What qualities do Zeiss and Leica have that make them better than the reputable Japanese brands, Nikon, Pentax & Canon.
There is a big difference in price. Does this mean a big difference in qualities?
Very small imporvements. Noticeable at for night sky viewing and trying to see very fine details at long range (i.e the size of a bullet hole in a shooting target downrange).
Basically, very good binoculars toop out at $200 or so. Excellent binos top out at $300-350 or so. After that, for every minor improvement in quality, you effectively double the price. So (unscientifically quantified) 2% improvement would be what you get from a $600 bino, etc. etc.
As others may point out, the Japanese binoculars are from companies that emulated Zeiss during ww2. But Japan has set up some excellent government standards for binos that gave them a well deserved reputation and consistancy.
Japanese makers have been catching up with German manufacturers, so much so that many serious evaluators consider top-of-the-line Nikons on par with their German counterparts.
The old saw was that roof-mounted models provided sharper resolution, but recent manufacturing advances put some high-end porro prisms on the same astonishing level. Look through an expensive pair of glasses (check out the Nikon Venturer LX or Superior E line) and you’ll be amazed at the sharpness, the freedom from distortion, the contrast and beauty. The latest advance has been in phase coatings that provide even greater sharpness.
That said, some traditionalists swear by Swarovski, Zeiss, and Leica.
BTW, Swarovski is Austrian made and produce some serious astronomical optics.
Check out: http://betterviewdesired.com
And Steiner.
-
-
- In my experience when it comes to the looking, a $300 pair of binoculars is nearly-identical to a $1500+ pair. And by that I mean that it’s very unlikely that there’s anything that you can see with the expensive ones that you can’t see with the cheaper ones. They may have various different features: the high-end ones may be more rugged (as to who would toss around a $1500 pair of binos I’m not sure, but anyway) and will usually be guaranteed waterproof, and might have things like integral compasses, but as far as the actual image goes, they are hardly any different. Most of what you notice is a difference in general image coloration, but that is VERY small. Low power optics for general direct observation really don’t need to be ultra-high quality. Save the big bucks for your camera lenses and telescopes.
~
- In my experience when it comes to the looking, a $300 pair of binoculars is nearly-identical to a $1500+ pair. And by that I mean that it’s very unlikely that there’s anything that you can see with the expensive ones that you can’t see with the cheaper ones. They may have various different features: the high-end ones may be more rugged (as to who would toss around a $1500 pair of binos I’m not sure, but anyway) and will usually be guaranteed waterproof, and might have things like integral compasses, but as far as the actual image goes, they are hardly any different. Most of what you notice is a difference in general image coloration, but that is VERY small. Low power optics for general direct observation really don’t need to be ultra-high quality. Save the big bucks for your camera lenses and telescopes.
-
A few years ago I paid about $700 for a pair of Olympus IS 1000. Main feature: it has an image stabilizer. Very convenient when you run after a bird and you’re out of breath and shaking. Downside: it’s very heavy. Price should have come down by now.
Indeed. I have a pair of the predecessor to this model:
http://www.steiner-binoculars.com/binoculars/military/290.html
Got 'em factory new for 200 bucks as a closeout from Sierra Trading Post. The 9x40’s are pretty close to as powerful as you’ll wanna hand hold. Any greater magnification than that, and there’s too much jitter.
Any distortion around the periphery drives me nuts. Manufacturers have made major reductions in this, but the cheaper models I’ve seen still have it.
Thanks all!
I’m happy enough with Nikon as a choice.
Follow up question: Porro or Roof Prism? (bent* or straight, so to speak)
*angled perhaps?
I think the best way to choose binoculars is to go to a big city optics store and give each a test. Buy the model that gives you the best image for the least price. Roof prism (the straight tube look) are traditional, especially among birders. More important is whether you will expose them to rain or high humidity. Getting an armored pair is a good idea, if you’re accident prone or just want a bit of extra protection. Some think 10 X magnification promotes a jittery image.
Great binoculars are fun, but the law of diminishing marginal returns applies. Thereafter, it’s like the possessed audiophile foaming at the mouth over “oxygen-free” 24K speaker wires. For $500-$850, you can get a damn fine pair of glasses. Be careful if you’re going the mail order route.
Well, my experience has been completely different. Granted, binocular prices have come down lately, but even so - IMO anything below $600-$800 is very low quality. I get shake, washed-out colors, and the black bands around the view that’s caused by incorrect eye relief.
I have a pair of Swarovskis that I bought used for about $700 several years ago (I think new they ran about $1000) and they’re wonderful. Mr. Athena bought a pair of Pentaxes a couple years ago for around $700 new, and they’re just about the same quality.
If you’re looking to drop cash on binoculars, go to a store that carries a range of them and test them out. I’d be willing to bet you’ll see a HUGE difference between a $100-$200 pair and an $800-$1000 pair.
After having spent a lot of time over the last 6-7 years using and carefully evaulating various binos side-by-side, in my hands, I can say that there is indeed a noticeable difference between binos that cost, say, $300, and those that cost $1200-$1600. There is absolutely no question about this.
My experience has been almost exclusively with roof prisms (although I did use a pair of the Nikon Superior E porros, and they offered beautiful views). The more expensive binos give you a sharper, brighter (for a given aperture), more contrasty, and a more color-accurate image across the entire field-of-view, with less distortion away from the center of the field-of-view. (Some feel that different high-end binos deliver very slight amounts of color tint, but that’s another issue.) Sure - the more expensive ones also work better too, and they feel great in your hands.
About 2 years ago I went through a detailed comparo of the new (at the time) Swarovski ELs, the Nikon Venturer LX, and the new (at the time) Pentax DCF SPs. I had all three in my possession for about a week, and I used them all a lot under different conditions (mostly for birding, but also for more technical viewing tests too). All three gave exceptional views. I had previously owned a pair of Swarovski 10x50’s, and my wife owns Swarovski 8x42s, and I also had a pair of Pentax DCF WP’s.
I decided to keep the Pentax DCF SPs. They were about half the price of the Swarovski and Nikons, had superb build quality operation, and gave me views that were either equal to or just slightly less perfect than the other two. All of them were noticeably better than my older Pentax DCF WPs.
Today I’d like to check out the Leica Ultravids - I hear they’re spectacular.
For serious birding, the best binos do show more. Period. That’s what they’re designed to do. For other pursuits (say, hunting, looking in on the neighbors, etc.) you might be able to get away with less-expensive models. Go look at the betterviewdesired website.
I am off to America next week. The Colonel asked me to get him a pair of stabilized binos. He told me to get him to top-of-the-line Canons. So I go to Amazon. Canon’s best go for a thou, the second best for USD500.
Frankly the differences are pretty small. The better ones have a bit more power, and they are weatherproof.
He doesn’t need high-end glasses. He is a pilot for Pete’s sake. No room for binos in an ejection seat.
Anyway he went for the top-end. A Prince and his money are soon parted.
IMHO, but I have a pair of Steiner Predators in olive green. Any opinions about them? Although I’ve had them for years, I’ve rarely used them.
This is one of the best reviews I’ve ever read. Objective and accurate. Betterviewdesired.com is an excellent website.
BTW, the Nikon Superior E’s are an outstanding pair. Ugly but outstanding. It’s nice to see porro prisms getting some respect. The Japanese have done a lot to bring high-quality glasses to the masses.
One last point: be careful about buying anything on the gray market, if that’s the correct name for it.
BTW, Paul in Saudi, check out Fujinon’s “stabi”-type glasses before you go with Nikon. The stabilization system is amazing–the kind the Coast Guard uses, IIRC.
Now that the question seems to have been answered adequately, I have a small hijack. The U.S. federal trade commission has required makers of non-prismatic binoculars to label them as such, because they are inferior to prismatics of either the porro or roof prism type.
Supposedly one manufacturer co-opted the warning by printing, in large block letters “Guaranteed Non-Prismatic!”, thereby turning a liability into an asset with the ignorant.
Has anyone ever heard this, and has anyone ever seen documentation that this advertisement actually exists?
Would that be Prince Bandar? I met him in Washington about 15 years ago.
Canon’s top of the line IS binoculars is 18x50, and the $500 pair is 12x36. The 18x50 collects almost twice as much light as the 12x36, and this can make a big difference in low light conditions.
Amateur astronomers use even larger pairs. I just paid $2000 for a used pair of 150mm binoculars. The view is simply breathtaking.