Jump to content

  •  

CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.

Photo

Nikon Action Extreme 16x50

  • Please log in to reply
23 replies to this topic

#1 xcy

xcy

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 601
  • Joined: 15 May 2006
  • Loc: Europe

Posted 28 February 2018 - 12:32 PM

I have only read good things about the Nikon Action Extreme series and I have been considering these for some time, but I am wondering if they are currently the best choice at this price. I am especially interested in the 16x50 for its highest magnification which I would expect to be useful for low magnitude objects. What do you think?


  • Wayne Costigan and G-Tower like this

#2 hallelujah

hallelujah

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 7461
  • Joined: 14 Jul 2006
  • Loc: North Star over Colorado

Posted 28 February 2018 - 01:08 PM

I am especially interested in the 16x50 for its highest magnification which I would expect to be useful for low magnitude objects.

What do you think?

I think that at 16x I would prefer more aperture & a larger exit pupil, unless you live at a dark site.

 

You will also need a good mount to get the best views with a 16x.

A Zero Gravity chair might be a less expensive alternative.

 

Stan


  • jrbarnett, eklf and Wayne Costigan like this

#3 xcy

xcy

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 601
  • Joined: 15 May 2006
  • Loc: Europe

Posted 28 February 2018 - 01:26 PM

I intent to use these without a mount. I too prefer more aperture and larger exit pupil, but which such binoculars have similar quality and price?



#4 hallelujah

hallelujah

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 7461
  • Joined: 14 Jul 2006
  • Loc: North Star over Colorado

Posted 28 February 2018 - 01:36 PM

Without a mount I would choose the Nikon 12x50 AE for hand held.

 

http://imaging.nikon...x40x50/spec.htm

 

Stan


  • jrbarnett, Binojunky and Wayne Costigan like this

#5 xcy

xcy

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 601
  • Joined: 15 May 2006
  • Loc: Europe

Posted 28 February 2018 - 01:48 PM

12x50 is too close to the 10x50 I own (from the same family as the Oberwerk Mariner binoculars).



#6 hallelujah

hallelujah

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 7461
  • Joined: 14 Jul 2006
  • Loc: North Star over Colorado

Posted 28 February 2018 - 02:05 PM

I have a discontinued Pentax 16x60 PCF WP Porro & have always been satisfied with it.

I purchased it years ago after selling my Nikon 16x50 Action.

 

https://www.ebay.com...l0AAOSwtDdac2ye

 

https://www.ebay.com...5.c100005.m1851

 

Stan


Edited by hallelujah, 28 February 2018 - 06:16 PM.

  • Wayne Costigan likes this

#7 Binojunky

Binojunky

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5601
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2010

Posted 28 February 2018 - 03:00 PM

A 16x50 binocular can be a pig to hold steady unless its an IS model, as Stan suggested the 12x50 is a better way to go, if its too near the 10x50 you have then sell the 10x50, D.


  • hallelujah and Wayne Costigan like this

#8 Pinac

Pinac

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1069
  • Joined: 26 Dec 2013
  • Loc: Switzerland

Posted 28 February 2018 - 05:12 PM

xcy (post #1) 

I do have several of the Nikon EX models, and the 16x50 is clearly the weakest, the image is not really bright and not very sharp either (for me, the 10x50 and 12x50 are the best ones, even better than the 7x35 which is well regarded)

Moreover, I agree with what Stan and binojunky have written in their posts, holding a 16x bino unmounted means you will see less detail than with a 10x50 or a 12x50.

If you want more power than 12x, go for something like 16x70 or so, and ideally use it mounted. Or choose one of the IS binos from Canon (15x, 18x). But all of these are in a different price range.

Less costly, the 15x70 Skymaster could be an option, but I don‘t know that one.


Edited by Pinac, 28 February 2018 - 05:15 PM.

  • CAAD9 and Wayne Costigan like this

#9 stargazer193857

stargazer193857

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 7503
  • Joined: 01 Dec 2013
  • Loc: Southern Idaho

Posted 01 March 2018 - 12:15 AM

I have a 16x50. It can be lots of fun, show great detail in the day time, and clearly show globular clusters. But sometimes it is hard to find stuff in that narrow view. 10x50 is much easier for finding stuff, and the shake is less obvious. Even a mounted 20x80 can take time to find stuff, and the image did not strike me much better than what I remembered minutes ago in the 16x50. 15x70 is nice.
  • terraclarke and Wayne Costigan like this

#10 dgoldb

dgoldb

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 873
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2015

Posted 01 March 2018 - 12:33 PM

15x70 is the logical step up from 10x50.  I think 15x70 is hand-holdable for a few minutes at a time if you lay down or brace yourself (or a monopod).  The oberwerk ultra balance pretty well in the hand.  You'll pay a bit more but its worth it vs 16x50.  


  • Wayne Costigan likes this

#11 xcy

xcy

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 601
  • Joined: 15 May 2006
  • Loc: Europe

Posted 01 March 2018 - 05:40 PM

I also have a Celestron SkyMaster 15x70, which after several years of light use, miraculously still hold its collimation. But I feel that I need something better, both optically and mechanically (as I really dislike plastic and rubber).


Edited by xcy, 02 March 2018 - 12:35 PM.

  • Wayne Costigan likes this

#12 jaraxx

jaraxx

    Ranger 4

  • *****
  • Posts: 382
  • Joined: 14 Sep 2017

Posted 02 March 2018 - 08:36 AM

I have a set of the Nikon 12X50 AE that are very good, but about the limit of decent handheld viewing. I examined the 16X but preferred the window thru the 12X glasses.  They work OK for birds or landscapes, and not too bad for sweeps of the sky. Looking at a single object for any length of time really requires support - a monopod works for me with the 12X.

If you could consider support you could consider a 20X bino ...



#13 xcy

xcy

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 601
  • Joined: 15 May 2006
  • Loc: Europe

Posted 17 July 2018 - 09:19 AM

I am still considering the Action Extreme 16x50, but now also the Nikon Aculon 16x50, as if buying locally, the first sells for double the price of the second. Is the cost difference really justified? I could buy two Aculons for the price of an Action Extreme, as I am also tempted by either the 7x35 or the 8x42 for wide field views. If I am correct, the Aculon uses aspherical lenses and the Action Extreme does not. Does this really matter? Long eye relief is a plus, but as I don’t need to wear glasses, it's not that necessary. What is your opinion?



#14 jrbarnett

jrbarnett

    Eyepiece Hooligan

  • *****
  • Posts: 30072
  • Joined: 28 Feb 2006
  • Loc: Petaluma, CA

Posted 17 July 2018 - 10:30 AM

I have a discontinued Pentax 16x60 PCF WP Porro & have always been satisfied with it.

I purchased it years ago after selling my Nikon 16x50 Action.

 

https://www.ebay.com...l0AAOSwtDdac2ye

 

https://www.ebay.com...5.c100005.m1851

 

Stan

I have the same Pentax binocular, Stan.  Good value but a really painfully puny FOV, and even worse than the 16x50 AEs if you hand hold them (2.8 vs 3.5 degrees).

 

Personally I wouldn't handhold any binocular over 10x to 12x.  You lose too much of the aperture and/or magnification gains to shakes, negating the purpose of higher magnification/greater aperture.

 

- Jim


  • Miranda2525 likes this

#15 jrbarnett

jrbarnett

    Eyepiece Hooligan

  • *****
  • Posts: 30072
  • Joined: 28 Feb 2006
  • Loc: Petaluma, CA

Posted 17 July 2018 - 10:37 AM

I am still considering the Action Extreme 16x50, but now also the Nikon Aculon 16x50, as if buying locally, the first sells for double the price of the second. Is the cost difference really justified? I could buy two Aculons for the price of an Action Extreme, as I am also tempted by either the 7x35 or the 8x42 for wide field views. If I am correct, the Aculon uses aspherical lenses and the Action Extreme does not. Does this really matter? Long eye relief is a plus, but as I don’t need to wear glasses, it's not that necessary. What is your opinion?

I have a mix of Aculons and AEs; 10x50 Aculon, 7x35 Aculon, 12x50 AE, 7x35 AE.

 

I prefer the AEs for their more robust construction, weatherproofing and more generous eye relief, but as you've noticed there's a great deal of difference in price between the two lines for certain models.

 

My two 7x35s perform similarly but the AEs are more comfortable (I don't wear glasses when I observe).  Price delta was $70 vs. $105 so $35.  For me better ergonomics and resistance to dew/fogging is worth something.  In this case the extra $35 was well spent.  On the other hand, had the difference been $70 instead of $35, I might prefer the cheaper unit.

 

Neither line are fully multicoated and neither produce especially flat, well-corrected FOVs, so I don't think the AEs are materially optically better than the Aculons.

 

Best,

 

Jim  


  • Chesterguy1, The Luckster and StarDustBin like this

#16 Chesterguy1

Chesterguy1

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 779
  • Joined: 21 May 2015
  • Loc: Stillwater, OK

Posted 20 July 2018 - 09:26 AM

I have the 12 x 50 AEs.  I find them to be threshold hand-held and prefer some bracing like elbows on the chair’s arms.  I’m thinking even an inexpensive monopod tucked between the legs might be the ticket.  I would think 16 x 50 would definitely require some kind of mount.  Since everyone has a different perception of weight and tolerance for jiggles your mileage may vary.

 

Like Jim I lke the eye relief of the AEs, but sometimes use them without my glasses.  Right now I’m finding all my binoculars problematic, bu that’s another story.

 

Gogiboy



#17 Knygathin

Knygathin

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 156
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2009

Posted 24 February 2019 - 01:46 PM

I do have several of the Nikon EX models, ... (for me, the 10x50 and 12x50 are the best ones, even better than the 7x35 which is well regarded) ...

Is the image in 10x50 much brighter than in the 12x50, and, if so, does that make it comparably easier to see small details in it (at daytime viewing)?



#18 Miranda2525

Miranda2525

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1849
  • Joined: 12 Jul 2016

Posted 25 February 2019 - 09:00 PM

I have only read good things about the Nikon Action Extreme series and I have been considering these for some time, but I am wondering if they are currently the best choice at this price. I am especially interested in the 16x50 for its highest magnification which I would expect to be useful for low magnitude objects. What do you think?

I tried a pair of 16x50 Nikon AE recently. I figured for a 16x power binocular that most of the field of view would be sharp, but it wasn't. I passed on them altogether. If you don't mind the outer edges being blurry, the central area is sharp. Also, hand holding them was just jiggly and not fun. Everything i looked at wiggled all over the place, and I have good, steady hands to begin with. 

 

For hand holding, I would recommend 10x50 or at the most, a 12x50.


Edited by Miranda2525, 25 February 2019 - 09:01 PM.

  • dd61999 and alternative3d like this

#19 terraclarke

terraclarke

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 20335
  • Joined: 29 May 2012
  • Loc: Terra Nova Observatory

Posted 02 May 2019 - 09:05 AM

A 16x50 binocular can be a pig to hold steady unless its an IS model, as Stan suggested the 12x50 is a better way to go, if its too near the 10x50 you have then sell the 10x50, D.

 

I bought a pair of old Shrine Manon (Japan) 16x50s for a very reasonable price. When I got them they were sadly out of collimation. Fortunately, they had the cog-type rotatable objective cells. You unscrew the protective endpiece over each outer counter-cell, and then rotate the inner cell. I have an old center-post type binocular tripod adapter so I fixed them on a distant radio transmission tower and finessed the cells until collimation was perfect. Since then, I haven’t had any need to tripod mount them. They are quite light and if seated in a lawn chair or Adirondack chair they are easy to hold steady. The field is fairly narrow but the image is nice and bright, sharp and contrasty. I mostly use them during for bird watching from my deck. They give wonderful close-up views. And night, they show Jupiters four moons and hints of the bands, and the moon is spectacular. 16x50s can be a very useful binocular caliber and if light, you really don’t need a tripod. With my 8x40s they are nice travel companions for day and night use.


  • Miranda2525 likes this

#20 Miranda2525

Miranda2525

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1849
  • Joined: 12 Jul 2016

Posted 02 May 2019 - 12:52 PM

I bought a pair of old Shrine Manon (Japan) 16x50s for a very reasonable price. When I got them they were sadly out of collimation. Fortunately, they had the cog-type rotatable objective cells. You unscrew the protective endpiece over each outer counter-cell, and then rotate the inner cell. I have an old center-post type binocular tripod adapter so I fixed them on a distant radio transmission tower and finessed the cells until collimation was perfect. Since then, I haven’t had any need to tripod mount them. They are quite light and if seated in a lawn chair or Adirondack chair they are easy to hold steady. The field is fairly narrow but the image is nice and bright, sharp and contrasty. I mostly use them during for bird watching from my deck. They give wonderful close-up views. And night, they show Jupiters four moons and hints of the bands, and the moon is spectacular. 16x50s can be a very useful binocular caliber and if light, you really don’t need a tripod. With my 8x40s they are nice travel companions for day and night use.

You are so right! 16x50's are great for those "up close" views of anything!  I really like my 10x50's for wider field views, but I really do want another pair of 16x50's again!  you are a bad influence!  (I do mean that in a good way Terra, lol).


  • terraclarke and G-Tower like this

#21 stargazer193857

stargazer193857

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 7503
  • Joined: 01 Dec 2013
  • Loc: Southern Idaho

Posted 02 May 2019 - 06:17 PM

"Out of collimation" is relative. Many cheap binos come out of the factory with those loose tolerances planned. Beginners won't know they are out, but images just won't snap sharply. There is collimation between barrels and also within barrels. Your eyes will merge images, but you just won't see the same detail.


I looked through $600 binos and immediately saw why people pay that price.

#22 G-Tower  Happy Birthday!

G-Tower

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 171
  • Joined: 24 Mar 2018
  • Loc: PR & GA

Posted 06 May 2019 - 12:27 PM

I have a pair of these Nikon binos and they're good but 16x is just too much for me to hold a steady view. I always need a tripod and mostly use them for daytime viewing cause of the small exit pupil. They're great if you have an ocean view, I can spend hours sitting down with a tripod looking at ships,boats, dolphins and sea birds...


  • eklf and terraclarke like this

#23 Miranda2525

Miranda2525

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1849
  • Joined: 12 Jul 2016

Posted 10 May 2019 - 01:36 PM

I just bought a pair of 16x50 Nikon Aculon to try them out. I've had them for two days now. So for I am impressed because they have a 60.8° AFOV. Eye relief is a bit tight, but doable. Sharpness is a lot better than the 10x50 Nikon Aculon I tried out last year and returned after trying them once.

 

The bridge that holds the eyepieces rocks back and forth slightly if you put too much pressure on the eyepieces, but not a problem when using them without adding pressure, which most users do anyways. They are really light in weight. Most of the 61 deg field is quite sharp. Only the outer 25% is soft, and not a distraction.

 

I did the "flashlight test". I got 47mm for the objectives and I measured the exit pupil and got 3mm. So this binocular is 15.6 x 47. 

 

Hand holding them is a lot easier than the 20x60 Pentax I once owned. I liked the flat field of the 20x60 Pentax, really liked the bino a lot. But over time, I found the 44 deg afov just too narrow and it was "tripod only" as I found hand holding them and searching for things to be too much of a hassle. I can easily find things when using the 16x50 Nikon Aculon when hand holding them. Of course, a tripod is best for 16x50 binoculars, but with these I can hand hold them as well and the views are not as shaky as they were when using the 20x60 Pentax.

 

I would really like to compare the 16x50 Nikon Aculon, (60.8°), compared to the 16x50 Nikon AE, (52.1°), to see if the difference in AFOV is worth getting one pair over the other. No doubt that the central sharpness of the 16x50 Nikon AE is a bit better.

 

Still waiting for clear skies to try out the 16x50 Nikon Aculon at night.


Edited by Miranda2525, 10 May 2019 - 01:59 PM.


#24 Miranda2525

Miranda2525

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1849
  • Joined: 12 Jul 2016

Posted 12 May 2019 - 03:54 PM

I had the 16x50 Nikon Aculon out in dark skies. Here are my thoughts. I tried them using a zero gravity chair, hand held and on my tripod on the moon and a few other things. 

 

-Apparent field of view feels immersive and wide

-Sharpness is excellent in the center, edges a little soft, but was not an issue at night

-Eye relief is tight. It was cold out, and the eyepieces kept on fogging up. The eye cups have three settings when twisting them up. I have to leave it out to the highest setting to stop the eyepieces from fogging up in the cold. When doing this, the afov gets cut off, due to the short eye relief, but it was doable. The best setting for the eye cups was one twist up. Two twists upwards was ok also, but the view starts to get cut off a little.

-I went looking for globular clusters. All of them were very apparent and large in size and quite obvious. I saw M-3, M-13, M-92, M-4, M-5, M-22 and a couple more. I also saw the open cluster IC 4665 in Ophiuchus. It was really nice at 16x. 

-These binoculars are so light in weight that hand holding them was easy and my arms did not get tired. I expected images to jump all over the place, but I could hold the binoculars steady enough that this didn't happen at all. 

-Looking at the last quarter moon on a tripod was really nice. However, I had to keep my head steady because if I moved up, down, left or right, the image became soft. Something to do with the optics I guess. Ghosting was there, but was minimal.

- Panning around constellations proved to be easy because of the large apparent field of view of just over 60°.and was much easier than when I had a pair of 20x60 Pentax SP WP binoculars a while back. 

-Compared to a previous pair of Nikon Action 16x50's, these have better eye cups and better coatings. There isn't really much of a difference between the two however.

-Compared to the Nikon AE, the Action Extreme are quite a bit better. The Nikon AE has a lot better eye relief, ghosting is cut down considerably, and the eyepiece bridge does not move like it does with the Nikon Aculon. IMO, images in the Nikon AE are sharper on axis in the daytime, but at night for astro use, you really can't notice. 

 

I plan on ordering a pair of 12x50 or 16x50 Nikon Action Extreme to compare sometime soon. The comparison will be between the 16x50 Nikon Aculon and the 16x50 Nikon AE. If I get the 12x50 Nikon AE, I will see which I like better and sell one off, or keep them both.


  • paulsky and dd61999 like this


CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.


Recent Topics






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics