Audubon 8.5x44 ED (2 Viewers)

[John Cantelo]

I've always admired the Audubon 8.5x44s and in their latest incarnation - waterproof & lighter in weight - must be one of THE best buys on the market. (Much better value than any roof prism glass!). Years back I looked at the first ED version of this line & didn't see any real advantage over the 'standard' option. How does the latest ED version compare?
John

 

[marcus]

I've had one of them for about 4 years John, and the optics are GREAT!
You do mean the porro prisms, not the roofs, right?

 

[mcdowella]

I am now using the 8.5x44 ED porros, and find them great. I suspect my eyes (well below normal) are the limiting factor, not the optics, but I can say that they are very comfortable to look through and have a nice wide field of view. While buying them I compared with Nikon HG and the only optical difference I could see was the wider field of view with the Audubons. (the Audubons are heavier, though). I think they compare better for seeing details against my scope (Spacemaster) than the non-ED did, but I have not had the opportunity to do a direct comparison between the ED and non-ED, because I believed in the waterproof marking.

I tried to clean a non-ED pair without scratching the lenses by soaking them in a shallow bowl and ended up with soapsuds INSIDE the barrels. An email to Swift produced a response including the following quote:

We are sorry to hear of your experience in cleaning the 820 Swift Audubon.
It is most unfortunate that the term "waterproof" is not clearly defined for
all and commonly known. The standard definition for "waterproof" is that an
instrument can be submerged in one meter of water for 5 minutes.

It seems to me that most birdwatchers will be unlikely to submerge their binoculars as deep as a metre, but may well have them exposed to damp for more than five minutes at a time.

Warehouse express did take the non-EDs back on the 29.08.03 for repair under warranty, but they are still there - when I inquired I was told that the manufacturers repair section had a backlog. I replaced them with the ED despite all this, because I knew I could look through the non-ED for long periods without eyestrain.

 

[Steve Jones]

I tested the ED Audubons in April and found them to be really good and VERY bright (and a lot better than ANY of the similer priced roof prism's). Would have bought them but for a 2nd hand pair of B & L Elite's at the same price which were just too good to miss.
Steve.

 

[Graham Osborne]

Audubon 8.5 x44

I have used a pair of the non-ED new style Audubons periodically (for close-up birding, nightjarring etc) for just over a year. I can't therefore give you any help on whether to go for the ED version John. However, I have had the very same problem as A.J. McD. Is it physically possible to properly waterproof centre-focussing porros?

Apart from the 'non-waterproof ' issue the only other slight gripe I have had with the Audubons is regarding eye-relief - a consequence of the extreme wide angle view no doubt. With the eye cups fully out I cannot get the benefit of the whole of the whole field of view. I have fixed this by placing a narrow ring of mountain-bike inner tube around each eyepiece barrel. This allows the eye-cups to rest in a halfway position, which gives the full benefit of the super-wide field of view. This would of course be no use for spectacle wearers. Steve Ingraham highlighted this point in his BVD review so I guess this is not just a quirk with my pair. Having said all this I have to say that optically I am not aware of any similarly-priced binoculars (porro or roof) that can match the Audubons' optical performance, and that's just the non-ED version.

I note that East of England Binoculars, (whose own repair shop very quickly and efficiently sorted out my fogged-up eyepiece) are now selling the EDs for £269 (down from £299). If they had been that price when I bought mine I probably would have gone for the higher spec.

Graham

 

[John Cantelo]

Thanks to all those who have replied to my question. I'm of the opinion that the Porro Audubons (non-ED) are just about the best value bins available on the market whose main "fault" is that they're not Roofs! Had they been so folks would be talking about them as rivals for Zeiss Swarovski et al. I just wondered how much better an ED version might be!
John

 

[marcus]

John, that is so true, that the only reason the new Swift Audubons can't compare with ELs or a Zeiss bino is that they are not roofs. Not 'in style' in I suppose. But as far as getting a good look at a bird, they are 'top-of-the-list'.

 

[Leif]

John: I don't own Swift Audubon but from experience I would say that the difference between the ED and non ED would be seen in high contrast situations. View a dark bird against a bright sky through most binoculars and you will see a fringe around the bird. Some top of the range roofs show significant fringing which to my eyes is unacceptable. Some porros such as the Nikon 8x32 SE show almost no fringing. The ED version of the Swifts will show less fringing and might even eliminate it altogether. If you are not bothered by fringing through the non-ED then you don't need the ED version.

FWIW my understanding is that the ED (low dispersion) glass is used in the objectives and not the prisms or eyepieces.

Incidentally Bausch and Lomb (or Bushnell, I forget which) also produce a good quality 8x42 porro prism binocular which they describe as being waterproof.

I agree with those who say that porro prism binoculars give much better performance in a given price range than roofs. I have heard it said (on this forum?) that Leica will not even consider producing a porro prism glass.

 

[John Cantelo]

Thanks Leif. I use Nikon 8x32 SE porros had a degree of 'stick' from those 'armed' with up market roofs when I got 'em. One critic, though, was quickly silienced when he compared them with his new Leica 8x32s. To my mind one of the best ever bins was the old Zeiss 10x50 porros (I mean the west german instruments, not the familiar Jenoptem range). Upgrades with modern coatings they'd be my ideal,
John

 

[pduxon]

I use Nikon 8x32 SE porros had a degree of 'stick' from those 'armed' with up market roofs when I got 'em.

Don't understand this John? Why give someone "stick" for the bins they use? Surely everyones eyes are different and what might be good for me won't be good for you?

 

[mak]

A good quality Porro prism generally gives a better 3D image at close focus, than a roof prism (although the Porro does not always focus as close as a roof prism), and a good Porro (high quality manufacturer) will generally have a higher light transmission than a roof prism containing a mirrored surface (Pechan prism). No need to phase coat (or phase correction if you prefer the term) a Porro prism. Negatives can be size and weight.