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
Rich Strassberg
member
Reged: 07/30/09
Posts: 16
Loc: Los Angeles, CA
|
|
I've spent the past month reading many comments, going back to 01/09, and finally decided on the Fujinon 16x70. Today, someone told me about the Garrett 15x85 Signture Series. He preferred these to the Fujinon. I was concerned about the short eye relief on the Fujinon, although a repair person, for Fujinon, told me that I could make adjustments with both diopters and not wear my glasses. Also, I have slight astigmatism in one eye. I understand the 15x85 has a useable eye relief of 15. I am 64 and will use these in the Venice area of LA and up the coast past Malibu, at Boney Peak, and also Mt. Pinos.
Has anyone used both pairs and could suggest which one to purchase for the factors I stated? Also, the $200 difference in price isn't the issue. Thanks!
|
Maljunulo
member
Reged: 07/31/09
Posts: 10
Loc: Connecticut
|
|
I think the first thing you have to ask is "Why did the other party prefer the Garrett glasses to the Fujinon?" Some will niggle, but the optical quality of the Fujinon is hard to beat without spending a great deal more money.
|
Rich Strassberg
member
Reged: 07/30/09
Posts: 16
Loc: Los Angeles, CA
|
|
Thanks for your response! He felt that the contrast was much darker than the Fujinons and also 1/3 the price; however, he couldn't notice anything else that was different. He has years of experience with various equipment vs my 0!!
|
EdZ
Professor EdZ
Reged: 02/15/02
Posts: 14731
Loc: Cumberland, R I , USA42N71.4W
|
|
The GO 15x85 sells for $500. They are NOT 1/3 the price of a Fujinon 16x70. Perhaps 1/3 less.
Darker contrast? Sounds like a mis-description of contrast. However, I will agree that they (the 85mm) should have deeper faint object views, considering they have 50% greater light gathering area.
The Signature is a pretty darned good binocular. But, as to not seeing any differences between them, well... I have the Ultra 70mm and two of the 85mm Signature, these three all the same model of binocular. I also have the Fujinon 16x70.
Some major differences between the Signature and the Fujinons;
the Fujinon has a perfectly balanced illumination of the exit pupil. None of the three Sig/Ultra have as well balanced illumination.
The extent of total illumination in the Fujinon is greater than any of the other three.
The outer edges of the field of view in the Fujinon is flatter, has less distortions by 15% to 20% of the field, than any of the other three.
The Signature 85mm weigh in at 10#, whereas the Fujinon 16x70 is less than 5#. You could spend about $200 more on a proper tripod to mount the Signature.
The usable eyerelief of the Signature series is overstated. The 22x85 is stated to have 12mm usable. It actually has 9mm usable. The 15x85 probably has more, but probably not 15mm. Still the Fujinon has only 9-10mm.
The Fujinon is collimated by moving the objective element. The Signature/Ultra is collimated by moving the prism shelf. My Fujinon was mounted to a 6' tall tripod outside and toppled over and hit the ground. Nothing happened. My Ultra fell off the table 30" to the floor, got knocked completely out of alignment. I've bought two pair of 22x85 Signatures (both used). One arrived completely out of alignment. I've owned three pair of Fujinons (16x70, 10x70 and 10x50) for a combined total of about 15 years. None have ever shown any sign of losing alignment.
That's a lot of differences for someone to not see any differences. The Signatures and Ultras are good, but there are differences.
edz
--------------------
Teach a kid something today. The feeling you'll get is one of life's greatest rewards.
member#21
|
Rich Strassberg
member
Reged: 07/30/09
Posts: 16
Loc: Los Angeles, CA
|
|
Thanks Ed! I really appreciate your feedback in detail. It reinforced my choice. Yes, 1/3 less!
|
F.Meiresonne
Post Laureate
Reged: 12/22/03
Posts: 3368
Loc: Eeklo,Belgium
|
|
The Fujinon is the better binocular.For sure.
But it does not exist in 85 mm aperture, does it? A consideration...
--------------------
Freddy Meiresonne
Obsession 18 inch #1638
Orion Optics 8 inch F/4.5 -1/8 wave optics -Vixen GP-E
20x80 Helios Stellar Binos
15x70 TS Marine (=Obie Ultra)
10x60 Helios Quantum 4(= Obie Mariner)
10x50 Helios Nature sport plus
8x40 Helios Nature sport plus
Eyepieces in use :Pan 35,24,19, N13T6, Pentax 10 XW, N9T6, Ultrascopic 7.5, TV2, baader ortho 12.5 and 9 mm
|
DJB
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 02/23/05
Posts: 1589
Loc: Lisle NY
|
|
I agree folks.
There just is no way to get around the obvious fact, which, I think, is a great thing.
Best regards,
Dave.
|
Gordon Rayner
scholastic sledgehammer
Reged: 03/24/07
Posts: 965
|
|
Consider use of one of the Fuji Meibo/Fujinon 15 x 80, black(early), or green(later), with high quality 60 deg. field, long eyerelief, airspaced objectives about f/6, integral pintle mount, easily removed, for p-gram or cradle-in-a-fork use. Not sure when/if multicoating came in.
I bought some ex-Navy landing light forks, which are rolled aluminum 1/8 wall channels, which are nearly ideal( except for the orange color), for cradles inside forks, or for forks for trunnion equipped cradles.
Those binoculars can also be forearm/elbow/cushion mounted on cartop, which is convenient for wildlife or similar low-elevation use Those binoculars are used by the US Coast Guard. Are the current ones multicoated ? I have not seen a new one for over a decade. Some coming out of the sweatshop shipbreakers in Bangladesh. Similar to WW II models. There was a Nikon , similar, coming from Panama or Canada, showing up in the 1970's, in very limited numbers. I used, fixed, sold all of these beginning in the early 1970's.
|
|
8 registered and 12 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: 451
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
[Re: 