Which One? (1 Viewer)

[Maljunulo]

I want to give my daughter a "decent" pair of binoculars, which she lacks, as I am not especially anxious for her to inherit mine.

From reading reviews, it seems to have come down to a choice between the Minox BL HD 8X44, and the Vanguard Endeavor ED II 8X42, or the Nikon Monarch 7 8X42, to stay within the sum that I am willing to spend.

Comments, recommendations, or experiences?

 

[PhilR.]

The three Minox binos I have owned in the past were all very poor performers. So bad in fact, that I will no longer own any of their products, and would certainly not ever recommend them to others.

Between the other two, I would pick the M7. Yes, a practiced eye would most likely decide that the EDII has a slightly better view, but most people would not be able to tell. What they could easily tell however is the smaller footprint, lighter weight, better focus wheel, and much wider FOV of the M7. I have an original Endeavor ED, and the only reason I have it instead of an M7 is because the ED only cost me $149 (it is a truck bino). If the M7 had cost the same, I would have picked it over the ED every day of the week, and twice on Sundays.

That being said, and since you asked for recommendations -- I don't use my 8x42's all that often, mainly because I have some very good 8x30/32's, and there just isn't enough extra performance of the 42mm's to justify their extra weight/bulk. Unless there is some special reason to go with a 42mm in 8x that you haven't mentioned, then I would recommend a decent 8x30 or 32 for an all-purpose/general-purpose bino. These will have a wider FOV, and less weight. Also, depending on the size of your daughter's hands, a 32mm might be slightly to greatly easier to handle. 42mm's can run as much as 1/2 lb. more than a 30/32mm. This doesn't sound like much, until you have to hold it in front of your face for a while, or leave it hanging from your neck for a long while. Good 8x32's can be found in most all price ranges.

 

[Maljunulo]

Phil;

Thank you, that's exactly what I was looking for.

I had a pair of Nikon Venturer LX in 10X42, which I gave to my Other Half when I got my ELs, last August. I always was quite happy with them, but haven't even looked through them since I "went green".

I think you have convinced me that the 8X32 would be better for her, and the 42 was my personal bias getting in the way. Smaller, and lighter, and I doubt if she will feel the need for the bigger objectives. I looked at the 8.5X32 when I was looking, but convinced myself that I wanted the 42s. For me, I'm glad I did.

Again, thanks.
Richard

 

[NDhunter]

I also recommend the Nikon Monarch 7, out of that list as I have experience with them.

They have very nice fit and finish, and a great quality view.

I have not tried the others, the new Monarch 7 is well respected on the posts I have seen.

Jerry

 

[Maljunulo]

We ended up with a pair of Nikon Monarch 7, in 10X30, a delightful small, well finished glass, with very crisp images.

Since they are for my daughter, I allowed my Other Half to choose them (as a naive user, who doesn't give a bleep about all the geeky stuff) while I stood there, with my mouth tightly closed, so as not to inject any of my biases. She liked them right off, just for their handling, and said "wow!" when she looked through them.

Thanks to those who responded, and when we compared, there really wasn't much question.

 

[brocknroller]

We ended up with a pair of Nikon Monarch 7, in 10X30, a delightful small, well finished glass, with very crisp images.

Since they are for my daughter, I allowed my Other Half to choose them (as a naive user, who doesn't give a bleep about all the geeky stuff) while I stood there, with my mouth tightly closed, so as not to inject any of my biases. She liked them right off, just for their handling, and said "wow!" when she looked through them.

Thanks to those who responded, and when we compared, there really wasn't much question.

Your Other Half (I note that you did not say, Better Half ) has a prediction for 10x and apparently the steady hands that go with it, and strong arms, too, since the 10x42 Venturer LX weighs 34.5 oz. That's 4 oz. more than the Vixen 7x50 Foresta. Hefty. The 10x42 Venturer LX used to make my shoulders sore after I was out with them all day. Either your wife is Ms Olympia or I'm a Girly Man.

Despite the weight, IMO, the Venturer LX's optics are superior to the LXL's, which skews the color too warm, reds are orangy, so you are better off NOT going "green" with that model, otherwise your green will look lemon-yellow.

Your shoulders will thank you, however, the armoring is so soft on the LXL that within two weeks of light use, the armor will show discoloration from your hands. The only parts better on the LXL are the eyecups, which don't deteriorate as quickly as the originals, which develop bubbles from your sweat! Perhaps Nikon has worked out these bugs with the renamed "Premier."

Hope your daughter has steady hands like your wife, and I hope my behavior didn't not offend you even though it must have offended someone. :smoke:

Brock

 

[ceasar]

Your Other Half (I note that you did not say, Better Half ) has a prediction for 10x and apparently the steady hands that go with it, and strong arms, too, since the 10x42 Venturer LX weighs 34.5 oz. That's 4 oz. more than the Vixen 7x50 Foresta. Hefty. The 10x42 Venturer LX used to make my shoulders sore after I was out with them all day. Either your wife is Ms Olympia or I'm a Girly Man.

Despite the weight, IMO, the Venturer LX's optics are superior to the LXL's, which skews the color too warm, reds are orangy, so you are better off NOT going "green" with that model, otherwise your green will look lemon-yellow.

Your shoulders will thank you, however, the armoring is so soft on the LXL that within two weeks of light use, the armor will show discoloration from your hands. The only parts better on the LXL are the eyecups, which don't deteriorate as quickly as the originals, which develop bubbles from your sweat! Perhaps Nikon has worked out these bugs with the renamed "Premier."

Hope your daughter has steady hands like your wife, and I hope my behavior didn't not offend you even though it must have offended someone. :smoke:

Brock

Brock,

Nikon doesn't even have to change the box on the new Premier if they don't want to. The box for my old 2006 8x32 LX L says "Premier LX Binoculars."

As for the eye cups they are simply form fitting cylinders of moderately thick rubber held in place by a dab or two of glue. No bubbling there.

Bob

 

[Maljunulo]

I offered her the option of taking the Monarchs for herself, and sending the Venturers as "Dad's Castoffs" to daughter, but she said "no", since she really doesn't use binoculars very much.

I don't understand how anyone can live without them, since they add so much to life, but I guess not everyone is that way.

 

[WJC]

Brock,

Nikon doesn't even have to change the box on the new Premier if they don't want to. The box for my old 2006 8x32 LX L says "Premier LX Binoculars."

As for the eye cups they are simply form fitting cylinders of moderately thick rubber held in place by a dab or two of glue. No bubbling there.

Bob

I'm still trying to figure out what constitute "decent."

Bill

 

[Maljunulo]

I'm still trying to figure out what constitute "decent."

Bill

The "decent" ones are the ones which don't pull the eyes out of your head, but don't cost $1,000. (in my useage)

 

[ceasar]

The Nikon Premier, formerly LX L, will be above your price if new but worth considering if used. The 8x32's weigh about 24 ounces. Heavy for a 32mm. They are better than decent. Sharp, bright, with a flat field and no rolling ball.

Bob

 

[WJC]

The "decent" ones are the ones which don't pull the eyes out of your head, but don't cost $1,000. (in my useage)

Oh, how I've seen prices increase! It was not that long ago that the $1,000 bino of today was going for $300-$350. But, not only am I downsizing my property, I'm finding it necessary to downsize my wants as well.

My first good used guitar was a Rickenbacker 375 Deluxe in Maple Glo with Toaster Top pickups, checkerboard bindings, and full-width fret markers. It cost: $350. I sold it early on in my greed, selling, and collecting. I saw it on the wall a few years ago in a local Guitar Center store. The price: $9,000! Even if I had any talent--which I don't--it was plain to see I will never be in that market again.

"They say that all good things must end some day."--Chad & Jeremy, 1964

The same is true with my many fine medium aperture telescopes. I guess I can't resist growing old. I can, however, drag my feet on growing old, gracefully. :cat:

Bill

 

[paddy7]

Oh, how I've seen prices increase! It was not that long ago that the $1,000 bino of today was going for $300-$350. But, not only am I downsizing my property, I'm finding it necessary to downsize my wants as well.

My first good used guitar was a Rickenbacker 375 Deluxe in Maple Glo with Toaster Top pickups, checkerboard bindings, and full-width fret markers. It cost: $350. I sold it early on in my greed, selling, and collecting. I saw it on the wall a few years ago in a local Guitar Center store. The price: $9,000! Even if I had any talent--which I don't--it was plain to see I will never be in that market again.

"They say that all good things must end some day."--Chad & Jeremy, 1964

The same is true with my many fine medium aperture telescopes. I guess I can't resist growing old. I can, however, drag my feet on growing old, gracefully. :cat:

Bill

A few years ago, a friend of mine sold all his basses (including one to me and a really nice Fender Precision with bird's eye maple fingerboard to a friend) to get hold of an original 1959 Fender Broadcaster. It played like a dog, and had electronics out of the ark. He paid around £3000 for it.
Beware the price tag, is all i can say!

 

[justabirdwatcher]

Not surprised at all she chose the 10x30's. My wife absolutely preferred the smaller size and weight of my Sightron's to my Brunton's even though to my eyes, the Bruntons are brighter and have a wider FOV.

I handed her both and didn't say a thing about what either of them cost, etc. She switched back and forth 2-3 times and them picked the Sightrons and said "I'd rather use these. They are so small and light."

 

[Maljunulo]

I was glad that I kept still during the selection process.

 

[WJC]

A few years ago, a friend of mine sold all his basses (including one to me and a really nice Fender Precision with bird's eye maple fingerboard to a friend) to get hold of an original 1959 Fender Broadcaster. It played like a dog, and had electronics out of the ark. He paid around £3000 for it.
Beware the price tag, is all i can say!

Oh, I KNEW what I was doing; I just wasn't mature enough to control myself. When people get bent outta shape because they think I'm picking on foolish motivations, I'm doing so from my own STUPID experiences:

28 Rickenbacker guitars, 4 Ric 4001 bases, 3 Hofner 500s, all the big Gretches, and scads of Epiphones, 6 Stratocasters, and others. All were immaculate . . . NONE were new.

Did I have the talent to own any one of them . . . NO! My favorite guitar? the humble Telecaster . . . MEXICAN Telecaster.

So, if I seem to pick on some decisions displayed on BF, I feel I have an obligation to help my brother avoid the pitfalls that I have taken again and again. And boy, have they cost me money. Fortunately, reverting back to the poverty of my youth, I don't have to worry about that, anymore. :cat:

Cheers,

Bill

 

[St. Elmo]

Mal, why don't you give her a decent binocular instead of a "decent" one?

[Psst - one uses quotation marks to imply the quoted word is dubious.]

 

[WJC]

Mal, why don't you give her a decent binocular instead of a "decent" one?

[Psst - one uses quotation marks to imply the quoted word is dubious.]

But then, if you adhere to Microsoft Word, you will come to think passive voice is a grammatical error. It is not; it's a style choice. Frankly, using it a lot can make your words appear less stuffy.

Bill

 

[paddy7]

28 Rickenbacker guitars, 4 Ric 4001 bases, 3 Hofner 500s, all the big Gretches, and scads of Epiphones, 6 Stratocasters, and others. All were immaculate . . . NONE were new.

That is incredible! Particularly 4 Ric 4001s...always loved the sound, but when played by someone else - with a pick - those early Jam albums.....

 

[Maljunulo]

Mal, why don't you give her a decent binocular instead of a "decent" one?

[Psst - one uses quotation marks to imply the quoted word is dubious.]

You're quite right, I should have known better than to use emphasis quotation marks, rather than italics, bold, or underlining.

Nasty habit, that, and I'll work on breaking myself of it.