Value sweet spot? (1 Viewer)

[JasIA]

What's your opinion on bino price at which your start spending exponentialy more money to get incrementally more quality/performance?

 

[gr8fuldoug]

This does depend on your vision, however, I would say that the optical quality jump starts getting less obvious over $1,000.00

 

[JasIA]

Interesting, I was expecting to see numbers in the $600-$800 range in that you can spend a lot more but you won't get a lot more. I've personally never looked through alphas.

 

[gr8fuldoug]

To get better than a Kowa Genesis you need to spend a great deal more

 

[Upland]

I agree!

 

[eitanaltman]

This is a topic that comes up frequently here, with no consensus. The difficulty is that we are all different — the answer for me may not be correct for you. It depends on your vision and interests / obsessiveness as well. I would argue the diminishing returns for optical quality kick in much lower than $1000 for MOST people (this forum is NOT representative of most people!).

Thanks to the explosion of Chinese outsourced manufacturing, in terms of central (on axis) brightness / clarity / resolution, which is what normal non-optics-obsessed people care about, the gains start getting incremental after the $300-500 level. You have to really be serious about birding and/or optics to truly need anything beyond that.

My assessment after many years and many binoculars (these are VERY broad generalizations and implicitly focused on typical roof prisms used by birders):

• The biggest jump is from the cheap garbage (usually $100 or less) to the $200-300 binocular level (Vortex Dback, Nikon Monarch 5, many Chinese OEMs like Athlon, etc). A typical beginner or casual user will be perfectly fine here and 95%+ of normal humans will never need to go farther.
• There’s a decent sized jump in optics and build quality to the $400-600 mid tier level (Vortex Viper HD, Nikon Monarch 7, Meopta Meopro HD, etc). But beyond this diminishing returns really kick in for all but the most serious and/or well funded users.
• The jump to the “sub alpha” level ($800-1200, eg Zeiss Conquest HD, Nikon Monarch HG, Kowa Genesis, Leica Trinovid) is a decent sized bump in refinement, in both optics and build quality, that would be noticeable to a serious enthusiast. These are serious optics with top notch optics and excellent mechanical quality, but most casuals would be hard pressed to notice or care about the difference from the tier below. I view this as the Toyota vs Lexus level; the Toyota will do everything you need to do and for the vast majority of people it’s hard to justify the extra expense, but some people will appreciate and be willing to pay for the extra smoothness, refinement, and more luxurious finishing materials.
• Beyond the $1000 level the improvements get much, much smaller, and only a serious enthusiast or someone with a big budget really needs to go here. This is the best of the best, with even more optical refinement (that is difficult to notice for 99% of people), the leading edge of engineering and technology, and no expense spared on the luxury and quality of mechanicals and exterior finishing. The difference is there if you know what to look for, and if you’ve got the money go for it, but it’s hard to objectively argue that anyone NEEDS something that nice or expensive vs the tier below.

 

[WJC]

Interesting, I was expecting to see numbers in the $600-$800 range in that you can spend a lot more but you won't get a lot more. I've personally never looked through alphas.

Engineers know it takes a 90% increase in price to achieve a 10% improvement in performance. This is especially true considering some of the negatives talked to death by certain observers wouldn’t rate even a NOTICE by others. I have an ALPHA. The 8x32 Nikon SE. However, it wasn’t an ALPHA when I bought it. It was crowned that when the folks on binocular forums who needed something new to talk/brag about.

Bill

 

[JasIA]

This is a topic that comes up frequently here, with no consensus. The difficulty is that we are all different — the answer for me may not be correct for you. It depends on your vision and interests / obsessiveness as well. I would argue the diminishing returns for optical quality kick in much lower than $1000 for MOST people (this forum is NOT representative of most people!).

Thanks to the explosion of Chinese outsourced manufacturing, in terms of central (on axis) brightness / clarity / resolution, which is what normal non-optics-obsessed people care about, the gains start getting incremental after the $300-500 level. You have to really be serious about birding and/or optics to truly need anything beyond that.

My assessment after many years and many binoculars (these are VERY broad generalizations and implicitly focused on typical roof prisms used by birders):

• The biggest jump is from the cheap garbage (usually $100 or less) to the $200-300 binocular level (Vortex Dback, Nikon Monarch 5, many Chinese OEMs like Athlon, etc). A typical beginner or casual user will be perfectly fine here and 95%+ of normal humans will never need to go farther.
• There’s a decent sized jump in optics and build quality to the $400-600 mid tier level (Vortex Viper HD, Nikon Monarch 7, Meopta Meopro HD, etc). But beyond this diminishing returns really kick in for all but the most serious and/or well funded users.
• The jump to the “sub alpha” level ($800-1200, eg Zeiss Conquest HD, Nikon Monarch HG, Kowa Genesis, Leica Trinovid) is a decent sized bump in refinement, in both optics and build quality, that would be noticeable to a serious enthusiast. These are serious optics with top notch optics and excellent mechanical quality, but most casuals would be hard pressed to notice or care about the difference from the tier below. I view this as the Toyota vs Lexus level; the Toyota will do everything you need to do and for the vast majority of people it’s hard to justify the extra expense, but some people will appreciate and be willing to pay for the extra smoothness, refinement, and more luxurious finishing materials.
• Beyond the $1000 level the improvements get much, much smaller, and only a serious enthusiast or someone with a big budget really needs to go here. This is the best of the best, with even more optical refinement (that is difficult to notice for 99% of people), the leading edge of engineering and technology, and no expense spared on the luxury and quality of mechanicals and exterior finishing. The difference is there if you know what to look for, and if you’ve got the money go for it, but it’s hard to objectively argue that anyone NEEDS something that nice or expensive vs the tier below.

Brilliant response which specifically articulates what I was loosely thinking. Thank you

 

[eitanaltman]

One additional point is that you can “level up” by buying used or assiduously watching clearance sales. Used models can frequently be found for 1/2 of new price, basically letting you jump a level of quality for the price of the tier below.

This is my recommended route for the enthusiast who appreciates the good stuff but who’s taste exceeds their budget. You can even mitigate warranty concerns by focusing on brands which provide warranty support beyond the original owner (eg Vortex, Meopta, Minox, Maven, etc .

It is no coincidence that I am in this category. I had some extra budget this year and decided to dabble in the “sub alpha” tier for “mid tier” prices. You can get used stuff at that level in the $400-600 range. Meopta Meostar, Zeiss Conquest HD, Nikon Monarch HG, Minox HG, or an older model like Trinovid BN are examples wonderful optics that you can find in that price range.

I (unfortunately for my budget) realized I appreciate the difference to the $2000+ alphas, so I decided to go used in the $800-1000 range. That gets you an older model “alpha” which may not have the newest bells and whistles (eg the Leica Ultravid HD but not the newest HD Plus). I’m happy here, but if I was more budget restricted I would have been just fine at the prior tier.

 

[chill6x6]

If I'm honest with myself I'd say $300-$500 dollars... Beyond that one is spending a lot more and not getting a whole lot more. Vanguard Endeavor ED II-IV, Meopta Meopro, and a Nikon Monarch are all good enough for most binocular users.

 

[james holdsworth]

Much could depend on observer experience with optics as well. 20 years ago I probably wouldn’t notice the difference between a $500 binocular and a $1500 binocular but now I can, in large part due to this forum and learning how to spot optical aberrations.

 

[Sterngucker]

For me the law of diminishing returns starts kicking in somewhere between US$1k and US$2k, depending on what bino it is. While I will happily spend US$1800-odd on a Zeiss Conquest HD 10x56 (because it gives me what I need for dawn/dusk observation) I refuse to spend anything near that amount on a 'alpha' 8x32. Anything over US$2k for field glasses is not an option anyway because common sense and limited resources dictate more intelligent ways of spending my money.

 

[dries1]

Sterngucker,

When you say common sense, I take it you mean your common sense. I can understand everyone has their own budget.

Andy W.

 

[tenex]

I agree broadly with what's been previously said but as it's been all about the optics, I want to bring up mechanical quality which matters also. In fact, the trickle-down of optical improvements over the years has narrowed the optical quality gap to the point that mechanicals could even be the most noticeable difference between price levels to most people. Focusing smoothness, hinge action and so on, durability, even warranty and repairability in the longer term. You pay for all this too (or not as you choose), and I've found cheaper binos most obviously disappointing in these areas: high sample variability (poor quality control), unstable diopter setting, hinge loosening, that sort of thing. Unless you choose a cherry example and use it lightly and carefully, it may not be the bargain it seemed. On this basis, I'd put the "sweet spot" asked for back up around $1000. Buy something like that and you can count on good service for the rest of your life. That's "value" to me.

 

[eitanaltman]

Brilliant response which specifically articulates what I was loosely thinking. Thank you

Thanks. If you want to see a sort-of-objective quantitative visualization, check out the price vs quality chart in this Cornell binocular roundup: https://www.allaboutbirds.org/news/choosing-binoculars-price-vs-quality-index/

Don’t worry about the specifics but the general trend. There’s a very steep slope up to the $200-300 level, reasonable but diminishing gains out to $800-1000, and it’s close to flat above $1000.

It’s roughly exponential IMO — doubling price gets you fractionally less gain than the previous doubling.

However note that there’s a lot of variation as some cheaper models outperform more expensive ones, and the variation gets greater the cheaper you get. And also the cheaper you get, the more unit-to-unit sample variation becomes a factor (not just model to model). A really good sample of a $250 binocular could outperform a crappy sample of a $500 bin. Or the optics may be fine but the mechanics are garbage. The more money you spend the less you have to deal with these issues and other compromises. So the smaller your budget, the more you need to do your homework to find the hidden gems that rise above the pack, be more discriminate about weighing your individual priorities since you can’t have it all, and also be willing to return a crappy sample if needed.

 

[yarrellii]

I agree broadly with what's been previously said but as it's been all about the optics, I want to bring up mechanical quality which matters also. In fact, the trickle-down of optical improvements over the years has narrowed the optical quality gap to the point that mechanicals could even be the most noticeable difference between price levels to most people. Focusing smoothness, hinge action and so on, durability, even warranty and repairability in the longer term. You pay for all this too (or not as you choose), and I've found cheaper binos most obviously disappointing in these areas: high sample variability (poor quality control), unstable diopter setting, hinge loosening, that sort of thing. Unless you choose a cherry example and use it lightly and carefully, it may not be the bargain it seemed. On this basis, I'd put the "sweet spot" asked for back up around $1000. Buy something like that and you can count on good service for the rest of your life. That's "value" to me.

I was about to write something in the line of what tenex just wrote, but I'm not sure I could have explained it better.
I have some stunning binoculars (from the pure optical point of view) which I bought 2nd hand for little over 200€, but first, I know they won't last many years if I use them heavily, and then they have small mechanical (more than optical) comptomises that affect durability, ease of use, etc.
I'd also say that 1000 € is a good "sweet spot", as the OP says. Beyond that it gets more and more difficult to get huge gains (although some of these gains may mean a lot for some people in some areas). Personally, I usually swim in those 1000€ waters and, like eitanaltman has mentioned, am able to enjoy 2nd hand top models or second tier brand new ones.
However, if I was to give my younger self an advice, it would be: 500 € second hand from a trustworthy seller, I guess there's quality more than enough.

 

[Dennis Mau]

Binoculars are like anything else you get what you pay for so spend as much as you can reasonably afford and I would say expect to spend at least $500 to get a binocular that is going to last awhile and not give you any problems. That being said you can save money on the used market but be careful your not buying a lemon or somebody else's problems and if you are OCD like me be sure you can tolerate scratches or visible signs of use. If you only have $500 or less to spend I would recommend you get a porro-prism binocular because of their simple design you get more value than a roof-prism binocular. A $500 porro-prism binocular like a Nikon E2 8x30 can easily compete with a $1000 to $1500 roof-prism optically and build quality wise but many are not waterproof like the E2 because it is harder to manufacturer a waterproof porro-prism binocular. A Swarovski Habicht which sells for about $1000 can compete with the very best alpha roof prism binoculars optically, and they are waterproof. As others have said there are diminishing returns as you spend more on binoculars but there is no doubt in my mind that a $3000 alpha binocular like a Swarovski NL is better optically and build quality wise than a $1000 binocular like a Kowa Genesis or Nikon Monarch HG because I have had them all at the same time and there is no comparison. I sold my Kowa Genesis 8x33 and Nikon Monarch HG 8x42 after getting the NL 8x42 because it was redundant. So if you have the money and have a desire and a need for the best there is nothing wrong with buying an alpha especially if you are going to keep it a long time.

 

[Jessie-66]

Civilian users are happy to pay 2500 euros/dollars for 99 percent edge sharpness, flat field and have to baby-pampers the expensive binoculars. Governments and military rather for tested and certified durability, maintainability, temperatures, water, dust and shock proofness and other features important in the field, in wars.
Germans are known for thoroughness, with search engines one finds their (old) military test conditions - and export restrictions. Service regulations in german military language are known as "Dienstvorschriften". In the German language there is the older term "Feldstecher" besides the civilian term "Fernglas" (binoculars).
For a new West German Zeiss/Hensoldt Fero D16 8x30 you will pay 2500 Euro, for a new Carl Zeiss Jena EDF 7x40 (in East Germany developed, Docter/Noblex sells today 7x40 BGA without reticle, without laser and radiation protection, without "yellow cast") 1200 Euro. Only 70% "sweet spot" - but 100% tested (and certified) for real field use and not only flat field use. ;-)

 

[John Cantelo]

I've always been told that one of the greatest benefits of more expensive instruments is as much about their superior quality control than any great improvements in their optical potential of the design & materials themselves.

 

[Torview]

The premium binoculars are expensive but not so much compared to the other things people spend on, very expensive SUV`s which are never used to their potential, very high performance cars never really stretched on public roads, but why should`nt people enjoy their money as they please.

I justify the expense to myself because I know I get 100% of my optics potential every time I raise them to my eyes, as for the op question I`d say the Kowa Genesis.