Click here if you are having trouble logging into the forums
Privacy Policy |
Please read our Terms
of Service | Signup and
Troubleshooting FAQ | Problems? PM a Red or a Green Gu.... uh, User
John F
sage
Reged: 02/16/04
Posts: 308
Loc: Washington State
|
|
About a week or so ago on the Nikon 18x70 vs Fujinon 16x70 thread I mentioned that I had a pair of Takahashi 22x60s on order and would be getting them soon. Several posters replied that the 22x60s were really an excellent binocular and wanted to know how I thought they compared to my Zeiss 15x60s.
Unlike the Nikon 18x70s and Fujinon 16x70s which both have the same field size and similar magnifications (and hence makes it fairly easy to compare them against one another), the magnification and field size differences between the 15x60s and 22x60s are so significant that it perhaps more accurate to say that these two binoculars compliment one another more than compete against each other.
Fortunately, the day after the 22x60s arrived it was a moonless night and I was able to take them to a 6,100 foot dark sky site on the Northeast side of Mt. Rainier. Under those conditions the Takahashi binoculars performed very much like the Takahashi apo refractors. They sky was very very dark, the stars were very sharp and the contrast was outstanding. Compared to most binoculars the Zeiss 15 x 60s have a very dark sky background and excellent contrast, but the Tak 22 x 60s are in another league.
I spent the better part of last Saturday night laying back in my LaFuma recliner with the Taks supported my a Unimount Light Deluxe panning around Sagittarius, the overhead Milky Way, and hunting down many deep sky objects (e.g., M13, M27, M31, M33, M57, M81/82, etc.). Except for M31 which requires the larger field of a binocular like the 15 x 60s to nicely frame it, the views I got of all of these objects were the best I've ever had with a pair of binoculars with respect to image scale, sharpness, and contrast. Double stars were also very cleanly and widely separated compared to how they appear in most binoculars.
The very high power/very dark sky backround that one experiences with these binoculars made me feel that I was looking through an apo refractor rather than a binocular. I have never used a binocular before that provided such a combination of high power, dark sky background, and great contrast. What makes these binoculars really special is their outstanding optics combined with the excellent views they provide of individual deep sky objects like M8, M24 and the Double Cluster.
The major drawback of the Takahashi 22 x 60s is their fairly small (i.e., 2.1 degrees) true field and fairly narrow (i.e., 46 degrees) apparent field. This makes it harder to find objects plus the field itself is too small to fully encompass some of the larger deep sky/binocular such as Coma Berenices. However, it does just fit in M45 and despite the fact that the object isn't framed, the view is still very impressive. Another strength of this binocular - its very high power/dark sky background is also a disadvantage when it comes to crusing around through the Milky Way star clouds. The clouds appear much brighter and more beathtaking in a lower power/wider field binocular like the Zeiss 15x60s or the Nikon 10x70s.
I would not want to exchange my 15x60s for the 22x60s but I do like 22x60s very much and am glad I got them.
The Zeiss 15x60 B/GATs are also a very remarkable binocular. They have a 4.33 degree true field and a 65 degree apparent field. Moreover, their total field area is 326% larger than that of the 22x60 Taks. Their field is large enough that most users won't need a red dot finder in order to use them. Furthermore, it is large enough to fully encompass almost all telescope and binocular deep sky objects and also to allow you to take in large sections of Milky Way clouds. And their very wide 65 degree apparent field gives you more of the subjective feeling that you are out in space yourself rather than viewing small sections of it through an optical instrument.
Also, viewing with the Zeiss 15x60s are the closest thing I've ever experienced to using a "perfect binocular" in that they don't have any major drawbacks (other than their high cost and the fact that they are no longer made). Their true/apprent fields are large and comfortable to observe with. Their magnification is high enough to reveal a lot of detail on many deep sky objects. Their eye relief is a very comfortable (for me anyway) 15mm. Their size and weight makes them useable with almost any mount. Their sky background is very dark and yet many deep sky objects and Milky Way clouds appear fairly bright in them. Lastly, the stars look sharp in them - all across the field.
To view the types of objects that the Tak 22x60s show well, you can use a apochromatic refractor (although, it is nice to be able bino view those same objects with the 22x60s). There is no telescope or telescope/binoviewer combination that can provide the kind of views across a four degree plus field that the Zeiss 15x60s can give you.
So given my preferences and priorities, if I had to make a choice between the two I rather have the Zeiss 15x60s. But I'm also glad that I now have them both. As I said near the beginning of this post, the Tak 22x60s compliment the Zeiss 15x60s very nicely.
Both binoculars can be used terrestrially. Neither has a near focus capability but with the Zeiss it is around 30 feet but the Taks it is 140 feet. Both also provide great contrast when doing terrestrial viewing but the 15x60s have the advantage of a much larger field. On the other hand, the 22x power of the Taks comes in very handy for long distance viewing (I'll address that topic separately in another post).
I've attached a photograph of the two placed side-by-side. As you can see, the Taks a quite a bit longer and they weigh 74.0 ounces versus 55.6 ounces for the Zeiss 15x60s. The 15x60s have a center focuser and with the Tak 22x60s you must focus each eye individually. To conclude, I can highly recommend both of them but would also recommend that you get red dot finder to use along with the Tak 22 x 60s if you decide to get a pair.
John Finnan
-------------------- Leica 7x42 Ultravid
Nikon 7x50 Prostar
Swarovski 8.5x42 EL
Nikon 10x70 Astroluxe
Leica 12x50 Ultravid
Zeiss 15x60 B/GAT
Takahashi 22x60 Astronomer
NP-127 w/Bino Vue
|
KennyJ
   
Reged: 04/27/03
Posts: 10146
Loc: Lancashire UK
|
|
John,
Thank you for providing what amounts to a most interesting , forthright and informative " double review " , as always , so impressively written and presented
I trust EdZ will include it in the REVIEW section ASAP !
I think your effort informs the reader so much better and in a more rounded way than " that " other one which compares the same two models :-)
I'm also very pleased that you found the Takahashi to your liking ( although at 6,000 feet on a clear night , I reckon MOST half decent bins would be pretty darn exciting to look through )
Final note -- does anyone agree with me that in spite of their obvious top -notch optical quality , those Taks look rather -- ermmm -- well -- dare I say " tacky " ? :-)
They remind me very much of those 25 x 55 Japanese Telstars from the 1960s !
Regards , Kenny
-------------------- If everyone is thinking the same thing , no-one is thinking - General George S.Patton
Zeiss 7 x 42 BGAT
Captain's Helmsman 7 x 50
Nikon 10 x 42 Superior E
Swift Audubon Kestrel 10 x 50
Helios 15 x 70 Observation
Strathspey 20 x 90
Televue 76 APO
Zeiss 85 Diascope
Helios 102 f5 refractor
Various eyepieces barlows tripods mounts etc.
Panasonic Lumix DMC - TZ5 digital camera
|
John F
sage
Reged: 02/16/04
Posts: 308
Loc: Washington State
|
|
Kenny,
I think everyone who has commented on their appearance says that they look kind of tacky. Although, I don't think they look as bad when you have them in hand as they do in pictures.
As for the observing at Mt. Rainier, yes it is great to be up there are 6,100 feet on a clear summer night. The views during the day also quite impressive as the attached photo will confirm. I spotted this field (i.e., glaciers behind/between the trees and the mountain presenting the appearance on unlimited height) when roaming around with my 8.5 x 42 binoculars and though that it would make an impressive picture so I took a photo of it through a digital camera and a 200mm telephoto lens.
John
-------------------- Leica 7x42 Ultravid
Nikon 7x50 Prostar
Swarovski 8.5x42 EL
Nikon 10x70 Astroluxe
Leica 12x50 Ultravid
Zeiss 15x60 B/GAT
Takahashi 22x60 Astronomer
NP-127 w/Bino Vue
|
craig_oz_land
sage
Reged: 01/21/04
Posts: 343
Loc: Sydney, Australia
|
|
Quote:
John,
I'm also very pleased that you found the Takahashi to your liking ( although at 6,000 feet on a clear night , I reckon MOST half decent bins would be pretty darn exciting to look through )
Kenny, have you had a chance to look through the Taks? I agree with you that at 6,000 feet most good optical instruments would give great images. However, with the Taks their superior optics really start to excel when the atmsophere is still. I think you would know what I am saying if you had a chance to compare them with other quality binoculars.
When I first received my Taks I thought I preferred my Fuji FMT-SX 7x50s more. After the first still air night and view of the stars I realised that they are in another league compared to the Fujis.
Quote:
Final note -- does anyone agree with me that in spite of their obvious top -notch optical quality , those Taks look rather -- ermmm -- well -- dare I say " tacky " ? :-)
I use to think that way a little. However, after using them and realising what a superior binocular they are I now look at the style as something of a statement and in awe.
Kenny, do yourself a favour and when you have a chance and some good clear skies have a look through the Taks. Then let us all know what you think of them.
PS: You need high resolution eyes to get the best out of the optics.
Regards, Craig.
|
Swedpat
Pooh-Bah
   
Reged: 02/18/05
Posts: 1033
Loc: Boden, Sweden, Scandinavia
|
|
John!
Very interesting report of your comparison. The Takahashi 22x60 is actually similar to the Pentax 20x60 PCF WP in both magnification and FOV. I think that these two are special purpose binoculars, and not the very best alternatives for general purpose. Have your tried the Pentax 20x60? Maybe you could call them "budget Takahashi"? The Pentax has received excellent marks in reviews. It would be nice to read a comparison between the Pentax 20x60 and Takahashi 22x60...
Regards, Patric
-------------------- *2,3x40 Constellation View Wide-Bino
*Leupold 6x30 Yosemite
*Leupold Katmai 6x32
*Swarovski SLCNew 7x42B
*Bresser (Lidl) 10x50
*Oberwerk 11x70
*No name (Kunming) 15x70
*Scopos ED APO 66
*Meade 5000 26mm Plössl, Vixen LV 10/5mm
Psalm 19:2
|
Mark9473
Carpal Tunnel
   
Reged: 07/21/05
Posts: 2699
Loc: 51°N 4°E
|
|
John (or Holger if you're around),
since these Zeiss 15x60 B/GAT are an older model, would you happen to know if they have a common heritage with the Nobilem 15x60 currently produced in the former Zeiss Jena facility under the brand name Docter?
-------------------- Mark
Leica 8x20; Vixen 8x42; Swift 8.5x44, 10x50 and 20x80; TS 7x50; Orion 15x63
WO Megrez II 80 FD + Baader 90° T2 Amici
|
KennyJ
   
Reged: 04/27/03
Posts: 10146
Loc: Lancashire UK
|
|
Mark ,
Even I can answer this one for you.
The answer is NO.
The BGAT are of " formerly WEST GERMAN " origin.
The others you mention are from factories East of the Berlin Wall.
Kenny
-------------------- If everyone is thinking the same thing , no-one is thinking - General George S.Patton
Zeiss 7 x 42 BGAT
Captain's Helmsman 7 x 50
Nikon 10 x 42 Superior E
Swift Audubon Kestrel 10 x 50
Helios 15 x 70 Observation
Strathspey 20 x 90
Televue 76 APO
Zeiss 85 Diascope
Helios 102 f5 refractor
Various eyepieces barlows tripods mounts etc.
Panasonic Lumix DMC - TZ5 digital camera
|
Mark9473
Carpal Tunnel
   
Reged: 07/21/05
Posts: 2699
Loc: 51°N 4°E
|
|
Thanks Kenny, but I did know that. My question, though not properly formulated, was whether they came from a common ancestor from back when Zeiss was just one company, not east and west. And the implied question from that, is whether the quality of the B/GAT could have any significance for its Nobilem cousin.
-------------------- Mark
Leica 8x20; Vixen 8x42; Swift 8.5x44, 10x50 and 20x80; TS 7x50; Orion 15x63
WO Megrez II 80 FD + Baader 90° T2 Amici
|
KennyJ
   
Reged: 04/27/03
Posts: 10146
Loc: Lancashire UK
|
|
Mark,
Thanks for clarifying your question.
Which of course , I cannot answer :-)
I do remember reading ( somewhere , sometime ) a comparison review of what amounted to East v West 15 x 60 Zeiss binos and in the opinion of the reviewer , the " WEST " version certainly didn't come out tops in every aspect .
In fact I recall it being a very close call indeed , and the reviewer ( who MIGHT even have been a younger Holger for all I know ) certainly seemed to know his stuff !
Good luck with this quest.
Kenny
-------------------- If everyone is thinking the same thing , no-one is thinking - General George S.Patton
Zeiss 7 x 42 BGAT
Captain's Helmsman 7 x 50
Nikon 10 x 42 Superior E
Swift Audubon Kestrel 10 x 50
Helios 15 x 70 Observation
Strathspey 20 x 90
Televue 76 APO
Zeiss 85 Diascope
Helios 102 f5 refractor
Various eyepieces barlows tripods mounts etc.
Panasonic Lumix DMC - TZ5 digital camera
|
holger_merlitz
sage
   
Reged: 02/08/04
Posts: 282
|
|
Quote:
Thanks Kenny, but I did know that. My question, though not properly formulated, was whether they came from a common ancestor from back when Zeiss was just one company, not east and west. And the implied question from that, is whether the quality of the B/GAT could have any significance for its Nobilem cousin.
Hi Mark,
These two binoculars had no common anchestor. The Zeiss (Oberkochen) 15x60 was introduced in 1981, but it used the body of the 7x50, the latter designed from scratch in 1956 as one member of the famous line of compact Porros using air spaced tele-objectives and a six lens-element eyepiece by Koehler. The line contained a 7x50, 8x50 and a 10x50 (only the 7x50 is still produced).
The Nobilem line of Zeiss Jena was designed from scratch around 1985, starting with the Octarem 8x50 and Dodecarem 12x50, then followed by the 15x60, which again used the same body.
Optically, the Nobilem is fully competitive to (if not marginally better than) the Zeiss Oberkochen design, but it is not so compact. It is the same trend you observe with the Takahashi: Using lenses of longer F-ratio makes it easier to control aberrations. That's why the Takahashi is extremely long (actually a double-refractor) and good, whereas the short (but compact) Zeiss Oberkochen required a most sophisticated optical design.
Best, Holger
|
John F
sage
Reged: 02/16/04
Posts: 308
Loc: Washington State
|
|
Quote:
John!
Very interesting report of your comparison. The Takahashi 22x60 is actually similar to the Pentax 20x60 PCF WP in both magnification and FOV. I think that these two are special purpose binoculars, and not the very best alternatives for general purpose. Have your tried the Pentax 20x60? Maybe you could call them "budget Takahashi"? The Pentax has received excellent marks in reviews. It would be nice to read a comparison between the Pentax 20x60 and Takahashi 22x60...
Regards, Patric
Patric,
I agree with you assessment that binoculars like the Pentax 20 x 60s and Tak 22 x 60s are best characterized as "special purpose" binoculars rather than as general use binoculars. The 22 x 60 Taks are a nice-to-have after you've already got a binocular like the Zeiss 15x60s or Fujinon 16x70s but they are not - in my opinion - a good alternative to them.
No, I have not seen/tested the Pentax 20x60 yet. Over the past 5 years or so Pentax has been coming on strong in the binocular field and has developed a reputation for providing very nice quality binoculars for a very reasonable price. The Pentax 8x42 WPs are one of the models that I recommend to people when they ask my advise on getting a pair of binoculars. I would not be at all surprised if the Pentax 20x60s perform very nicely.
John
-------------------- Leica 7x42 Ultravid
Nikon 7x50 Prostar
Swarovski 8.5x42 EL
Nikon 10x70 Astroluxe
Leica 12x50 Ultravid
Zeiss 15x60 B/GAT
Takahashi 22x60 Astronomer
NP-127 w/Bino Vue
|
John F
sage
Reged: 02/16/04
Posts: 308
Loc: Washington State
|
|
Holger,
I had a pair of the 15x60 Nobilems for 9 years and they were one of the most impressive binoculars that I've ever used. There are a few objects that I think that I may have seen a little better in them than I have in the West German Zeiss 15x60s. However, I think the West German models are sharper overall and especially out towards the far edge of the field. I also think the West German models have a little better contrast and that many deep sky objects appear a little brighter in them. Also, the overall build quality is better. But the key words here are "a little better", and certainly others may think that the Nobilems have the slight edge overall. I should also add that the West German Zeiss 15x60s I've been using are the more recent B/GAT models and not the older GAT models.
The old Carl Zeiss Jena Super Nobilem/Octarem/Nobilem series of binoculars is one of the least known and most under appreciated binocular series in the United States. At one time I had three pairs of Nobilems (i.e., 8x50s, 12x50s & 15x60s) and used them all for 9 - 10 years until some of the newer Western European/Japanese models came along that I thought were better overall than the Nobilems.
John
-------------------- Leica 7x42 Ultravid
Nikon 7x50 Prostar
Swarovski 8.5x42 EL
Nikon 10x70 Astroluxe
Leica 12x50 Ultravid
Zeiss 15x60 B/GAT
Takahashi 22x60 Astronomer
NP-127 w/Bino Vue
|
JCB
super member
   
Reged: 10/04/04
Posts: 151
Loc: France
|
|
John,
I have a question about the West German Zeiss : how do they behave in terrestrial viewing ? Markus Ludes in his review said they exhibit some CA. Is it true ? Is image quality better in the Taks, regardless of the magnification difference ?
Jean-Charles
|
holger_merlitz
sage
   
Reged: 02/08/04
Posts: 282
|
|
>>>However, I think the West German models are sharper overall and especially out towards the far edge of the field...
---------------------------------------------------
Hi John,
This may well be the case. I have never compared them and did just read statements made by other people. Some seem to prefer the East and some the West model - a clear indication that they may be close in performance :-)
One question: You have replaced the Nobilems with more modern glasses. Have you found any 8x50 better than the Octarem? I am always looking for something like that. Perhaps the Leica Ultravid could be a candidate, but not a cheap one ...
Best, Holger
|
John F
sage
Reged: 02/16/04
Posts: 308
Loc: Washington State
|
|
Jean-Charles,
The West German Zeiss 15x60 B/GATs have are very sharp and bring for a high power binocular and have superb contrast. Yes, they're great for terrestrial viewing. Zeiss had discontinued this model back around 1998 but brought it back again a few years later (i.e., an improved longer eye relief version) to meet the demand of hunters. Unfortunately, they discontinued them once again about a year or so ago. However, they do show up from time to time on eBay.
Yes, they do have CA and it is fairly apparent towards the outer edge of the field if you are looking at a high contrast scenes such as where a snow and rock meet on the side of a mountain. Although even less apparent than in the 15x60s, the Nikon 7x50 Prostars and 10x70 Astroluxes both have some CA as well. Nevertheless, most of the time I never even see it. Plus, the overall optical quality of these binoculars is so good that I don't notice any significant difference between using them and my NP-127 apochromatic refractor, they all give great views at their respective magnifications.
John
-------------------- Leica 7x42 Ultravid
Nikon 7x50 Prostar
Swarovski 8.5x42 EL
Nikon 10x70 Astroluxe
Leica 12x50 Ultravid
Zeiss 15x60 B/GAT
Takahashi 22x60 Astronomer
NP-127 w/Bino Vue
|
John F
sage
Reged: 02/16/04
Posts: 308
Loc: Washington State
|
|
Holger,
I have not tried either the 8x50 Swarovski SLs or the 8x50 Leica BA/BR/Ultravids. The 8x binocular I replaced my old 8x50 Nobilems with was the 8.5x42 Swarovski ELs.
Back around 1993 I compared the 8x50 Nobilems to a pair of 8x42 Leica BAs. The BAs were very nice and sharper towards the edge than the Nobilems were. However, the Milky Way star clouds were noticably brighter and more impressive in the Nobilems so I kept them. When I made that same type of comparison in 2001 or 2002 with the Swarovski ELs the difference between them was not very significant (on the Milky Way star clouds), but the ELs were much better in almost every other way so that is why I switched to them. Also, I think as I aged during that period my dark adapted eye pupils were not able to fully accept all the light that the 8x50 Nobilems were delivering to them so may account for why I wasn't as satisfied with them during the last few years that I owned them as I was during the first few years that I had them.
I now have the Leica 12x50 Ultravid and given how good that is I suspect that the 8x50 Ultravid is also very nice. But I agree that they are quite expensive and their prices (at least in the US) have gone up quite a lot over the past year.
John
-------------------- Leica 7x42 Ultravid
Nikon 7x50 Prostar
Swarovski 8.5x42 EL
Nikon 10x70 Astroluxe
Leica 12x50 Ultravid
Zeiss 15x60 B/GAT
Takahashi 22x60 Astronomer
NP-127 w/Bino Vue
|
lighttrap
   
Reged: 02/06/04
Posts: 3833
Loc: cloudy, foggy, humid NC, US
|
|
John, thanks for another great comparo. Your binocular collection is certainly the envy of many.
Quote:
I agree with you assessment that binoculars like the Pentax 20 x 60s and Tak 22 x 60s are best characterized as "special purpose" binoculars rather than as general use binoculars. The 22 x 60 Taks are a nice-to-have after you've already got a binocular like the Zeiss 15x60s or Fujinon 16x70s but they are not - in my opinion - a good alternative to them.
I agree with this assessment for several reasons, the primary one being that a wider FOV instrument can offer most people more enjoyment. That said, one comparison I'd like to see would be between the vaulted Tak 22x60s, the Pentax 20x60s and the Miyauchi "Pleiades" 22x60s. I think that 3* FOV, and the angled occulars, coupled with a fairly reasonable price, and light weight of the Miyauchis might make them a real contender for those looking for a dual use unit in this category.
-------------------- 18" Starsplitter II f/4.5
8" Hardin Dob f/6
C5 workhorse mini SCT f/10 or f/6.3
70mm TV Ranger dual purpose birding/astro
77mm Leica Televid APO
16x70 Fujinons on UA Deluxe Mt.
12x50 Nikon SE
8x30 Nikon E2s
and many others
|
medinabrit
professor emeritus
   
Reged: 10/27/04
Posts: 535
Loc: medina ohio USA.
|
|
Ihave the Taks & the pentax 20x60. All i can say is DO ANYONE WANNA BUY MY PENTAX. incidently i have 3 pentax scopes that i really like . Best bargain out there . But to compare Taks with the pentax is like comparing a TV76 with a $200 orion short tube 80. Brian
|
|
6 registered and 10 anonymous users are browsing this forum.
Moderator: EdZ
Print Thread
|
Forum Permissions
You cannot start new topics
You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled
UBBCode is enabled
|
Thread views: 2783
|
|
|
|
|
|
|