How much would you pay for binoculars? Or what features would you consider worth paying for?

U

utterdrong

Messages
24
Edit My Images
Yes
The bino market for nature watching spans a huge range - from cheap low-contrast things to £1500++ specialist equipment. You hear about all the fancy glass and coatings that improve your image quality and all that stuff, but I was wondering what the photographers' perspective would be on these sorts of things, seeing as we concern ourselves with high quality glass on a regular basis. You aren't capturing images like with a camera lens, so one would think the image quality need only be good enough for your eyes to enjoy what they're seeing.

Where does that fall for you, typically? Which design elements are 'no buy if absent' essentials, which are worth the cost of entry if you can afford it, which ones are 'you get a little more for a lot more' flourishes?
 
Hi, firstly on the list for me would be Lightweight, to heavy after a while is like a heavy camera & lens It tends to start the hands shaking so cannot follow the subject comfortably, 2nd, easy to focus as without focus you have got nothing, 3rd, good glass, not £1000's worth but good enough to view the subject clearly (only get what you pay for nowadays) 4th, good comfortable strap don't want them falling from your neck, probably many other attributes others would like. Russ.
 
I decided that I didn’t want to buy without actually trying out a selection to see whether marketing buzz words contributed to perceived performance

went to Cley Spy in North Norfolk where some very nice people let me play with an enormous selection, in an open field, without hassling me

Ended up with Zeiss Conquest 10x42

Buy once!
 
Swarovski pure seem to be at the top of the pile at c£2750.
My wife has a pair of Swarovski 8 x 32 EL bought before they got very expensive.
Nice clear field of view.

As a photographer (often of birds) I use binos but not to the extent of a dedicated bird watcher.

Zeiss Victroy SFL 10 x 40 were my choice. Lightweight, good glass. and I like the 10 mag better than the 8.
Paid £1430. I expect they will see me out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mex
I’ve had a pair of Swarovski 8.5x42 EL SV since about 2012. They are truly outstanding binoculars that have been a joy to use under all conditions and I will never need anything better. The downside is that they are expensive. Today there are binoculars that are even more expensive, though when I’ve looked through some, I haven’t seen any discernible difference in the view.

Prior to having Swarovski, I had some cheap Opticron Oregon 8x42. These were OK in good light, but they struggled in low light which is often when wildlife is about. Gave these away to my daughter.

About 6-months ago, I wanted a pair of binoculars to keep in the car and wanted something better than the Oregon, but much more affordable than the Swarovski. I ended up with a pair of Opticron Explorer WA ED-R 8x42. I think these are excellent binoculars and are great value. Would recommend them to anyone. The specs are the minimum I would look for in a pair of binoculars.

Explorer WA ED-R 8x42 | Opticron

Click to view this page on www.opticron.co.uk
www.opticron.co.uk www.opticron.co.uk
 
I bought a pair of the Canon L series binoculars as they are waterproof, the image stabilisation is superb and the image is largely free from abberations.
They are F expensive though.
 
utterdrong said:
The bino market for nature watching spans a huge range - from cheap low-contrast things to £1500++ specialist equipment. You hear about all the fancy glass and coatings that improve your image quality and all that stuff, but I was wondering what the photographers' perspective would be on these sorts of things, seeing as we concern ourselves with high quality glass on a regular basis. You aren't capturing images like with a camera lens, so one would think the image quality need only be good enough for your eyes to enjoy what they're seeing.

Where does that fall for you, typically? Which design elements are 'no buy if absent' essentials, which are worth the cost of entry if you can afford it, which ones are 'you get a little more for a lot more' flourishes?
Click to expand...

The best way IMO to buy binoculars is by trying pairs yourself. What matters most is how they feel and the view they provide looks to you.

I bought some a couple of years ago and went to my local InFocus shop( https://www.at-infocus.co.uk/ ) told the bloke the size I wanted and gave him my price limit. He gave me five pairs to try out without any mention of the prices and left me to it. As it turned out the pair I liked most was the most expensive, but when Mrs Tringa bought some a few years earlier she end up with a pair in the middle of her price range.

I've only used one InFocus shop(Willows Farm) but if all are like it then I would recommend them without hesitation. Other places to try are bird reserves, some of which have binoculars for sale.

Dave
 
Tringa said:
The best way IMO to buy binoculars is by trying pairs yourself. What matters most is how they feel and the view they provide looks to you.

I bought some a couple of years ago and went to my local InFocus shop( https://www.at-infocus.co.uk/ ) told the bloke the size I wanted and gave him my price limit. He gave me five pairs to try out without any mention of the prices and left me to it. As it turned out the pair I liked most was the most expensive, but when Mrs Tringa bought some a few years earlier she end up with a pair in the middle of her price range.

I've only used one InFocus shop(Willows Farm) but if all are like it then I would recommend them without hesitation. Other places to try are bird reserves, some of which have binoculars for sale.

Dave
Click to expand...
Got my Opticron Explorer from InFocus at Brockholes Nature Reserve near Preston. Very helpful, no pressure whatsoever.
 
I looked at Zeiss, Leica, swaro and all the top brands ended up with Vortex. My mate got the Zeiss. he wishes he got the Vortex. I can also get the Zeiss and the Swaro at trade price but decided not 2.

My ones. Although they do have a laser range finder built in as did all those I looked at.
vortexoptics.com

Fury HD 5000 10x42

Fury HD 5000 10x42
vortexoptics.com vortexoptics.com
 
You pay for optical quality, light weight, low light performance, robustness and after sales.

My Swarovski ELs went back to the factory three times (twice for accidental damage) and my spotting scope once at postage cost only. Legendary customer service.

Having said which, I'm now using Hawke ED 8x32s as my everyday pair, which are light and decent optically, though you couldn't accuse them of having flat fields. Three weeks in Ecuador and I didn't miss a species (out of over 500). The Swaro Pures are optically better, yes - I looked through them. But they're over five times the price and (more importantly for what I was looking for at the time) weigh only slightly less than the moon.
 
Just thought id give my two cents worth.I have a pair of LEICA 8x42 Ultravids ,I have had them for several years with no problems.
Fully waterproof and lifetime Guarantee ,They also have something called light gathering effect and this does really make a big difference on dusk or dawn.
Must be something to do with the lenses. They are not too cumbersome either unlike some of the higher power binos.
 
Personally, I wouldn't buy anything that has object lenses under 50mm because of the limited use in less-than-optimal lighting conditions. I have two pairs of binos, one with 42mm and one with 60mm objects and the difference in low light is palpable although in good light, there is hardly any noticeable difference. Depends for what (although you have already said), and when, you are going to use them.
 
For ME, a NEED (rather than a WANT!) is for them to fit in a normal coat pocket - bigger than that and they'd get left behind at home. Much as I'd love to be able to justify spending Zeiss/Leica/Swarovski money on a pair, I can't so I have a pair of Hawkes. Are they as good as the Z/L/S option? No, BUT at about 1/20th the price, they're far better VFM.
 
I use Nikon 8X30 E II. I keep it in the car so it's always with me. I like the wide field of view, the light weight and the 3D view of the object at close range.
In my opinion, stabilization is more important than the quality of the optics.
If it wasn't so expensive and heavy I would use the Canon 10x42 L IS
 
I also have an old pair to keep in the car OPTICRON SEQUOLIA 9x21 . had them for many years they have been dropped several times and bounced and even been in water.
They are showing their age now but still handy to shove in me pocket . Im not interested in looking to see the french coastline......
 
I bought Zeiss SFL 8 x 40, light weight, weather proof and optically incredible, I got them last May when there was a trade-in, any pair/brand gave you an extra £250, I bought a cheap pair off eBay for £20 and traded them in. Over the years I've owned Zeiss Jena , Leica Ultravid's and Swaovski SLC , the SFL's, although newer admittedly, are the best I've owned yet.
 
I love my Nikon 8x30 EII porros. Huge FOV.

I use them for birding and astronomy. Incredibly bright and sharp. Tiny, too.
 
Things to consider include:
Budget - How much are you prepared to spend. Generally the 'high end' bins give a better image, you may not appreciate this until you try some out!
Ergonomics - Go and try them out. We are all different with regard eyes, nose shape, fingers etc. The quality of teh optics matters not if you cannot use them properly
Waterproof - handy
size - enough said!

Good luck!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top