-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Nikon monarch 5 16x56 Vs Vortex 15x56mm hd kaibab (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter gonz33
- Start date
mikefreiberg
Well-known member
Hi there,
The specs on these bins are are fairly similar. However, keep in mind that Nikon is a glass company whereas Vortex is not. The greatest advantage to that is we control the level of quality in-house since we make our own glass. This ensures less optical quality issues across the board. Also, Nikon's No-Fault Policy states that if you break the optic you pay $10 and S&H then we will replace it for you. Let us know what you choose and best of luck. Let me know if you have other questions.
All the best,
Mike Freiberg
Nikon Birding Market Specialist
Mike,
Does that No-Fault Policy apply if I buy one as a Nikon refurbished binocular?
Let's settle that question once and for all.
Bob
mikefreiberg
Well-known member
NO it does not. Just found out this today and am 100% certain.
John Russell
Well-known member
AFAIK neither Leica nor Swarovski make their own glass - inferior products?
What distinguishes Hikari (Nikon) from Hoya, LZOS, Ohara, Schott or Sumita and are GM cars better because they have lots of AC Delco components?
John
. Leica have I believe a very long history of inventing glass types, especially exotic glasses.
I think they have patented many glass types and many lenses using them.
So although they may not have their own commercial glass manufacturing plant they do know a lot about glass.
Similarly, Zeiss know a lot about glass and I suppose they have always had a tie-up with schott glasses.
Nikon, also know a lot about glass but I think they were slow in the early days to catch up although by the time of the Korean War their lenses were apparently superior to the European competition.
And they do make their own glass.
Minolta also made their own glass in 150 different types in their heyday and they were extremely good at achromatic and multi coating early on.
It should be noted that all these 4 firms tried very hard to avoid thorium containing glass when Canon, Pentax, Olympus, Taylor Taylor Hobson, Konica and numerous other firms went headlong into radioactive glass types.
I think that was because the 4 firms that really understood glass kept well away from the radioactive types. Taylor Taylor Hobson just decided that it was in their interests to make the most advanced lenses even if it did contain thorium.
and of course Kodak went headlong into it in World War II from 1940.
However, even in their own 1975 catalogue schott glass still listed thorium containing glass types I think up to 26% by weight.
And I have found thorium use in Leica, Zeiss, Nikon and Minolta lenses but these are extremely rare and were only used to try to match the competition. in some cases the makers denied using it but I think it may be because individuals just did not know.
So does the fact that makers such as Nikon and Minolta have their own glass manufacturing plants make them better.
Well it really does help but not as much as they claim.
Incidentally, I have found some Hoya lenses and filters that are frankly rubbish but that is 20 or 30 years ago. And they are made with their own glass.
I think they have patented many glass types and many lenses using them.
So although they may not have their own commercial glass manufacturing plant they do know a lot about glass.
Similarly, Zeiss know a lot about glass and I suppose they have always had a tie-up with schott glasses.
Nikon, also know a lot about glass but I think they were slow in the early days to catch up although by the time of the Korean War their lenses were apparently superior to the European competition.
And they do make their own glass.
Minolta also made their own glass in 150 different types in their heyday and they were extremely good at achromatic and multi coating early on.
It should be noted that all these 4 firms tried very hard to avoid thorium containing glass when Canon, Pentax, Olympus, Taylor Taylor Hobson, Konica and numerous other firms went headlong into radioactive glass types.
I think that was because the 4 firms that really understood glass kept well away from the radioactive types. Taylor Taylor Hobson just decided that it was in their interests to make the most advanced lenses even if it did contain thorium.
and of course Kodak went headlong into it in World War II from 1940.
However, even in their own 1975 catalogue schott glass still listed thorium containing glass types I think up to 26% by weight.
And I have found thorium use in Leica, Zeiss, Nikon and Minolta lenses but these are extremely rare and were only used to try to match the competition. in some cases the makers denied using it but I think it may be because individuals just did not know.
So does the fact that makers such as Nikon and Minolta have their own glass manufacturing plants make them better.
Well it really does help but not as much as they claim.
Incidentally, I have found some Hoya lenses and filters that are frankly rubbish but that is 20 or 30 years ago. And they are made with their own glass.
mooreorless
Well-known member
http://www.opticstalk.com/topic20729.html
The Nikon Monarch 5 16x56 is new with no reviews, it is cheaper. If it was me I would buy the Nikon to try from a dealer that lets you return, but that is easy for me to say living in North America. I would get the Vortex living where you live.
I hope this helps Jose, BTW I did try the big Swarovski once and liked it a lot
http://www.birdforum.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=109824&d=1192753583
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=99221
Last edited:
Just for interest, what would you use 16x56 binoculars for?
brocknroller
porromaniac
Fonz,
Heeey!
This link will hopefully take you to a Spanish translation of binomania's review of the Nikon 20x56 model. I suspect the 16x model will be better since 20x is quite demanding for such a short focal length bin, and you will also get larger exit pupils.
Nikon 20x56 Monarch 5 review
Brock
Last edited:
Thanks for this Binastro, I missed this post back in September but reading it today made me jump. I don´t understand the science bits (I thought Thorium was a character from "The Hobbit"
), but the fact that a radioactive substance was used in optics lenses is disturbing, especially as one is inclined in everyday use to stick these things into one´s eye-sockets! Does this mean that one ought to be careful buying older secondhand glass that may contain Thorium?. Dear Sancho,
it is becoming less and less of a problem as time goes on but I would avoid using old glass very near to your eyes except for brief periods.
Generally the glass looks grey or brownish nowadays as the thorium decays into its daughter elements which actually may provide more of problem than the original thorium.
I had a large number of Aero Ektar lenses which is how I became interested.
In the 7 inch F2 .5 and 12 inch F2 .5 it is I think in the fifth and sixth glass from the front in the seven glass lenses. These lenses are probably T/4 rather than 2.5 and nowadays are invariably coloured. but the 7 inch covers 5×5 inches and may be larger and the 12 inch was made for 9" x 9" film. There is a rare 6 inch F2 .5 which I haven't come across.
The worst example was the 24 inch F6 Aero Ektar Lens which has a naked rear large glass element probably containing 27% thorium by weight. I could detect this with my mini monitor at 6 feet. this lens was for 18" x 9" film.
There are also larger similar Kodak lenses such as the 48 inch possibly F6 .3 and these may well also contain a lot of thorium glass but I have not seen one in Britain although they were fairly common after World War II in the USA.
Strangely Britain's top optical genius had a slab of glass when I visited him which he made into a very fine optical flat. It was thick and heavy and was just above his workbench on the shelf. I saw it had a greyish colour and suspected it might not be not normal glass. When I monitored it it gave high readings and is clearly thorium glass.
However, this didn't disturb him much.
I no longer use my swift 4 mm eyepiece as there is virtually nil eye relief with this eyepiece.
You should avoid the Wray 50 mm F1 lens for use as an eyepiece as there is nil eye relief. this lens can only be called F1 at close distances as it is only 44 mm aperture at the front.
if you come across an old Pentax or Canon FD 50 mm F1 .4 it may well contain thorium.
If you look at a white sheet of paper through the lens it will probably give the yellow or brown cast to the sheet of paper. there are very many other lenses made of this glass.
Also large glass filters used in front of World War II aircraft cameras may well contain uranium glass.
Having said that none of these lenses is really very hazardous except right up against your eyes for long periods.
What is more disturbing is the radium paint on old watches. If the glasses broken and you touch it with your fingers you can ingest the radium.
The young ladies I think at the Chicago plant in the 1920s I think are buried in the cemetery and at least 20 years ago these graves were still highly radioactive. Whether or not this is still the case I'm not sure. They used to lick the brushes when applying the paint to the hands and dials.
I avoid charity shop old alarm clocks because of this.
Also there was something called an Astro compass used in World War II for navigating by the stars. This contained from memory perhaps 1000 Bairium beads. This was used for illuminating the scale. These were useful instruments as they contained good horizontal and vertical movements. They sent my mini monitor screaming as it hit the stops. If you find one of these just chuck it all at least get rid of the glass phial containing the beads.
however, in times of war these were minor compared with the bullets flying around. And the very short survival time of aircraft crew.
So I wouldn't get too concerned about the thorium glass just be aware of it.
it is becoming less and less of a problem as time goes on but I would avoid using old glass very near to your eyes except for brief periods.
Generally the glass looks grey or brownish nowadays as the thorium decays into its daughter elements which actually may provide more of problem than the original thorium.
I had a large number of Aero Ektar lenses which is how I became interested.
In the 7 inch F2 .5 and 12 inch F2 .5 it is I think in the fifth and sixth glass from the front in the seven glass lenses. These lenses are probably T/4 rather than 2.5 and nowadays are invariably coloured. but the 7 inch covers 5×5 inches and may be larger and the 12 inch was made for 9" x 9" film. There is a rare 6 inch F2 .5 which I haven't come across.
The worst example was the 24 inch F6 Aero Ektar Lens which has a naked rear large glass element probably containing 27% thorium by weight. I could detect this with my mini monitor at 6 feet. this lens was for 18" x 9" film.
There are also larger similar Kodak lenses such as the 48 inch possibly F6 .3 and these may well also contain a lot of thorium glass but I have not seen one in Britain although they were fairly common after World War II in the USA.
Strangely Britain's top optical genius had a slab of glass when I visited him which he made into a very fine optical flat. It was thick and heavy and was just above his workbench on the shelf. I saw it had a greyish colour and suspected it might not be not normal glass. When I monitored it it gave high readings and is clearly thorium glass.
However, this didn't disturb him much.
I no longer use my swift 4 mm eyepiece as there is virtually nil eye relief with this eyepiece.
You should avoid the Wray 50 mm F1 lens for use as an eyepiece as there is nil eye relief. this lens can only be called F1 at close distances as it is only 44 mm aperture at the front.
if you come across an old Pentax or Canon FD 50 mm F1 .4 it may well contain thorium.
If you look at a white sheet of paper through the lens it will probably give the yellow or brown cast to the sheet of paper. there are very many other lenses made of this glass.
Also large glass filters used in front of World War II aircraft cameras may well contain uranium glass.
Having said that none of these lenses is really very hazardous except right up against your eyes for long periods.
What is more disturbing is the radium paint on old watches. If the glasses broken and you touch it with your fingers you can ingest the radium.
The young ladies I think at the Chicago plant in the 1920s I think are buried in the cemetery and at least 20 years ago these graves were still highly radioactive. Whether or not this is still the case I'm not sure. They used to lick the brushes when applying the paint to the hands and dials.
I avoid charity shop old alarm clocks because of this.
Also there was something called an Astro compass used in World War II for navigating by the stars. This contained from memory perhaps 1000 Bairium beads. This was used for illuminating the scale. These were useful instruments as they contained good horizontal and vertical movements. They sent my mini monitor screaming as it hit the stops. If you find one of these just chuck it all at least get rid of the glass phial containing the beads.
however, in times of war these were minor compared with the bullets flying around. And the very short survival time of aircraft crew.
So I wouldn't get too concerned about the thorium glass just be aware of it.
. I haven't seen an Astro Compass since the 1970s or 1980s so I can't remember exactly what the beads in the glass phial contained except that they were very radioactive.
From memory, I had 2 of these one with the glass phial and one without. Perhaps somebody had removed it from one of the devices.
Also numerous instruments from World War II aircraft had radium paint in them.
also many other instruments that glowed in the dark.
From memory, I had 2 of these one with the glass phial and one without. Perhaps somebody had removed it from one of the devices.
Also numerous instruments from World War II aircraft had radium paint in them.
also many other instruments that glowed in the dark.
Fascinating stuff, Binastro, thank you very much! I remember as a kid my Dad being highly suspicious of "glow-in-the-dark" toys, Halloween decorations or Religious ornaments. He wasn´t scientific, but must have heard someplace that radioactivity was an issue. I might buy a little geiger counter just for giggles.
Sancho,
I see there is a line of granite south of Dublin so do check under the floorboards.
David
. Hi Sancho,
yes I suppose it's interesting.
I should have said Canon FL Rather than Canon FD. The latter are mostly okay.
Also, correctly such radioactive items should be disposed of correctly say by giving them to the University chemistry Department.
In the past, minor items like this could safely go in the household waste to be buried in landfill.
Nowadays, apparently our waste goes back in otherwise empty container ships to China where it is sorted and it wouldn't be correct to let the locals handle it. Although China is now so polluted it probably doesn't make much difference.
yes I suppose it's interesting.
I should have said Canon FL Rather than Canon FD. The latter are mostly okay.
Also, correctly such radioactive items should be disposed of correctly say by giving them to the University chemistry Department.
In the past, minor items like this could safely go in the household waste to be buried in landfill.
Nowadays, apparently our waste goes back in otherwise empty container ships to China where it is sorted and it wouldn't be correct to let the locals handle it. Although China is now so polluted it probably doesn't make much difference.
Sancho,
I see there is a line of granite south of Dublin so do check under the floorboards.
David
I´m living right on top of it, David! At the end of our street is Giltspsur Hill, Killruddery Estate, and nearby is the "Sugarloaf", so called for the quartz bits in the granite glittering on sunny days. I had radon detectors put in the house a few years back, the the reading was negligible. But apparently two houses on the same street can have completely different readings. The music room in our school was studied as well, and found to be way over the limit. They put in some kind of flue and a fan. Not sure if the music teacher is so happy about it though.
Sorry, back to binos!
crinklystarfish
Well-known member
I realise you chose the Nikon but hope the following review is of interest to anyone else thinking of going big...
We have a truck with a ‘wildlife viewing’ hatch in the roof that lends itself particularly well to binocular use. Additionally, we often use bicycles to explore areas – or walk for miles. Our choice of optics is influenced heavily by these particular styles of use. For the best part of a couple of decades, in spite of troublesome portability, I stuck with a scope for long-distance viewing before finally succumbing to the reality that persisting with a large scope and tripod, in our circumstances, was at best inconvenient. At worst I found myself ever-increasingly just not being bothered to use it. I sold it and started the quest for a high-power binocular to fill the long-distance / fine-detail work gap.
I have settled with the Monarch 5 16x56 and I’m impressed. I’ve used the 16x56 for about two weeks now in various landscapes including estuarine, coastal, woodland, and open moorland. I’ve also used it in varying light conditions from bright and clear sunny days to dull grey days, and well into twilight. In all cases the image is bright and the resolution is good. Colour fidelity seems faithful and the level of detail and 3 dimensional advantage that comes with the benefit of binocular vision is very rewarding when compared to ‘one-eyeing’ it through a scope. Colour fringing is generally well controlled; however, if looking at high contrast targets (today a cormorant in a dead tree backed by open grey sky), and if purposefully trying, I can pick out some aberration towards the periphery the image. I haven’t been aware of ‘shadows’ (unlike in a Duovid I briefly tried) and rolling ball and engineered distortion do not, to my eyes, present as an issue.
The field of view is claimed at 72x/1000x (4.1°) but given the limitation imposed by the 16x56 spec I find this perfectly acceptable. I have been able to lock straight on to wildfowl in flight without any trouble. In use, I find I am not even slightly aware of a restricted field; such is the intoxication of marvelling at the extraordinary detail. The field of view is better than a 15x45 Zeiss Conquest I tried which (as a deal breaker) also suffered from serious glare/flare issues.
Image with the Monarch 5 is sharp, but careful focus is critical. I find this necessarily-very-precise-focus ‘issue’ the same with our Monarch 7 10x30, one barely discernible turn of the focus knob is the difference between a good image and something altogether too fuzzy to be fun: depth of field is not that great. Fortunately the focus knob is very smooth and is utterly free of stickiness and slack. Dioptre control is on the right eyepiece and though not lockable takes some shifting – so accidental adjustment is not an issue.
Eyepieces are multi position-able twist out affairs with good solid detents. Here’s a weird thing; they are so big that even when fully twisted in, their perimeter interferes with the bony parts of my nose and brow (when the IPD is set correctly for me) and thereby holds the eyepiece lenses at just about the perfect distance to accommodate the (claimed 16.4mm) eye relief. It would require a user with a very narrow nose bridge coupled with a very wide IPD to need to wind the eyepieces fully out, or even out past the first detent.
A consequence of this is that if there is any bright source of light perpendicular with, or towards the rear of the viewer, a bit of errant reflection in the eyepieces can crop up. This is because the eyecups, unless you are a Bigfoot, can not be deployed and therefore can not shield out problematic light. The issue is no worse than what happens when using binoculars with glasses, but it is something to be aware of. Speaking of glasses, I can use this binocular with my readers on – a full field of view is easily obtainable.
Grip is good thanks to nicely tactile rubber armour and – unlike with the 10x30 Monarch 7s we have – the strap mounting lug ‘flares’ and associated contours make far more ergonomic sense. They are huge and accommodate my preferred grip well. Weight is not as troublesome as might be expected and a couple of days ago I wore and used the instrument for 5 hours straight without any problems (I do participate in endurance sports mind, and keep pretty fit). Helping with this is the neoprene strap which has a bit of ‘give’ and so effectively adds a suspension element and stops a good deal of the bumping and jarring that can occur, especially when walking quickly.
Our main intended use for this binocular is for gazing out of the top of the truck where bracing by resting elbows on the roof is quite straightforward. It’s a hugely pleasant surprise, then, to learn that free-handing is also a very viable proposition. The Monarch’s balance is nice and the aforementioned tactile armour and flares mean that a good solid grip is possible which lends itself to reasonable stability. I can hold the binocular still enough for long enough to mean that I haven’t yet encountered any wildlife viewing challenges where I have missed detail for the want of the stability of a 7x-8x. Of course, it would be crass to claim that a 16x is jiggle free, it isn’t, but it is much better than I had imagined and in all seriousness I am OK with this binocular for a long day out in a variety of habitats. It is, incidentally, awesome to watch small, traditionally shy birds, rendered bigger than your own head! For anyone who knows they will be sedentary for a while, there is also a tripod adapter supplied as standard which is a nice piece of kit and which screws neatly into the front of the bridge hinge.
In terms of handling, as a comparison, the Duovid that I mentioned above was not that well balanced, had barrel contours that worked against my preferred grip, and was altogether just awkward to hold without a fight. Of course, this is a very subjective view and others may find the balance and ergonomics of the Leica far more preferable.
The 16x magnification coupled with 56mm objective lenses and decent quality optics of the Monarch 5 mean that in spite of a small exit pupil this binocular is also pretty good in poor light. For example, I looked out over some arable land with the naked eye and couldn’t see any wildlife interest. Pulling up the Monarch 5 revealed good detail on two roe deer and enough detail of a lagomorph to identify it as a brown hare. Reverting to naked sight I once again could see absolutely nothing, not even dark spots where I then knew the animals were. The 3.5mm exit pupil is never going to make a night-vision instrument, but once again I’ve been pleasantly surprised.
The M5 16x56 is not a direct replacement for a high-powered scope and it isn’t without some compromise. It is, though, definitely a very useful and eminently portable instrument that will get far more use than I had even optimistically envisioned.
As a PS. The binocular we have was the second 16x56 I tried. The first (as delivered from Amazon) had a few faults. The bridge hinge was loose, there was a tiny foreign object in the left barrel, there was a slight burr on one of the objective lens fixing and I had to set the (right eye) dioptre to a positive value where every other instrument I’ve ever had / tried has to be set to a negative. I have no idea if this was just a one off or if it speaks of a more general quality control issue.
Greetings, decides to stay with me for the Nikon Monarch 5 16x56, but I bought both the Vortex Kaibab 15x56 and Nikon Monarch 5 16x56 both models are unquestionably good, but the Nikon Monarch 5 have more sharpness and clarity, both are very good but I see that Monarch have better grip and ergonomics, I am happy and very happy with the Nikon Monarch 5 16x56.
PD:The Negative with these Nikon Monarch 5 16x56 are Rainguard eyepiece cover.
Nikon Monarch 5 16x56 ------ 9/10
Vortex Kaibab HD 15x56 ----- 8/10
PD:The Negative with these Nikon Monarch 5 16x56 are Rainguard eyepiece cover.
Nikon Monarch 5 16x56 ------ 9/10
Vortex Kaibab HD 15x56 ----- 8/10
Last edited:
