Vintige vs Modern (1 Viewer)

[jer03]

My first binoculars were a pair of Bushnell 8x30 purchased in 1958. I used them for hunting big game from Alaska to the desert SW of NM for over 50 years. (FWIW, they have been sent to Bushnell to see what can be done to bring them back up to specs. Probably nothing.)

I do not remember very many manufacturers and models in those days, but was very satisfied with the quality and weight of those bins.
I never thought I needed anything sharper or brighter from first light to dark.

However, now I see many makes and models, along with extremely high costs. I have never seen a Swarovski. I did once see a Leitz Trinovid in the early 60's, and after examination on a mountain in Alaska three of us all agreed that they were not superior to my Bushnells as far as we could tell.

I wonder if anyone has both old and modern binoculars and can make a comparison as to the practical usability and clarity of the old and the new binoculars?
Somehow I am unable to believe that a pair of Swarovski binoculars would result in the spotting, identification, and subsequently success that could not be done with my old Bushnells.
I might mention that for trophy hunting I always carried a Bushnell Sentry spotting scope of 20X.

I also recognize that birding is a somewhat different requirement given the size of the birds and the necessity to see colors.

Thanks for considering this question.

Jerry

Sorry mods, I intended to put this post in "Other" but maybe needed a clearer set of eyes. Please move as you desire. Thank you.

 

[cjfrbw]

I got "wide angle vintage" fever and decided to try a few. I knew that you had to get a couple to hopefully get one that worked OK. That turned out to be about right. I don't really blame the sellers, because I just don't think many sellers know how to evaluate a binocular.

I got four different binoculars on ebay for the princely sum total delivered of $130.

Vintage Tasco 10.5 degree 116 7x35

Sears 2xxx 11 degree 7x35

Kmart Focal 12 degree Siam Cat optics 7x35

Sears Discoverer 11 degree 6271 7x35

It might have ended with the Tasco, except it had a non focussing diopter (fixable) but a fractured prism that made the center of the left entirely cloudy. Good brightness, average contrast, excellent 3D, fairly light, recycled to Goodwill

Sears 2xxx, turned out to be later plastic body type, nothing wrong, very poor optics out of the gate, recycled to Goodwill

Kmart, precipitate severe left ocular, mild right ocular, nonetheless, outstanding 3d and still useful, moderately bright, yellow cast (possibly because of precipitate in oculars) really a light, fine binocular, smaller prisms, focuses to about eight feet for good close up view, tempted to send in to see if oculars can be cleaned which would make it really nice. Outstanding sharpness, excellent, solid construction and ergonomics all around.

Sears Discoverer 6271: Holy sheiss! An optically near pristine sample. Absolutely the most fantastic, colorful, contrasty, bright, wide view I have ever seen in a binocular. At least 80 percent sharp, the colors appear intense and very true to what I see with naked eye, this model has fairly pristine optics with just a few flecks on a prism. I suppose if I took my Nikon LX 10x25, doubled the field size, dropped the mag to 7, and increased the brightness by 60 percent, this might be what it would look like. Extremely sharp when adjusted. Immersive 3D view. I finally understand what people say when they claim that a 7x bright binocular appears to be a higher magnification, it seems you can "eagle eye" very deeply into the sharpness.

Bad news: Blocky, huge prisms, heavy and brick like, "floppy" oculars requiring rubber band therapy, pain in the ass diopter that disengages when pushed which, when combined with the floppy oculars, makes fine adjustment a pain in the ass. No close focus, nearest focus some 20 feet or so, which can be "focussed into" a bit with raw eye accommodation, which at my age is not so good.

However, when adjusted, the view is just to die for. I actually viewed Saturn with this thing, to my shock. I was looking at the waxing moon toward the west the other night,
saw a bright orange "star" to the left, and looked at it. I thought I was seeing focusing coma, because iooked like a tiny, tilted ellipse, so I looked away and focused on a pinpoint star, then looked back and realized it was Saturn. I went in and confirmed this with Stellariium on the computer. I went out later, saw it again more tilted, went back and confirmed again that it was tilting while "setting" in Stellarium. I found it again the next night and in-between wobbles, I could actually make out the ellipse and dark shadow when the image would stabilize briefly.

I did not think you could even see Saturn like that with a low powered bin. Granted, it was tiny, but you could see it.

Anyway, I don't see much of a reason for a "modern" porro binocular if you can go through a couple of these wide angles and find a good one.

If I had just one binocular, however, it would still be the Nikon LX 10x25 for it's faultless optics, rugged ergonomics, and portability. The big wide angle porros are for fun.

 

[Binastro]

. To see Saturn as an ellipse with a 7 x 35 extra wide-angle binocular is very good.
The optics of the binocular must be excellent.
Also the resolution of your eyes must be very fine.

Seeing the ellipse depends on how open Saturn's rings are, in other words the angle at which the rings are tilted.
At present the rings are well open and relatively easy to see.

The moon Titan can sometimes be seen with say a 10 x 40 when the moon is at elongation, i.e. at the maximum distance from the rings along the major axis.
I don't think I've ever seen it in a 7 x 35.

 

[cjfrbw]

There's just no way I could ever see Saturn's moon with them, I was surprised enough that I could see Saturn at all and recognize that is what it was. Porro optics are strange, they are impressionistic as much as sharp, but they eventually allow the brain to sum and interpret the image somehow.

My right eye is extremely sharp, the left not so much.

 

[Simon S]

I have a few binoculars to be able to compare for example a modern Nikon 8x30 to a model from 1960 of the same spec.

There have been big improvements to lens coatings and to a lesser degree glass improvements. I have however looked through some really good binoculars from many years ago with pin sharp well corrected views. The only letdown is the old coatings.

 

[ronh]

Jerry,
Bushnells of that day are quality Japanese binoculars, and importer David Bushnell allegedly watched them like a hawk--it's no surprise you have had such success and satisfaction with it. They are as sharp as all get out and durable. The Leitz you compared yours to is revered for its elegant design, but at that time some problems with the roof prism had not been worked out, and I'm surprised you binocular didn't beat it. Of course you can get by perfectly well with an old one, but if yours has kicked the bucket, hang it on the wall for old times sake and get with the program.

Present day roof prism binoculars from the best makers are hideously expensive. What they offer over the simpler Porro prism style is little niceties--easier to waterproof, closer focusing, compact form, and slicker mechanical design--not a better view. They also offer, like a high end automobile, more profit for the manufacturers! Savvy modern users who don't need these features often choose a Porro binocular, although they are slowly falling out of style with the top end makers.

I am sure you will see an improvement in image brightness and clarity with a modern binocular. Coatings are only a few nanometers thick, but they sure make a difference--you can flat see better if the image is brighter and cleaner. If you really like your 8x30 Porro, consider treating yourself to a binocular of similar design but with the latest optical coatings and even better mechanical quality, if you can imagine it. The Nikon SE and EII, and the Swarovski Habict, are the Porro darlings of this forum. But I think even a relatively inexpensive modern Porro like, say, a Leupold Yosemite, would impress you.

Ron

 

[Pinewood]

Hello Jerry,

Those Trinovids in the 1960's were poor binoculars. The Porro binoculars were better, optically, but bulkier. I have Leitz Porro binoculars of the same vintage, as your Buhsnell and they are probably better.
To bring roof prism binoculars up to first quality, certain improvements have been incorporated over the years: phase coating, dielectic mirrors and fantastic improvements in anti-reflection coatings. The latter have made inexpensive Porro binoculars, far better than the Porros of yore.
More, later.

Happy observing,
Arthur Pinewood :hi:

 

[jer03]

Many thanks, ronh and Pinewood. Your posts were very informative.
I am interested in learning if Bushnell can/will do anything for my old 8x30s. I suspect not, and that is OK.

I don't remember that we had much or any choice as to levels of quality within the same brand in the 50s and 60s, but maybe I just was not informed.

Somehow I just like binoculars even though I have very little need for them. I do enjoy the Binocular section here. Until I found this site I had never heard of Vortex, and did not know of some of the manufacturers today.

I wish some store here had some of the Alpha brands so I could look at them. Of course all are bright inside a store. Some I have never seen and others only 50 years ago so I "might" be behind a little bit.

Thanks for the comments.
Regards,
Jerry

 

[ceasar]

Jerry,

Is this Bushnell 8 x 30 you have a Porro Prism?

Because, if it is, there are several very good binocular repairmen in the country who could clean it and refurbish it for you at what many people here think are reasonable prices.

If you are interested in doing this someone will post their names and contact addresses here for you.

Bob

 

[Pinewood]

Hello Jerry,

I had to run, so let me continue.
Today's top of the line roof prims glasses are on a par with the best Porro binoculars, but are far more expensive.
Today's Porro glasses tend to be optically sound but middling in mechanical excellence with a few exceptions: that Austrian 8x30, and the Nikon SE, which is hard to find. Until recently Nikon sold an 8x30 EII, which was, to my eyes, the cat's meow. The top of the line roof prism binoculars from Zeiss, Leica, Nikon, and that Austrian brand are terrific but there is a case of diminishing returns: marginal but noticeable advantages but high costs.
If you do not get your Bushnell refurbished, decide on your needs, and write a post for advice.
In answer to your question. If refurbished, your binocular would work well, but there are many modern binoculars, which would do better, probably in line with the size of your wallet.
Happy observing,
Arthur :scribe:

 

[jer03]

Hi Bob and Arthur.
Thanks a lot for the comments.
Yes my 8x30 are Porro Prism. Of course I am hoping that Bushnell will refurbish them free, or at little cost considering that I do not need them. I do doubt it, however.

The Vortex Vanquish 8X26 I just bought do everything I need, and I also have a 1967 vintage set of Nikon 7x35 that also do it, but are larger. I am trying not to get hooked on binoculars, and end up with Vortex 8x32 or something more expensive.

Thanks to you both for the info and advice.

Regards,
Jerry

 

[Pinewood]

Hello Jerry,

I would guess that your Vortex is just as bright and contrasty, maybe brighter, than your old Bushell, even with smaller objectives, because of the newer anti-reflection coatings.

Happy observing,
Arthur :hi:

 

[jer03]

Hello Jerry,

I would guess that your Vortex is just as bright and contrasty, maybe brighter, than your old Bushell, even with smaller objectives, because of the newer anti-reflection coatings.

Happy observing,
Arthur :hi:

Thanks, Arthur, so far I am pleased with them, and though I sometimes think I am nuts for wanting something else than what I have and like, MAYBE I can stop lusting for something else like the Vortex 8x32.:-O

Jerry

 

[Steve C]

You might want to try one of several rather inexpensive but darned good porros from Leupold, Kowa, Vortex, or Eagle optics. Celestron and Barska have look alikes as well.

The Leupold Yosemite comes in 6x and 8x30, ditto the Kowa.

The Celestron Nature and Barska Crossover are 8x30 only but have a little wider fov than the others.

Vortex (Raptor) and Eagle Optics (Kingbird) offer similar styles in 6.5x32 or 8.5x32.

They will cost from $50-120. Hawke sells another in 7x30 as well. Outstanding optics in small packages for not a lot of money. Fullu multi coated and bright.

Something out of this group would be more apples to apples with your old Bushnell.

I'd bet Bushnell won't fix them at all. I had a couple of conversations with them when looking at older Bushnell vintage models on ebay. Fixing those won't happen. Lots of other options, those older Japanese porros are pretty simple and many places can fix them.

 

[jer03]

You might want to try one of several rather inexpensive but darned good porros from Leupold, Kowa, Vortex, or Eagle optics. Celestron and Barska have look alikes as well.

The Leupold Yosemite comes in 6x and 8x30, ditto the Kowa.

The Celestron Nature and Barska Crossover are 8x30 only but have a little wider fov than the others.

Vortex (Raptor) and Eagle Optics (Kingbird) offer similar styles in 6.5x32 or 8.5x32.

They will cost from $50-120. Hawke sells another in 7x30 as well. Outstanding optics in small packages for not a lot of money. Fullu multi coated and bright.

Something out of this group would be more apples to apples with your old Bushnell.

I'd bet Bushnell won't fix them at all. I had a couple of conversations with them when looking at older Bushnell vintage models on ebay. Fixing those won't happen. Lots of other options, those older Japanese porros are pretty simple and many places can fix them.

Thanks,Steve.
I have looked at those. There are a fair number of seemingly good low priced bins these days.
I also doubt that Bushnell will repair/refurbish my old ones, and I have to say that after more than half a century I really don't expect them to.

I don't have any real attachment to them so if Bushnell does not do anything I won't be bothered. My mid 60 vintage Nikon 7x35 still do well, and have no issues.

The only stores that sell bins here are Walmart and Dick's. Neither has anything but low end Nikon and Bushnells. It would be nice to be able to examine several of the good brands you mentioned.

Regards,
Jerry

 

[ronh]

Jerry,
If you should get up to Albuquerque, Sportsman's Warehouse has a very good selection. I'd guess there's something similar in El Paso.
Ron

 

[jer03]

Jerry,
If you should get up to Albuquerque, Sportsman's Warehouse has a very good selection. I'd guess there's something similar in El Paso.
Ron

Thanks, Ron. I may get to El Paso before long, but it will be awhile before Albuquerque.
Jerry

 

[brocknroller]

My first binoculars were a pair of Bushnell 8x30 purchased in 1958. I used them for hunting big game from Alaska to the desert SW of NM for over 50 years. (FWIW, they have been sent to Bushnell to see what can be done to bring them back up to specs. Probably nothing.)

I do not remember very many manufacturers and models in those days, but was very satisfied with the quality and weight of those bins.
I never thought I needed anything sharper or brighter from first light to dark.

However, now I see many makes and models, along with extremely high costs. I have never seen a Swarovski. I did once see a Leitz Trinovid in the early 60's, and after examination on a mountain in Alaska three of us all agreed that they were not superior to my Bushnells as far as we could tell.

I wonder if anyone has both old and modern binoculars and can make a comparison as to the practical usability and clarity of the old and the new binoculars?
Somehow I am unable to believe that a pair of Swarovski binoculars would result in the spotting, identification, and subsequently success that could not be done with my old Bushnells.
I might mention that for trophy hunting I always carried a Bushnell Sentry spotting scope of 20X.

I also recognize that birding is a somewhat different requirement given the size of the birds and the necessity to see colors.

Thanks for considering this question.

Jerry

Sorry mods, I intended to put this post in "Other" but maybe needed a clearer set of eyes. Please move as you desire. Thank you.

Jerry,

It's certainly a testimony to the durability of vintage porros made by Bushnell, a brand that today is associated with cheap optics, that you used this non-WP porro for hunting all these years and that it survived.

Alas, times have changed and even a mid-priced roof would be "superior" to your Bushnell in most ways, because anti-reflection coatings are so much more advanced then they were 50 years ago, heck, more advanced than they were 15 years ago, and those Leitz roofs are now called Leicas have phase coatings and dielectric coatings on the prisms to brighten and sharpen the image and the lenses have the latest and greatest anti-reflection coatings that will provide better contrast and color saturation. It will also be waterproof and fog proof and be resistant to internal mold, dust (except the black paint flecks), pollen, etc. since the focuser is internal.

As far as vintage vs. modern, those are the main differences, though eye relief has improved on some but not all modern binoculars, even some "alpha" roofs do not have enough eye relief for all eyeglass wearers, and close focus has also improved.

After all those years of using a porro, you might find the view through an 8x30/32 roof lacking in the 3-D view you get through porros, because of their more widely separated barrels. The feel of roofs in the hands is also different. I have large hands and prefer the feel of porros.

If you got away w/out waterproof bins this long and want new binoculars that will giveyou a wide field of view similar to the old Bushnell ,but with brighter, higher contrast and more color saturated images, Arthur made a good suggestion with the Nikon 8x30 EII, which has a wide 8.8* FOV.

It is "vintage" in its "look," but modern in its coatings. While the ER is not long, it's not eyelash touching either (13.5mm). For some inexplicable reason, Nikon no longer sells the EII in the U.S., but they still make them.

Worth looking online for in Japan and Hong Kong stores. They are also sold in Europe, but the price in Europe tends to be higher. You can get them from Asia for about $550-$600. Expensive for a porro, but to get a comparable view, you'd have to spend $2,000 on an alpha roof, and then still not get as wide a FOV or the superior depth perception of a porro.

Alternatively, if you don't mind cutting back on some FOV (7.5*), the Nikon 8x32 SE provides a similarly sharp view, less FOV, but better edges due to the "field flatteners" in the EPs. The 8x32 SE costs around $600-$675 new.

If you go for the EII, look for a "black body" version. Better armoring and the latest lens coatings. If you go for an SE, look for a sample whose serial number starts with 550xxx, that will be the latest version with the best coatings.

Attached are photos of the EII and SE (Note: I added extensions to the barrels to make them fit my hands better).

Brock

 

[jer03]

Thanks, brocknroller,
From reading various posts it appears that Nikon porro glasses are pretty good. If I were to buy a new pair at this time I think the 8x30 or 8x32 glasses would be my choice considering size and magnification + light gathering ability.

As stated I have a pair of almost unused Nikon 7x35 I purchased around 1968 for my in-laws to watch birds in their bird bath. I don't find anything lacking in them.

Thanks again for the help.
Jerry

 

[mikefreiberg]

My first binoculars were a pair of Bushnell 8x30 purchased in 1958. I used them for hunting big game from Alaska to the desert SW of NM for over 50 years. (FWIW, they have been sent to Bushnell to see what can be done to bring them back up to specs. Probably nothing.)

I do not remember very many manufacturers and models in those days, but was very satisfied with the quality and weight of those bins.
I never thought I needed anything sharper or brighter from first light to dark.

However, now I see many makes and models, along with extremely high costs. I have never seen a Swarovski. I did once see a Leitz Trinovid in the early 60's, and after examination on a mountain in Alaska three of us all agreed that they were not superior to my Bushnells as far as we could tell.

I wonder if anyone has both old and modern binoculars and can make a comparison as to the practical usability and clarity of the old and the new binoculars?
Somehow I am unable to believe that a pair of Swarovski binoculars would result in the spotting, identification, and subsequently success that could not be done with my old Bushnells.
I might mention that for trophy hunting I always carried a Bushnell Sentry spotting scope of 20X.

I also recognize that birding is a somewhat different requirement given the size of the birds and the necessity to see colors.

Thanks for considering this question.

Jerry

Sorry mods, I intended to put this post in "Other" but maybe needed a clearer set of eyes. Please move as you desire. Thank you.

Hi Jerry,

The weight is one thing you will notice most. Most roof prism binoculars are built under 26-27 ounces whereas older models were well over 30 ounces in most cases. Enhanced coatings will show brighter (true) colors and far better contrast. I can understand the thinking here, but I encourage you to try a couple of new ones at any huge big box retailer that will have a significant selection. Please let me know if I can help more. Good luck.

Best,
Mike Freiberg
Nikon Birding Market Specialist