10x50 vs. 16x70

[pluton]

Hello
I am currently thinking of buying a good binocular for night observation, which can be placed on a tripod, since I will use it this way, not by free hand ... I am thinking of a good 10x50, APM MS ED or a Lunt Engeenering model, what I like about this model is its great visual field .. On the other hand I had also thought of some 16x70 APM or Lunt model, of similar quality, with less visual field but greater magnification..more penetration .. its use it would be practically exclusive for Astronomy ...maybe the 20x80 model is more close to 25x70 model...
I already have a Canon 12x36 stabilized, Celestron Skymaster 25X70 ...
I would like to know your opinion about it, and if any of you have used any of the models mentioned above, APM MS ED or Lunt, I understand that they have very good quality ... In your opinion which of these models would be better adapted to the astronomical observation? for a general observation ..
Thank you very much in advance.
regards
Paul

[RT65CB-SWL]

I used to own a pair of 10x50's and found them satisfactory for a casual gaze with or without a tripod/monopod, ...then this happened ---> oop's. They seperated at the centre column.  (I can't remember the make/brand... but they were cheap anyway).

I then purchased my current pair of 20x80's. The only downside to them is... I wish they individual focussing on each e/p. 

[mark81]

yeah, a good pair of 10x50s is great for grabbing and getting out there but if your going to mount them, then certainly go for the bigger set, the extra aperture will be great and with the image nice and stable you cant lose !

[25585]

I have a pair of Strathspey 15x70s which are light ro hold for a short while. The narrow FOV & higher mag magn make a supporting aid neccessary. 

So 2 sizes, in different classes. 70s upwards & 12x upwards are not manual bins, more like twin spotting scopes. 

[Stormbringer]

I would go for the 16x70 if your going to mount them  the extra aperture will give you a brighter image plus the extra mag will make it a bit bigger but less of a field of view

Go big just now and you may pick up a decent pair of 10x50 or 8x40ish  ( FLO are or were doing Japanese built Opticron 10x50 and 8x50  ) on offer as a grab n go pair 

A lot of folks on here use the Helios 15x70 to good effect

[scarp15]

Quite agree with the above comment and your reference to the Lunt or APM 16 x 70 are light enough for short periods hand held, then when combined with a monopod are steady and effective.

[25585]

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/offers/offer_helios-lightquest-hr-80mm-binoculars_88241.html

Open box pair 50 quid reduction.

[Ben the Ignorant]

I happen to own a 10x50 and a 16x70, have compared them in all possible conditions on all possible targets, by day and by night. The 16x70 brings out a lot more, you shouldn't be hesitating between such different instruments. Its light grasp and magnification make the 16x70 another league, the 10x50 is about the largest and highest power "compact" binoc. The 70 is not compact!

I personally use my 16x70 offhand but everyone else tells me they would want it on a tripod. If you are tempted by a 70 and don't absolutely need a handheld binoc, buy the 70 and the tripod.

[Stormbringer]

54 minutes ago, Ben the Ignorant said:

I happen to own a 10x50 and a 16x70, have compared them in all possible conditions on all possible targets, by day and by night. The 16x70 brings out a lot more, you shouldn't be hesitating between such different instruments. Its light grasp and magnification make the 16x70 another league, the 10x50 is about the largest and highest power "compact" binoc. The 70 is not compact!

I personally use my 16x70 offhand but everyone else tells me they would want it on a tripod. If you are tempted by a 70 and don't absolutely need a handheld binoc, buy the 70 and the tripod.

Have you ever used them mounted ?

[Fusion]

10x50 are my choice

[Ben the Ignorant]

1 hour ago, Stormbringer said:

Have you ever used them mounted ?

No, because I would lose the portability and instant use. I have 80mm scopes for tripod observation. 

[John]

I use my 11x70's mostly hand held for convenience but when I have tried them mounted I could see even more !

I'm often impressed with what a 9x50mm finder will show because it's sturdily mounted on a scope - more than I can see with a handheld 10x50 binocular.

But convenience is why a pick up the binoculars over using a scope so most of the time I accept the compromise that handheld observing brings.

 

[25585]

I think as @BinocularSkysays a monopod is a good compromise, whatever the bins size. Very portable & you can now buy models with 3 shortish feet at the base as well. 

A SW pillar (or 2) for their AZ WiFi mount can add height + grip. And also has the benefit of being usable on tripods as well. 

For more solid but versatile use, a parallelogram mount is very handy, not only for bins but also small scopes. My Ukrainian made model can take a ST80 easily, yet to try the Equinox 80 on it. 

 

[DirkSteele]

Not so much a hijak of the thread as the OP mentioned them but does anyone have any thoughts about the APM 10x50 ED Apo binoculars? I note they are on sale at the moment as APM is moving and clearing some inventory.

[alanjgreen]

19 hours ago, DirkSteele said:

Not so much a hijak of the thread as the OP mentioned them but does anyone have any thoughts about the APM 10x50 ED Apo binoculars? I note they are on sale at the moment as APM is moving and clearing some inventory.

I own the APM 16x70ED binos and they are superb, giving a lovely black background to the sky. I purchased them direct from APM also in a "sale". I use them with a monopod.

The only thing that I don't like are the end caps which just fall off in the case. I replaced them with some Keiser caps and velcro. They work well with a UHC filter added inside one of the eye cups.

Here are some posts I made on them :

 

 

 

 

HTH, Alan

[ollypenrice]

Personally I use binoculars for the wide field they deliver, particularly within the Milky Way. If I want serious magnification I use a telescope. In the wide field I like to see the larger structures and relationships between objects so I use high quality 8x42s. I don't think that 10x50 or 15x70 or whatever are better or worse than each other, they are just different.

To anyone wanting to find out if they really can hold 15x unstabilized binos by hand, there is an easy self-test. Grab a pair of 8x or 10x binos and find some distant text at the limit of legibility in them. Then try the 15x on the same text. Can you read the text more easily? Only you can answer this but I know for sure that I can't.

Olly

[Demonperformer]

I always use my 15x70s with a monopoly  (£9.99 from amazon). Find them totally unusable hand held.

[Charic]

I was hoping to own a good 15x70, but had to return them over a minor defect, but now might have made the wrong decision sending them back, simply down to what I paid for them, now considering them as a bargain buy, but then having to live with the knowledge..........I digress!

This report on the Lunt 16x70 compares with the already well known Helios Apollo's 15x70 (returned)  and makes for a good read if a Lunt is what you desire.

http://binocularsky.com/reviews/Lunt_16x70.pdf

For me,  Oberwerk Ultra 15x70 (  possibly my next  purchase)  is from the same stable as the Helios Apollo. 

I'm sure Steve now favours the Lunt 16x70, one of the  many top quality optics in his collection.

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

I currently have Vixen New Foresta 10x56 bins and Helios LightQuest 16x80 bins in use for astronomy, although the Vixen sees use for birding as well. In practice, I always use the 16x80s for stargazing (previously I had Helios Apollo 15x70 and I always went for them). I can hand-hold them, but often use a monopod or when time allows (e.g. for outreach events) a P-mount. Yes, I have a wide field dream combo of my APM 80mm F/6 with Nagler 31T5 (the "Panzerfaust"), which gives 15.5x magnification and 5.3 deg FOV at a better image quality than even the (excellent) Helios LightQuest 16x80. Nonetheless, I use the 16x80 much more for quick wide-field views. I would almost say a 7x50, or an 8x42 with really wide field would be a better complement for the 16x80, and might see more use. If you can stretch from the Lunt 16x70 to the Helios LightQuest 16x80, I would recommend it. The extra 10mm aperture gets you 30% more light. My LightQuest 16x80 showed many more resolved stars in M36, M37 and M38 than the (great!)  Apollo 15x70 ever did.