the same binoculars as you and was wondering if you have had a chance to use them yet? And if so how are you getting on with them? 

Cheers Sonny

[Von_Ryan]

4 hours ago, Sonny Boy Baker said:

Hello Von_Ryan.

I'm looking at getting the same binoculars as you and was wondering if you have had a chance to use them yet? And if so how are you getting on with them? 

Cheers Sonny

Whilst I haven't had a really clear night sky since they arrived, I did use them to look at the moon and was impressed by the detail. And they are not too heavy.