18 replies to this topic

[Rince]

TLDR: As the title suggests, I am looking for recommendations for a pair of budget 7x50 binoculars, intended only for night time use, more specifically stargazing in mildly light polluted, suburban skies. I would like low magnification but good light gathering power, hence the 7x50 (but I am open to suggestions).

 

In a bit more detail: I often go on a run at night outside of my light-polluted city where the sky is surprisingly dark. I can see the Milky Way in the Summer, Pleiades clearly in Winter, and in exceptionally crisp nights Andromeda and the Orion Nebula with diverted eyes. I would like to buy a pair of binoculars to enhance these rare, clear nights out (and the occasional family vacation).

 

As I also own a few telescopes, my new pair of binoculars would probably not see much use outside of the few nights mentioned above; therefore, I do not necessarily want to buy the best and most expansive pair out there. To be honest, I am looking for a bargain as long as the trade off is not too severe. I am looking to enhance my naked eye stargazing not to to strain my eyes after all.

 

I have looked at the Celestron Cometron and Bresser Hunter 7x50 binoculars, which are both incredible bargains; although you kinda spin the wheel with them as their quality can range from very bad to acceptable, if I can believe the reviews. The other one on my list is the Nikon Aculon 7x50 which is much more expansive (and the maximum I can pay right now) but is more reliable when it comes to quality, again, if I can believe the reviews.

 

My questions are: Do any of you have any experience with the above mentioned binoculars? Would you recommend any one of them? If not, what would you recommend instead in a similar price range?

 

Thank you for your answers!

 

P.s.: I am located in Europe.

[Solaris1]

I purchased a Coleman 10x50 hoping it would be better than my older Simmons prosport (blister pack) 10x50 and indeed it was. Actually, as good my old BAK4 10x50 which was sold a while ago. I am thinking that the Coleman 7x50 may be as good as there 10x50 at around $41.Many will probably disagree with me on this but as far as budget binos go,I have been very very pleased with their 10x50.

 

 

https://www.amazon.c...lv_ov_lig_dp_it

Edited by Solaris1, 25 January 2021 - 10:42 AM.

[Northern]

Buy once, cry once...

 

The Fujinon 10x50 FMT-SX2 ( or Polaris ) is nearly agreed by all to be the best handheld astro binocular you can get.

Its made in Japan, to Mil-spec standards. It will last you your life and most likely others after you.

 

I would save, save, save...  then get one.

[harbinjer]

I think any new $50 binoculars are definitely a gamble. But you can take that gamble and return them if they don't work(just make sure you can). The Nikon Aculon will definitely be a step up. They have Bak 4 prisms and better coatings. You'll definitely be able to tell the difference. Also consider the 8x42 size. They will see a big deeper than the 7x50, especially with some light pollution and have a wider FOV. They will also be great for daytime activities while being a bit smaller, without much more shake. For the kind of casual and universal use you're talking about, it's better compromise. Another nice thing is this: you can enjoy nice binoculars, and they keep their value better should you ever want to sell them. But most importantly they will be a pleasure to use.

[hallelujah]

Eye relief is better with the 7x50.

 

https://www.nikonusa...-a211-7x50.html

 

The Nikon Aculon 8x42 is cheaper than the Aculon 7x50.

 

https://www.nikonusa...-a211-8x42.html

 

Locations in Europe.

 

https://www.nikon.co...work/europe.htm

 

Stan

Edited by hallelujah, 25 January 2021 - 04:14 PM.

[Rince]

Thank you for the replies, I really appreciate all of y’all’s inputs. One question:

 

 

Also consider the 8x42 size. They will see a big [bit?] deeper than the 7x50, especially with some light pollution and have a wider FOV.

Why does higher magnification have a wider field of view?

[KennyJ]

Rince,

 

The wider field of view in this case is more related to the smaller objective size ( 42mm v 50mm ) in spite of the slight increase in magnification.

 

It's "easier" and "cheaper" to achieve with 42mm than 50mm, but in this case at the expense of shorter eye - relief.

[Russ S.]

Have you considered used or vintage instead of new? Your limited budget could go further that way   

[sevenofnine]

If you can order from Oberwerk, the 8x56 LW has worked really well for me. Better than a 7x50 I think. The problem with many of the budget binoculars is that they lose collimation (alignment) in shipping from the Asian manufacturers. This problem is a pain to deal with. Oberwerk double checks this before shipment. This binocular sells for $90. Good luck with your decision. 

[Jon Isaacs]

In a bit more detail: I often go on a run at night outside of my light-polluted city where the sky is surprisingly dark. I can see the Milky Way in the Summer, Pleiades clearly in Winter, and in exceptionally crisp nights Andromeda and the Orion Nebula with diverted eyes. I would like to buy a pair of binoculars to enhance these rare, clear nights out (and the occasional family vacation).

 

Would you be taking the binoculars on your runs?  If so, that would be a game changer.  7x50s are quite large to take running.  

 

For light polluted skies, 10x50s will always show more than 7x50s and even under dark skies, the 10x50's will typically show more. 

 

Inexpensive usually means short eye relief, the exception being 7x50s.

 

Jon

[Rince]

 

Have you considered used or vintage instead of new? Your limited budget could go further that way

Yes, I have, but I am a little reluctant when it comes to second hand stuff. If I can try it and see it is a good option, but buying used over the internet is always a bit risky in my mind. In this case, I would probably gravitate more toward new, knowing that I can always send it back if something doesn't click.

 

@KennyJ

 

Thank you for the explanation. I must admit I don't know anything about binoculars. All I know is that aperture controls how much light it can gather and that I do not really want large magnification for reasons of stability and larger field of view.

@sevenofnine

I will check out Oberwerk, thank you!

 

 

7x50s are quite large to take running.

I usually have a backpack on me; so, as long as it doesn't move too much, I think it will be fine. Besides, I only intend taking it with me on exceptionally clear night, and on those, focus will be not on the running but to lay on the grass and look through the binos.

Edit: Looked at them, and this Oberwerk for example looks very good: https://oberwerk.com...ght-binoculars/ (the 8x56), but with shipping to the EU, it is above my price range; so, unfortunately, it is not an option at the moment.

Edited by Rince, 26 January 2021 - 04:34 AM.

[Rince]

I have checked fields of view for the Nikon Aculon 7x50 and 10x50 binos (just out of curiosity) and was kind of taken aback by how little the difference was (see image below). Is that normal or is astronomy.tool is buggy (or, which is the most likely, I did fill in the wrong details)?

Aculon 10x50 with actual FOV 6.5 degrees according to the main Nikon site, and the 7x50 is with 6.4 degrees ( https://www.nikonusa...-a211-7x50.html )

[DeanD]

That looks correct: the 10x have a slightly wider true FOV than the 7x...

[Mark9473]

The math may be correct, but the presentation is off since the circle is larger at 10x than at 7x. The comparison should be made on two charts with different scale and depth.

[Jon Isaacs]

I have checked fields of view for the Nikon Aculon 7x50 and 10x50 binos (just out of curiosity) and was kind of taken aback by how little the difference was (see image below). Is that normal or is astronomy.tool is buggy (or, which is the most likely, I did fill in the wrong details)?

 

Generally 7x50's have a slightly larger TFoV than 10x50s but a 50 degree aFoV as compared to the 65 degree AFoV of most 10x50s. 

 

At 6.4 degrees, the Aculons are narrower than most 10x50s.  

 

As Mark said, the presentations only represent the TFoV, not the AFoV.  I have scaled the images to represent the difference between the 7x and 10x aFoVs.

 

 

Jon

 

 

[Northern]

The AFOV is SOOOOO important with binoculars I find!!!

 

Its like the difference between looking through a window from 10m away and standing 1m infront of it. (wildly exaggerated, but shows the point)

The image is just larger, the larger AFOV it has.

[ihf]

Nikon builds 5 different 50mm aperture Aculons (7x, 10x, 12x, 16x, zoom). Most likely they are all the same binocular (front lenses, focus) with different eyepieces. They probably optimized for the optics for the 10x. This could be one reason why they 7x does not go wider. Another reason is that long focal length eyepieces are rare/expensive to make for wide angles (and large eye relief). If they would have put their attention solely on the 7x they could have squeezed 7-8 degrees of view out of them. Unfortunately 7x seem an afterthought these days, as more sells better.

[Rince]

Thank you guys for the answers (especially Jon for uploading the images). I won’t say I understand it all now, but it seems to me that the 10x50 is a better pick based on these parameters. 

[Jon Isaacs]

Thank you guys for the answers (especially Jon for uploading the images). I won’t say I understand it all now, but it seems to me that the 10x50 is a better pick based on these parameters. 

 

 

That's how it works for me.  But part of the equation is just how steady you hold 10x50s.  

 

Jon