New to Forum!- Best Binoculars? (1 Viewer)

[Bates E.]

All,

I am new to this forum, and would value some opinions.

I have birded for many years and used many binoculars, but none of the "high end" priced glasses. So I have wondered, what the worldwide opinion is regarding what is the "Best" brand/model of binoculars? Why?

Some day I may spend a lot of money on binoculars, and would value a variety of opinions.

Thanks.

 

[henry link]

Welcome to Birdforum! I'll go ahead and be the first to disabuse you of the idea that there is a single "world wide opinion" regarding what is the best brand or model of binocular. If it were only so simple. As for a variety of opinions, you've come to the right place.

 

[Andrew Rowlands]

Hi B.E., Welcome to Birdforum, from all of the moderators and staff.

The 'best' brand/model of binoculars are those that suit you, your pocketbook and your birding style best ! Ask ten birders - you'll likely get ten different answers!

My advice is to go out and try some mid-range first (Nikon EII/SE or Swift Audubon perhaps) to get an idea of how good these are for the money; once your familiar with these, narrow down your choices by features;- weight, FoV, magnification, whatever - then start looking at the 'top end' bino's. Don't rule out the less popular/more esoteric types; if you do a lot of raptor watching, a good 12x or an I.S. may suit you; if you do a lot of woodland birding, a 7x may be better.

Take your time - you may not find the 'right' pair for you - settle for a good mid-range and wait for the next top-end models to be released.

Good luck.

Andy.

 

[Pileatus]

Hi B.E., Welcome to Birdforum, from all of the moderators and staff.

The 'best' brand/model of binoculars are those that suit you, your pocketbook and your birding style best ! Ask ten birders - you'll likely get ten different answers!

My advice is to go out and try some mid-range first (Nikon EII/SE or Swift Audubon perhaps) to get an idea of how good these are for the money; once your familiar with these, narrow down your choices by features;- weight, FoV, magnification, whatever - then start looking at the 'top end' bino's. Don't rule out the less popular/more esoteric types; if you do a lot of raptor watching, a good 12x or an I.S. may suit you; if you do a lot of woodland birding, a 7x may be better.

Take your time - you may not find the 'right' pair for you - settle for a good mid-range and wait for the next top-end models to be released.

Good luck.

Andy.

Andy,

Optically, I think you just recommended 3 "top-end" models. They aren't the most expensive, but they are among the very best views.

John

 

[Steve]

Mr Traynor have you taken sick ? are you not going to tout the old SE 8 x whatevers?

 

[Andrew Rowlands]

Andy,

Optically, I think you just recommended 3 "top-end" models. They aren't the most expensive, but they are among the very best views.

John

(LOL @ Steve!)

Yeah I probably did John but it's hard getting a baseline with a $3-500 roof prism!

I have 8x32 SE's and 8x42 FL's and it's a hard call to take just one pair out; if I do, there are times I'd like to have the other - just to look through - not to look at anything, just to enjoy the view !

Andy.

 

[Bates E.]

Thank you all for your feedback. Let me ask a slightly more provocative question. Why do the roofs from Leica, Zeiss and Swarovski cost so much more than others (e.g., Pentax, Nikon, B&L, etc.) if they are not clearly, substantively, superior?

Thanks.

 

[Yelvertoft]

Thank you all for your feedback. Let me ask a slightly more provocative question. Why do the roofs from Leica, Zeiss and Swarovski cost so much more than others (e.g., Pentax, Nikon, B&L, etc.) if they are not clearly, substantively, superior?

Thanks.

It is a law of diminishing returns. For twice the price you will get something that is (say) 10% better optically, for twice the price again you will get another 5% better, etc. This applies to many other things apart from binoculars.

The price is determined by what the market is prepared to pay. As well as the optical improvements, you are paying for the build quality, brand image, the company's marketing budget, warranty costs, and many other overheads.

Is it worth it? It's up to you, only you know how much you are prepared to pay for these extra benefits. Depends how seriously you take your bins and how you are going to use them.

Regards,

Duncan.

 

[pduxon]

Top end Nikon roofs are comparable in price and quality to Leica, Swaro and Zeiss.

Porros are cheaper to make hence they are cheaper - they may not be waterproof though. Dunno if I'd fancy a pair of SE's in a tropical rain forest.

Duncan has the is it worth bit spot on.

 

[xenophobe]

I'm definitely no expert, and am still rather new to the world of binoculars, but for the '"high end" priced glass' that you mention, you should be able to find a store or two that carries at least one or two of the big three, Zeiss, Leica and Swarovski. In my experience, Zeiss and Swarovski aren't too difficult to find, gun/hunting/outdoor store or camera store.


Leica Dealer Locator 1-800-222-0118

Zeiss Dealer Locator

Swarovski Dealer Locator

Nikon Sports Optics Dealer Locator


Once you find a place that has something in stock, you should definitely bring your binoculars to compare them to see how much, if any better of a view you'll possibly get and determine if the money is worth it to you.

One thing to keep in mind, the newest high-end binoculars from these companies are generally only a marginal optical improvement over currently existing second-teir lines. Models like Swarovski ELs, Leica Ultravids and Zeiss Victory FL are truly amazing binoculars, but their ownership is not necessary for amazing veiws, just bragging rights.

Many of the older or discontinued lines from these manfuacturers offer spectacular viewing for a LOT less $$$. Swarovski SLs, Zeiss Classics, and Leica Trinovids are great binoculars as well, and can be had at around half the new price of the current big money glass.

I personally feel that comfort is more important than view, especially when considering all the best binoculars. If you can't hold them comfortably and steady, what good are they? Optically, they'll all differ in number of respects, sharpenss, contrast, chromatic aberration, field/depth of view, etc... but in this price range, its mostly very minor. Regardless, you'll adapt to whichever binoculars you end up with. Try a few models out and see if you find something you can't live without.

 

[Pileatus]

Mr Traynor have you taken sick ? are you not going to tout the old SE 8 x whatevers?

Steve,

By now, everyone knows the Nikon 8X32 Premier SE binocular, part number NKN 7381, sold by EO for $549 is the best bin on the planet. You really don't need me repeating that all the time!

John

 

[Steve]

:clap: :clap:

 

[salty]

All,

I am new to this forum, and would value some opinions.

I have birded for many years and used many binoculars, but none of the "high end" priced glasses. So I have wondered, what the worldwide opinion is regarding what is the "Best" brand/model of binoculars? Why?

Some day I may spend a lot of money on binoculars, and would value a variety of opinions.

Thanks.

LEICA.

looked at them all, swarovski, zeiss, etc etc - still went back to leica - there ultravid models are simply supreme.

everything is right for me. the feel, the build quality, the weight, the image, they are awesome.

i tried all the top makes side by side, and still come away with the leicas

 

[Andrew Rowlands]

LEICA.

They're the only one's Salty could use, wearing boxing gloves .

 

[Wehr]

Steve,

By now, everyone knows the Nikon 8X32 Premier SE binocular, part number NKN 7381, sold by EO for $549 is the best bin on the planet. You really don't need me repeating that all the time!

John

What John is telling us is, that Leica may be suitable for the eagle-eyed birders, but for the more blind ones, Nikon SE is surely good enough.
:eek!:

Walter

 

[salty]

They're the only one's Salty could use, wearing boxing gloves .

cheeky |=\|

 

[Dennis Mau]

Top Three Binoculars

The Cornell Test just ranked the top three binoculars as Zeiss FL 8x42(first), Swarovski EL 8x32(second), and the Leica Ultravid 7x42(third). I've looked at alot of binoculars and you know what I agree with these rankings.
The top three binoculars are Zeiss FL, Swarovski EL, and the Leica Ultravid. Nikon SE are good optically but there not waterproof and there not as convenient for birders.
So look at those top three and decide for yourself which one is best for your type of use. You may need the extra brightness of the Zeiss or you might prefer the excellent ergonomics and build quality of the Swarovski or there might be something about the Leica you like better. Start with these three "Top Guns" and you can get a feeling for what is good.

 

[Pileatus]

The Cornell Test just ranked the top three binoculars as Zeiss FL 8x42(first), Swarovski EL 8x32(second), and the Leica Ultravid 7x42(third). I've looked at alot of binoculars and you know what I agree with these rankings.
The top three binoculars are Zeiss FL, Swarovski EL, and the Leica Ultravid. Nikon SE are good optically but there not waterproof and there not as convenient for birders.
So look at those top three and decide for yourself which one is best for your type of use. You may need the extra brightness of the Zeiss or you might prefer the excellent ergonomics and build quality of the Swarovski or there might be something about the Leica you like better. Start with these three "Top Guns" and you can get a feeling for what is good.

Most birders I see don't stand around in the rain very long and MANY of them have porros to begin with. As every SE owner knows, the SE works for birders.

I'd like to see the complete review before commenting, but I suppose the big three are happy!

Finally, why the 8X42, 7X42, 8X32 mix? Are the rankings supposed to represent the best in their respective category? If not, I think it's a mistake to compare different magnifications and objectives. Others have warned against this in the past.

It's too bad we can't see sales figures from each company. Now that would be informative!

John

 

[Dennis Mau]

Cornell Study

Most birders I see don't stand around in the rain very long and MANY of them have porros to begin with. As every SE owner knows, the SE works for birders.

I'd like to see the complete review before commenting, but I suppose the big three are happy!

Finally, why the 8X42, 7X42, 8X32 mix? Are the rankings supposed to represent the best in their respective category? If not, I think it's a mistake to compare different magnifications and objectives. Others have warned against this in the past.

It's too bad we can't see sales figures from each company. Now that would be informative!

John

John. Here is the link for the Cornell study. You can read it for your self.http://www.birds.cornell.edu/Publications/LivingBird/winter2005/Age_Binos.html
The smaller apertures in the top rankings was due to the fact that most people prefer the view through an 8x42 versus a 10x42 because of the bigger field of view, the brightness, the better eye relief, and the probability that the binocular is smaller and lighter and more ergonomic. Hence the Swarovski EL's 8x32 high rating even though the Leica 7x42 had a slightly better optical rating. All of these categories were averaged for the final ranking.
I don't believe they tested the Nikon SE's although I know they are excellent optically because I had a pair of 10x42's. They are , as good as, anything if you don't need the waterproofness of the roof prism design.
You really have to take the Cornell study in the context that it averages different characteristics of binoculars. One person might prefer a smaller lighter binocular and be willing to trade off a slightly dimmer image,whereas, somebody looking for Owls at dusk would prefer the bigger aperture and be willing to carry the heavier binocular. I really do agree with most of the results in the study. Read it and see what you think.

Dennis

 

[xenophobe]

You also need to take that study with a grain of salt because the sampling of the bins is done in a rather limited fashion. Each binocular was tested by at least ten people, with a sample group of 80 binoculars, 40 people (only 5 of which tested them all).

It says that at least 10 people tested each binocular, which means that some were tested by more... If one particular pair was tested by 40 people, and another by 10... and the results of that were compared? Or if the binoculars with the smaller sampling had a different set of reviewers? I think that would be enough to push one binocular over the top in a really close tabulation. I think they really should have provided the results with the # of people that tested each particular model as well.

I'd like to see a statistician crunch the numbers.... because I see something inherently unfair about their method...

Not that the final outcome of the study is wrong. I'm sure it's reflective of overall quality.