Advice on the cheap Yukons or similar (1 Viewer)

[Tinepree]

Hello everybody,

These days, I'm looking to buy a compact, cheap (preferably below 70$) single-eye device (mostly for hiking and preferably distances above 100 yards).

Since I'm a complete optics newbie, I need all the help I can get

I am mostly worried about the visual quality which I understand - can get very crappy in this price range.

I've been checking out Yukon stuff, they have those 20/30x50 "telescopes" plus some variable zoom gadgets (the "advanced optics" model is above my budget).

Would be helpful if anybody had the opportunity to test those, or if you can think about other viable alternatives.

Btw, not sure what WA - wide angle means.

Other products which caught my eye are the Orion 10-25x42 and Alpen 20x scope - found on Amazon.

I know that some people say that zoom monoculars are bad, not sure how things really are.

 

[typo]

Tinepree,

Welcome to the forum.

I'm not sure I can answer any of your questions directly as I've not seen Yukon products, but I hope it will be of some help to point out a few things to consider.

Whether it's a scope or binoculars it's very difficult to hold higher magnifications steady enough to see a benefit. People here report that anything over 10x or occasionally 12x the detail you see actually goes down unless you use a tripod or other means of support. Shake is often even worse for scopes or monoculars. 8x is the most popular choice. I suggest you think carefully about how you are going to use it and if you feel you want to take a tripod or possibly a monopod with you as well if you really need higher power.

Another thing to consider is the exit pupil. If you divide the objective diameter by the magnification you actually get the diameter of the spot of light that enters the eye. So for a 25x42 would be 1.68 mm. The view is always going to be dimmer than you see by eye. That might still be OK on a bright summer's day but it's next to useless on a gloomy winter's day. Normally we would suggest 2.5 is a minimum for summer and at least 4 or maybe 5mm for winter. The answer is big objectives or low magnification unfortunately.

You've noted that zooms are almost always bad. The best ones have a narrow field of view, the cheap ones, only the very centre of the view is sharp (if at all) at higher magnifications. Generally a bad idea.

I'll skip technical bits about transmission and coatings for now.

Depending on the size or weight you think is your practical limit I really feel it would be most useful to look at 8x25 or better 8x32s as the most convenient format. I'd personally chooses a more compact 8x32 binocular over a 10x42 monocular. It's really very good advice to track down some pairs to try for yourself.

At lower price points, porro prism designs (crooked) rather than the roof prism (straight tube) designs are going to offer a better view.

Good luck,

David

 

[Binastro]

Welcome,
I disagree somewhat with David.
I have tried I think every nuance of Yukon spotting scope at least up till a few years ago.
They vary quite a lot but some are quite good.
The zoom monocular you mention i have also tried and it is not very good in the clone I tested.

If you want a monocular, depending what application I would use the very fine old Soviet 20 x 50 telescope which is wonderful but heavy or the smaller 30mm version.
Despite being 20x it is easy to use but narrow field.
The 10 x 30 is easy to use, again narrow field but wonderful optical quality.

I also disagree about a porroprism moncular such as the Russian 7 x 50 or the old Glantz.
As they are difficult to hold, use and for finding stuff.
However the Russian 8 x 30 porroprism monocular is very good as are some similar Zeiss.
The Russian/ Soviet 8 x 30 were made in vast quantities but may be difficult to find.
The multicoated ones are best. They have 8.5 degree fields but cannot be used with glasses as the 5 element eyepiece has little eye relief.
They work down to minus 40 degrees and are small and robust.
That is what I would use.

There are numerous Chinese clones of the 10x,12,15 and 20 x 50mm monocular.
They vary tremendously and have focus backlash, but a 10 x 50 good example is certainly worth considering.
Or as David said a robust 8 x 32 binocular.
Hope this helps.

 

[Binastro]

There are two types of Yukon smaller spotting scopes.
Regular drawtube scopes and folded refractor mirror spotting scopes. The latter don't use prisms.
The WA version from memory have apparent angles of view of 60 degrees compared with about 48 degrees.
The wide angle means just that. A wider view. The real field angle varies with magnification.
For long distance work the 20 x 50 Soviet/Russian is unmatched by anything at the price. They may be difficult to find. Mine was £12 as new, but often around £30, maybe more. The reason it is easy to use is it is long with the drawtube extended. It does not focus close. But they are heavy. I will weigh mine.

 

[Binastro]

The nearest one to hand is the Turist (cyrillic) 8x - 20x 32 Made in USSR.
Black metal leightweight about 28 cm long, 11 inches.
Close focus at 8x about 15ft. Much longer at 20x.
Weight as new including original tissue paper in its cyindrical black plastic tube with detachable end stop for use in bad weather with the scope in the container and screw front cap and including the black woven strap is 495 gm.

The optical quality is very high for this price range.
Focus is by rotating the eyepiece
Zoom by rotating ring.
Apparent field about 48 degrees throughout zoom range, which would give about 6 degrees at 8x to 2.4 degrees at 20x.
This would be ideal for hiking unless the weight and length are a problem.
Some multicoated surfaces, some single coated, quite a few uncoated.
1980s.
Probably difficult to find, maybe on internet.
The USSR quality probably better than later Russian, but still all the Turist spotters are high optical quality, including the 10 x 30, 20 x 50 and the larger spotters.

 

[Binastro]

Just tested the 8x to 20x 32 Turist.
The conditions were awful very dim overcast.
These Soviet optics are exceptionally good.
Looking at a building 120 metres distance the brickwork seems etched at magnifications between 8 and 20x.
These optics and the image are probably the equal of any similar spec. scope regardless of cost.
The only problem is that I am not as steady as I used to be.
Between 8x and 15x the scope is very steady using widely spaced hands completely unbraced.
Unbraced at 20x it is not steady for me.
However, braced at 20x the image is fantastic even in dim light. The image is of course a bit dim, but the magnification helps.

So it would need to be braced on a tree, rock, sitting, even a prone position with supported elbows at 20x.
A young person may be able to use it at 20x completely unbraced, but braced is better.
A very fine small scope indeed.

 

[Binastro]

I agree with David that higher magnifications and small exit pupils, the little circle of light at the back of the eyepiece, mean dimmer images.
But these dimmer images are in no way useless even in fairly overcast skies.
The image is just dimmer, but you still see a good and highly magnified image.
Of course, with a larger aperture scope, i.e. bigger front lens and high transmission optics the image would be brighter, but you may not wish to carry around a scope three times the weight and maybe an equally heavy tripod.

Also younger people can often make out more with a dimmer image.

The monoculars suggested originally are short and basically one is using one hand to support them, while the Turist scopes are long and you are using two widely spaced hands.
However, the 10 x 50 and 12 x50 Chinese monoculars I find useful and easy to hold steady with a little bracing if necessary.
I just don't like the variable and often questionable optical quality and the backlash in the focussing even new out of the box.
I may be wrong but maybe they are 'waterproof' and one had damp and bad haze inside the optics brand new. It should never have left the factory, and their quality control is awful or non existent.
If it is was not this particular Chinese model I apologise, but it was this or a similar Chinese monocular.
I often despair at the quality of the lower end Chinese optics.

Yes. It says, Bak-4 prisms, so what is my comment.
Tripod, carrying case, WATERPROOF.
Field of view 10 x 50 101m. This is accurate.

12 x 50 the same but field 82m.
There is also 15x 50 and 20 x 50, and I suppose the small tripod could be used as a steady handle.
The stated fields of view of all four are accurate.

Made in China.
The boxes of many different brand names seem identical.

 

[Binastro]

Just tried the 8 to 20 x 32 Turist on Jupiter in transparent sky but bad light pollution.
Jupiter's disc very nice all powers.
All 4 moons nicely seen as tiny points of light from 10x to 20x.
moons 1 and 2 were near to Jupiter and my eye not good enough to see them at 8x, but a person with young or good eyes would probably see the moons all the way from 8x to 20x.
I suspect that attaching the scope to a tripod a person with good eyes would see the equatorial belts at 20x probably combined. There is no tripod bush.

It seems the scope is still sold in the U.S. at $59 and $69 as the Tourist P. I think mine is also a Turist P with a pi letter for P.
This will be the modern Russian version, probably not up to superb old Soviet standards, but still pretty good and maybe better coatings?

 

[Tinepree]

Thanks guys for all the suggestions, you gave me a lot of food for thought. I'll be looking into Russian scopes like the Tourist ones, and soviet ones if I find them.

If anybody has more insight on the image quality for the Yukons (probably the 20x 50 seems best choice for me), that would be appreciated.

I understand that higher than 10x zoom devices are sometimes difficult to handle and often have a more limited field of view, but I can deal with that.

Binastro - about that Tourist P you own, I am not sure how your review would translate for nature daylight viewing ?

I've googled a bit for those Tourist P at 60 bucks, and found them as a canadian product - by Newcon Optik. Not sure who they are, but from their catalog - their expensive range seems to be pretty hot stuff.

http://www.newcon-optik.com/touristp.html
http://www.kremlinoptics.com/catalog/item/spotting_scope_tourist_p.html
(second link might be a russian one)

 

[typo]

Tinepree,

I just looked at the specifications for the Tourist P on those links. If accurate the apparent field of view is 40 degrees (you multiply the angle of view by the magnification). You asked earlier what was wide angle. With binoculars, 60 degree plus is good, but that 40* is quite respectable for a zoom I feel.

The the second point is that the Canadian website claims 3.5 arcseconds for resolution. That's nonsense, that would defy the laws of physics. The Russian one claims 5.6. Much more realistic and I'd suggest very good for something in this price range. That should still be quite sharp at 20x. Most of cheap monoculars or binocluars I've tried would not match that at that kind of magnification. Of course that Yukon might be an exception.

At 8x the exit pupil would be 4mm, which is generally fine for most birdwatchers in winter. At 20x it would be 1.6mm. Today it's a bright but overcast day in southern England. When I stop down one of my binoculars to give a 1.6mm EP, the resulting dimming meant there was a significant loss in visible detail. Unrestricted I could easily read the lettering on a plant label at 40yards. Stopped down I couldn't. Hope that's helpful.

David

 

[Binastro]

Dear David and Tinepree.
From memory there is a drawtube Yukon 20 x 50 and a folded refractor in WA and normal.
The drawtubes vary. Some are good some are not.
The folded refractors as i remember can have stiff focussing.
The 20 x 50 Soviet Turist is far superior optically to the Yukon and frankly is as good as any 20 x 50 regardless of cost. The Russian one may be pretty good also.
However, the field is narrow.
Because it is long it is stable.

I checked the field of the 8x to 20x and it is indeed accurate at 5.0 and 2.0 degrees.
I guessed 48 degree apparent but it is 40 degrees.
i forgot to check but I think the edge performance was exceptional. I must try again on stars.
It depends on Pinetree's age and eyesight.
If young and with good eyesight even at 20x it may be fine.
For use at 100 yards plus 8x really doesn't cut it even if you are looking at an elephant.
I don't think a bird would show much. Perhaps a Pterodactyl ?spelling?
The 20 x 50 Turist would be brighter but is narrow field. This might be O.K.

I regularly use 1mm to 1.4mm exit pupils in daylight on spotting scopes even nowadays and have no problems whatsoever.
Each person has their own way of viewing and own choice of optics.
It seems birders like a very bright view above most things.
For me it is mainly about high resolution.
But I regularly use 5x and upwards binoculars also.
The resolution thing depends entirely on what system of resolution you are using.
A black spot on a white background could almost certainly be seen at 3.5 arcseconds at 20x if steady. I would be amazed if it was not seen by someone with fine eyesight.

The Dawes limit only applies to equal double stars as seen through telescopes and possibly binoculars. It is often used here in the wrong context.
Hope this helps.

 

[Binastro]

Must admit I have not seen an elephant or pterodactyl locally, although the pterodactyl might have been around when I was young.
What i mean is at 150 yards as a non birder i have trouble identifying birds with an 8x binocular.

Some hiking sticks have a tripod bush.
I think the 20 x 50 Turist and Yukons may have a tripod socket. must check.

A good option is a secondhand old Opticron 20 x 50 Mighty Midget. I think straight through or possibly angled.
They may be waterproof?
The ones I have looked through are good and they are lightweight.

 

[typo]

Tinepree,

I wouldn't worry too much about the technical points above. Binastro and myself disagree on a couple of things but that's not a lot of help to you.

Eyesight varies quite a bit between individuals, so there is no hard and fast rules about who will see what level of detail under which light conditions. However on average most people have sharpest vision when their pupils are about 2.25mm diameter. If you divide the objective diameter by 2.25 it will give you some idea of the maximum useful magnification in good light. For the x32 that would be about 14x. Above that the subject will be bigger but you're unlikely to see any more detail. For a x50 that's 22x. Poor optical quality can decrease those values, but I have no reason to doubt Binastro's opinion about the Turists.

David

 

[henry link]

The 20x50 Turist does have a hole drilled in the tube that will accept a tripod screw.

I can't say I'm quite as impressed as Binoastro with the optical quality of my old Soviet made Turist. I wouldn't call it "superb", more like OK for a $60 telescope. Be warned that it's an old fashioned extendable spyglass with a lens erecting system, just like what Lord Nelson and Captain Hook used. It opens to about 20" for use. A long tube like that is not very easy to hold still. The AFOV is tiny, about 40º, and I would say less than 20º of that is actually sharp, or rather as sharp as this scope gets. The image is yellowish from the Soviet coatings. I used to take it along (in its hard plastic case) if I thought I might need more than binocular magnification on a hike, but didn't want to haul a real scope. Now, for that same purpose I get better results with the Zeiss Tripler mounted on an 8x binocular.

 

[Binastro]

Hi Henry,
I think I have 3 or 4 examples of the 20 x 50 Turist and all are very good.
That is not to say they are all good.
In Soviet times they did have some bad years.
My tests are mainly astro, say looking at Jupiter and his moons.
In addition two astro friends have the 20 x 50 and rave about the quality.
One uses it with a safe solar filter to make wonderful drawings of sunspot detail and the other also thinks it fantastic and has tested several others.

But I accept your results from yours. And that there may be other poor ones.

The fact that the image may be yellow does not really matter to me and I rarely notice it.
It probably is of more concern to birders.
My other Soviet items like the 12 x 45 and 20 x 60 Soviet binoculars I find wonderful.
Again some people say the images are yellow.
they both have excellent resolution.
I used both daily for 15 years.
However, I have tried about 6 other 20 x 60 Russian and Soviet binoculars and none come close to mine.
The 12 x 45s do vary but not greatly, although they are export versions. The home supply might be worse. There are several owners of the 8 x 30s who love them, but I find them too small for astronomy.

As with everything one should try them.

The Yukons of which I have tested maybe 15 are rarely as good as the Turists.
I have the lightweight 6x to 100x 100 and mine is really good, but I suspect others may not be. It is a folded refractor.

The problem is that Pinetree wanted to spend a maximum of $70.
Your tripler I think cost more than that.
If cost was not the factor I would suggest a 12 x 36 Canon IS, but this might not be rugged enough. Or a top end small spotting scope.

There is also the Baigish small zoom spotter that is good. 8x to 24x 40??

I will try a 20 x 50 Turist regarding edge performance if I get clear weather.

 

[Binastro]

Dear Pinetree,
I found my brief test of the 30 x 50 WA Yukon Scout.
2003 August 19.
Retest last half Moon. Quite good. Aperture approx 50mm.
Moon good centrally. Edge performance poor.
But greater than 60 degree field, 68 degrees claimed.
Real field is about 2 1/4 degrees.
Colour correction O.K.
Can be hand held with support.
The eyepiece and the relay lens are mainly uncoated.
The objective has one multicoated and one uncoated surface.
The optics are NOT fully multicoated as probably claimed.

I awoke 3.40 a.m. and tried the 8x to 20x 32 Turist.
Centrally Jupiter's disc was very fine at all mags. The colour was maybe warm white.
All 4 moons easily seen from 8x to 20x.

However, the edge performance was not good with poor star images and possibly spherochromatism.

Pinetree, you must listen to Henry's advice as he has used the 20 x 50 Turist in the field.
British astronomers must like it because of the very fine central performance.
T.O.E the Russian importer was very strong in Britain and kept high standards.
All the optics were low price and vast numbers sold.
I don't think I have ever seen a broken 8 x 30 binocular or monocular.
I would think most are still with the original owner, children or grandchildren.

The Turist drwatube is a bit wobbly but O.K.

As a teenager till twenties I used solely a 25x to 40x 2/14 inch finest British brass drawtube telescope with thick brown leather coat and thick long endcaps.
I easily hand held it at 25x to 40x.
I followed and identified the enormous number of types of aircraft flying in the cold war period completely handheld.
I also viewed ships and scenery and planets bracing the scope as necessary.
There was no tripod bush and I never used a tripod.
But I was young and strong.

 

[Tinepree]

Thanks for the additional info. I think I'm finally getting an idea of what I should expect from those drawtubes.

Talking about wide angles, I've seen this in the specification for different products (including binoculars). Not sure how this is optically achieved, but should I expect a decrease in image quality ? I mean - compared to a similar product, with same magnification.

 

[Binastro]

Dear Tinepree,
The field angle is primarily achieved by the eyepiece.
Narrow angle modern eyepieces are about 40 degrees apparent.
Normal about 50 degrees.
Modern wide 60.
Modern extra wide 65 to 70
1970s 1980s EWA 80 degrees.

With relay lenses there may be complications and the Russian and British drawtubes are narrow.

Old astro scope eyepieces can be very small.
Monocentric, Tolles eyepieces 25 degrees. But very high quality images.
Galileos eyepieces may have been only 10 degrees ??
Kelners 50,55 degrees 3 glass elements.
Plossl 50 degrees 4 elements.
Erfles, Berteles 65, 68. 5 or 6 elements
Nagler, Meade EWA 82, 84 about 7elements.
Eyepieces of 100, 110, 120 degrees exist even in 1950s submarine periscopes and modern astro. some have about 12 elements and can cost over £1,000 each eyepiece.

The real field is approx. the apparent field divided by the magnification.
The widest binocular eyepieces are about 85 degrees commercially.
Nowadays it is rare to find above 70 degrees.
Normally binoculars are 50 to 60 degrees about.

The edge performance is almost always worse than the centre, but this is a highly complex subject.
Aspheric eyepieces are fairly common, say in Low price Nikon Action VII binoculars.

The others here will advise say on a 20 x 50. Maybe a Yukon WA.
Me I would choose the 30 x 50 WA Yukon or the 20 x 50 Turist as I have always preferred higher powers to get extra reach and extra detail.

However, the better your eyes the less magnification you need.

 

[Binastro]

Nowadays a 5 element eyepiece WA can have a central performance similar to a 4 or 3 element standard eyepiece because of good coatings.
But many optics claiming to be fully multicoated are poorly coated.
In a way you get what you pay for, but you can stack the odds in your favour.
The common binocular eyepiece is 3 glass elements.
The central performance can be very good, but the field is usually curved.
If you are young your accommodation can cope with some of this.

The whole binocular is designed as a unit and eyepiece, prisms, objectives are all carefully matched in good instruments.