46 replies to this topic

[Terra Nova]

For easy handholding and easy traveling, hiking, or backpacking, I would recommend a pair of Vortex Diamondback HD 8x42 roofs. They have a nice moderately wide (7.5°) field, sharp optics, robust waterproof construction, and compact configuration. They are perfect for hiking and travel and can do double duty for star gazing and bird watching. I got started with a pair of Hunters 8x40 porro prism binoculars in the Fall of 1964 and I have loved binoculars ever since. With a 5mm exit pupil they will be nice and bright at night and not excessively so during the day. They’re $239 at Amazon so close to your budgetary needs.

 

Keeping with the 5mm exit pupil, 10x50s are still handhelds and give you a bit more magnification and light grasp. While the 8x42s are perfect for general purpose binoculars, 10x50s are even better for Astronomy. I bought my older daughter a pair of the 10x50 Oberwerk Deluxe binos a few years ago and she loves them. She’s a professional film maker so she appreciates sharp, bright optics and she also enjoys hiking and camping. I’ve heard nothing but praise from here about these binoculars. They have a 6.5° FOV and weigh in at 2.5 pounds. They are porro prism binoculars so they won’t break the bank and can be purchased new for $189.95.

 

Lastly, if you want to go a bit bigger, I recommend the Oberwerk LightWeight 12x60s, also porro prism binos and also with the 5mm exit pupil; they have a 5.7° FOV. I’ve had a pair of these now for 20 years and they are still in perfect condition, even tho they are my ‘go-with-me’ whenever I go to one of my astronomy dark sites in the field away from home. They stay in their case in a laundry basked, along with my eyepiece case, flashlight, star atlases etc, ready to load in my vehicle. They are great binos, and still quite handy to hold or mount on a light weight photo tripod (only 2.6 pounds). They’re the cheapest of the three at $109.95 brand new and produce sharp, bright images. I think they are the best binocular bargain out there.

Edited by Terra Nova, 21 May 2022 - 10:50 AM.

[Terra Nova]

The light weight of the 15x70 LWs and they're going out of collimation are directly related.. 

 

Jon

Jon, I’ve had a pair of Obie 12x60 LWs for 20 years. I take them everywhere, and their case is anything but robust and they are still in perfect collimation, coatings are perfect, and the views are as sharp and bright as ever. They’ve bounced around in my pickup over all kinds of roads, they have been dripping wet with dew, and they’ve been left all day locked in the truck in the summer sun and it hasn’t fazed them. I guess 12x60 is the sweet spot for resilience?

[Jon Isaacs]

Jon, I’ve had a pair of Obie 12x60 LWs for 20 years. I take them everywhere, and their case is anything but robust and they are still in perfect collimation, coatings are perfect, and the views are as sharp and bright as ever. They’ve bounced around in my pickup over all kinds of roads, they have been dripping wet with dew, and they’ve been left all day locked in the truck in the summer sun and it hasn’t fazed them. I guess 12x60 is the sweet spot for resilience?

 

I don't know.. The 15x70 LW's are the same basic binoculars as the Celestron Skymaster 15x70s which are prone to go out of collimation.

 

I liked your suggest, 8x42 roofs are "natural", easy to hold steady, wide field, bright.. I had a pair of Leupolds and like an idiot, my needed something for her brothers birthday so I gave away the Leupolds.  They have a warranty like the Vortex.  

 

Jon

[Binojunky]

I don't know.. The 15x70 LW's are the same basic binoculars as the Celestron Skymaster 15x70s which are prone to go out of collimation.

 

I liked your suggest, 8x42 roofs are "natural", easy to hold steady, wide field, bright.. I had a pair of Leupolds and like an idiot, my needed something for her brothers birthday so I gave away the Leupolds.  They have a warranty like the Vortex.  

 

Jon

I found the same, in fairness to Kevin at Oberwerk they are checked before shipping, also theirs a tutorial on how to do a conditional alignment, it works and can be applied to both models, myself I would take a good 10x50 over  either of the 15x70,s mentioned, Dave.

[sevenofnine]

+1 on the Nikon AE 10x50. I have the Obie 15x70 LW, 8x56 LW and the Nikon AE 10x50. The 8x56 LW is similar in build quality to the 12x60 LW. Both are more robust in construction than the 15x70 LW. You can feel it in your hands. All three have held collimation well but the Nikon is in a class by itself IMO. Good luck with your choice!  

[ECP M42]

Hi Seven, how many degrees of rotation in total does your Nikon 10x50 have, and how much rotation from minimum focus distance to optical infinity?

 

Thanks

 

 

[sevenofnine]

ECP M42,...about 425* total and about 360* from minimum focus to optical infinity. That's if I understand your question correctly. PM me if this doesn't seem right...Brian

[ECP M42]

Thanks Brian, I was just curious about the "speed" of the focus.

And 360 ° I think it's fast enough (if it's not too hard). 

 

Henry

[smallbinos]

You could consider the Oberwerk 8x42s. I have used the ED version and they are just about the perfect bino. They are quite a bit over your price range (about $330 USD), but Oberwerk also offers the HD IIs, which are about $230 USD. If the HD IIs are at the same quality of the EDs, they are a strong contender for the best value roof prism binocular. The EDs have the BEST focuser mechanism I have used in any optic. The optics are superb. They are light and have a good magnification for multiple purposes without much shake. I had no trouble holding them. They are a strong buy.

[WillR]

I have an Oberwerk LW 15 x 70 on a monopod which I also use off the ground as a balance stick (?) and keep quite steady. 

 

I am still learning the patterns of the fainter constellations, many of which are hard to see with the naked eye from home.  I am heading to Cherry Springs next week, and I wonder if a pair if 10 x 50s would be a nice addition with it's wider field of view? The 15 x 70s are 4.4° and the 10 x 50s are 6.5°. 

 

Been considering the NIkon AE 10x50s, but wondering if the even wider 8° of a 8x42 would be even better. Do people prefer their 10 x 50s over their 8 x 42s for certain uses?

 

Edit: Just looking at the Nikon Prostaff 7S 8 x 42 on sale at Amazon for $147. Wasn't thinking of roof prisms, but these are lighter. However FOV is only 6.75° as opposed to 8° for porro models. Anyone have these? What about Nikon Aculon? I would use these mostly for scanning star fields. ( But who knows what you will use the for until you actually have them/)

Edited by WillR, 23 May 2022 - 10:31 AM.

[ECP M42]

I have an Oberwerk LW 15 x 70 on a monopod which I also use off the ground as a balance stick (?) and keep quite steady. 

 

I am still learning the patterns of the fainter constellations, many of which are hard to see with the naked eye from home.  I am heading to Cherry Springs next week, and I wonder if a pair if 10 x 50s would be a nice addition with it's wider field of view? The 15 x 70s are 4.4° and the 10 x 50s are 6.5°. 

 

Been considering the NIkon AE 10x50s, but wondering if the even wider 8° of a 8x42 would be even better. Do people prefer their 10 x 50s over there 8 x 42s for certain uses?

Hi Will, what's so different at Cherry Springs?

I don't think the 4,7mm pupil of the 15x70 will be so much darker than the 5mm pupil of the 10x50 or the 5,25mm of the 8x42. And when you consider that the 15x will go much deeper than other two, I really can't guess (maybe I'm too incompetent at star gazing) what you might see in 8x42 and 10x50, which you can't see bigger in 15x70    

 

I have a 7x32 with FOV 14° and honestly I use it so little that I am ashamed to always have it in the closet.
I don't know if it's because binoculars are such an easy tool to point wherever you want, but the value of the FOV has never interested me so much that I have to give up detail or deep views of the starry sky. And for this, I happily use an 18x50.
However, in various situations, the FOV can also be a determining factor; therefore, a jump from 4.4° to 8° will certainly be more evident and in my opinion also more useful (if needed). 

 

 

Edit: Just looking at the Nikon Prostaff 7S 8 x 42 on sale at Amazon for $147. Wasn't thinking of roof prisms, but these are lighter. However FOV is only 6.75° as opposed to 8° for porro models. Anyone have these? What about Nikon Aculon? I would use these mostly for scanning star fields. ( But who knows what you will use the for until you actually have them/) 

Here, this is a point that, instead, interests me a lot: AFOV.
An 8x with 6.75° FOV, has an AFOV of 54° = narrower than normal (60°). While an 8x with 8° FOV, it has an AFOV of 64 ° = wide vision   (more wide of normal). 

 

PS: I think there is not much good in a Prostaff ...   

 

Henry

Edited by ECP M42, 23 May 2022 - 10:24 AM.

[WillR]

Hi Will, what's so different at Cherry Springs?

I don't think the 4,7mm pupil of the 15x70 will be so much darker than the 5mm pupil of the 10x50 or the 5,25mm of the 8x42. And when you consider that the 15x will go much deeper than other two, I really can't guess (maybe I'm too incompetent at star gazing) what you might see in 8x42 and 10x50, which you can't see bigger in 15x70    

 

I have a 7x32 with FOV 14° and honestly I use it so little that I am ashamed to always have it in the closet.
I don't know if it's because binoculars are such an easy tool to point wherever you want, but the value of the FOV has never interested me so much that I have to give up detail or deep views of the starry sky. And for this, I happily use an 18x50.
However, in various situations, the FOV can also be a determining factor; therefore, a jump from 4.4° to 8° will certainly be more evident and in my opinion also more useful (if needed). 

 

 

Here, this is a point that, instead, interests me a lot: AFOV.
An 8x with 6.75° FOV, has an AFOV of 54° = narrower than normal (60°). While an 8x with 8° FOV, it has an AFOV of 64 ° = wide vision   (more wide of normal). 

 

PS: I think there is not much good in a Prostaff ...   

 

Henry

Henry, what's different is the amount of stars that can be seen with the naked eye or bins as opposed to my home. The idea is the wider FOV will enable me to take in more sky which will help me identify constellations easier. I have also thought of getting the Orion 2 x 54s, but they are as much as these bins I am looking at and are a luxury at this point.

 

BTW, I was wondering if there were bins with even wider FOVs. Can you elaborate on why you never use the 7 x 32s? Seems like they would be fun to scan the Milky Way with.

[ECP M42]

I imagined that in Cherry Springs you would have a less polluted sky, and I believe that there is nothing preferable, compared to binoculars. Even a "meager" 10x25 with FOV 5° will be stunning and spectacular under a dark sky. Whatever binoculars you have there with you, they will be adequate and fun.

 

I hardly use the 7x32, for a couple of reasons. One is the optical quality which is not exciting, but mostly because I prefer to "enter" the sky deeper.
Even the Milky Way (for me) is more excited with greater magnification. I prefer to "throw myself" down there with an 18x, rather than stay further back and further away, with the 7x.
But it's just a personal taste.

 

The field of view, it seems to me, is actually useful, only when using an EQ-mount telescope on a tripod.
But when you can point the binoculars freely where you want (almost like your eyes), while lying down, I don't find it so necessary to have 8° instead of 6° (for example).
And even so, not even 14° is as wide as 45° (for example) or even 60°. My binocular view with the naked eye takes about 97°. I guess yours could be 70-80° ...

 

What is interesting about binoculars is precisely the magnification, because it virtually transports you much closer to the objects you want to observe.
And the stars are notoriously far away!

[Wildetelescope]

Hello, newbie here. I've been trying to buy some entry level astronomy binos for about six months, but every time I started shopping I read so many forum posts and got so overwhelmed by the options I couldn't make a decision. So I decided to finally make an account and just directly ask what your recommendations would be.

 

I figure more info about what I am looking for is better than not enough info, so please bear with me on this longer post.

 

What I want binoculars for:
I will be visiting a lot of national parks this summer and want a pair of binoculars I can mostly use for astronomy viewing at night. The parks will mostly have bortle 1-3 skies, so not a lot of light pollution. I may occasionally use these binos for wildlife viewing during the daytime or for night sky viewing in areas with more light pollution. But my primary usage by far will be stargazing at dark skies.

 

I am relatively young (in my late 20s) so my pupils are still pretty big. I do wear both contacts and glasses, and usually prefer to wear contacts for stargazing because my glasses can fog up at night. So eye relief shouldn't be a huge factor I think.

 

I already own a pair of Nikon 8x25 Trailblazers that I use for hiking, so portability isn't a huge concern for me, though still a factor. I also already own a small tripod that I could use for larger binoculars so that does not need to factor into the price.

 

I also travel a lot, mostly road trips. While I am very careful with my stuff, these binos will be packed into luggage a lot vs. sitting in a house all the time, so rugged construction is a plus. I will also visit more humid and rainy areas at some point, so it's probably a good idea for me to pay a bit more for a waterproof/fogproof model that won't get ruined by a little drizzle.

 

My budget is around $200 USD. Anything much over that and I figure I might as well wait to save up more and get an entry level telescope for when I am not moving around as much (and when scopes finally start coming back in stock again).

 

Binoculars models I am considering:
Originally I was looking at the larger Oberwerk LW binoculars (9x60, 12x60, 11x70, 15x70) with the idea of mounting them on the tripod. However, after reading dozens of posts here it sounds like a smaller pair of binos, such as a 10x50 model, might be a better choice to start. I am also concerned about the lack of waterproofness on the LW line.

 

The Nikon Aculon 10x50 and the Bushnell WP 10x50 seem to be well-liked budget picks towards the lower end of my price range. Similar to the Oberwerk LW line, I am concerned about the lack of waterproofness on the Aculon line, so Bushnell would probably be the better option at this price point.

 

I was also looking at the Nikon Action Extreme 10x50 or the Nikon ProStaff 10x50 as upgrade picks to get the more rugged, waterproof/fogproof construction. Also maybe the Pentax WP 10x50. Out of these, the Nikon AEs seem to be the most recommended on this forum.

 

I also briefly considered the Celestron Skymaster DX 8x56, but it sounds like Celestron has a quality control problem so maybe it would be better to stay away from that brand altogether.

 

Finally, I have found the older version of the Vortex Diamondback 10x50s on sale for $180, close to the same price as the Nikons and Pentaxes. Again, this is the old version, so it lacks the HD glass plus whatever other upgrades Vortex made. It seems like the new HD version is well reviewed here, but I couldn't find a lot of posts on the old DBs so I don't know if it would be worth it.

 

My questions:
1. Is my reasoning to go with the 10x50s vs. the bigger binoculars sound? Are there other models I should consider (I see 8x42s and 7x50s get recommended a lot as well)? Or maybe go up to 56mm or 60mm?

2. Out of the 10x50 models I listed, are any of them substantially better picks over the others, or are there ones that I should definitely avoid? Also are there any 10x50 binos I should be considering in my price range that I didn't list here?

Thank you in advance!

You have had a number of excellent suggestions.  I can only add that I have a pair of 10X32 and 10X42 Celestron Nature DX binos with which I have been surprisingly happy.   I got the 10X 32 for my daughter on sale at NEAF several years ago, and just recently got the 10X42 for bird watching.    While I doubt they will perform to the level of the Vortex, or Nikons that cost a bit more new, I have been pleased with their performance for daytime use.   The 10X32's have also given some very nice images of the night sky as well.  Again, I would not trade in my Canon IS for them, but I also have no fear of accidental damage either.   All depends on what you want.  

 

Cheers!

 

JMD

[sevenofnine]

Just for fun, I tested my 3 binoculars again last night. This was verify my previous conclusions about them. For hand held night sky viewing, the Nikon AE 10x50 comes in a strong first place. With glasses on or off, the view showed more stars with ease of viewing (i.e. no blackouts or other distortions). The Oberwerk 8x56 LW came in a surprising 2nd place. Despite the narrow view, what it did show of the night sky was bright. Eye placement was critical though. Likely due to it's very long ER. The Nikon Monarch M5 8x42 ED came in a surprising 3rd place but only for night viewing. For daytime and even low light they are fantastic binoculars. They are razor sharp with a color rendition that the other two lack. Less so with the 10x50 and more so with the 8x56. However, this is only true with a side by side comparison. So my conclusion is no surprise really. For night sky viewing, aperture rules...darn it. 

[jrazz]

It's surprising how different astronomy viewing is to daylight. I 'almost' bought the Nikons because the FOV is pretty big and the picture is really nice! But I agree, at night the requirements are different and it's usually the dedicated astro binoculars that come up on top. 

[vdog]

You really can't go wrong with the Nikon AE 10x50.  It's a really nice binocular, and well within your budget even at the current price.

 

If not, Oberwerk sells quality stuff.  I've bought two binoculars from them, and I've been really impressed with both of them:  visually, ergonomically, and economically. 

[Taylor Allen]

Just for fun, I tested my 3 binoculars again last night. This was verify my previous conclusions about them. For hand held night sky viewing, the Nikon AE 10x50 comes in a strong first place. With glasses on or off, the view showed more stars with ease of viewing (i.e. no blackouts or other distortions). The Oberwerk 8x56 LW came in a surprising 2nd place. Despite the narrow view, what it did show of the night sky was bright. Eye placement was critical though. Likely due to it's very long ER. The Nikon Monarch M5 8x42 ED came in a surprising 3rd place but only for night viewing. For daytime and even low light they are fantastic binoculars. They are razor sharp with a color rendition that the other two lack. Less so with the 10x50 and more so with the 8x56. However, this is only true with a side by side comparison. So my conclusion is no surprise really. For night sky viewing, aperture rules...darn it. 

I'm surprised the Monarch didn't do better, given its price point! But that makes total sense regarding the aperture.

[ECP M42]

... The Nikon Monarch M5 8x42 ED came in a surprising 3rd place but only for night viewing. For daytime and even low light they are fantastic binoculars. They are razor sharp with a color rendition that the other two lack. Less so with the 10x50 and more so with the 8x56. However, this is only true with a side by side comparison. So my conclusion is no surprise really. For night sky viewing, aperture rules...darn it. 

I don't know, maybe I didn't understand your conclusion, but "aperture rules" sank along with the 8x56 and what floats on top there is the 10x50 magnification.

 

So, if anything: magnification rules!    

 

... and also with a lower exit pupil. 

[Jon Isaacs]

I have an Oberwerk LW 15 x 70 on a monopod which I also use off the ground as a balance stick (?) and keep quite steady. 

 

I am still learning the patterns of the fainter constellations, many of which are hard to see with the naked eye from home.  I am heading to Cherry Springs next week, and I wonder if a pair if 10 x 50s would be a nice addition with it's wider field of view? The 15 x 70s are 4.4° and the 10 x 50s are 6.5°. 

 

Been considering the NIkon AE 10x50s, but wondering if the even wider 8° of a 8x42 would be even better. Do people prefer their 10 x 50s over their 8 x 42s for certain uses?

 

Edit: Just looking at the Nikon Prostaff 7S 8 x 42 on sale at Amazon for $147. Wasn't thinking of roof prisms, but these are lighter. However FOV is only 6.75° as opposed to 8° for porro models. Anyone have these? What about Nikon Aculon? I would use these mostly for scanning star fields. ( But who knows what you will use the for until you actually have them/)

 

My own preference is for a good pair of 10x42s or 10x50s.  If I am navigating constellations, the wider field is a big advantage... 

 

Jon

[WillR]

My own preference is for a good pair of 10x42s or 10x50s.  If I am navigating constellations, the wider field is a big advantage... 

 

Jon

Good, because I just ordered a 10 x 50 for that purpose!

[sevenofnine]

In case my point wasn't clear, I figured the Nikon 10x50 porro prism would come out on top but I really thought the Nikon 8x42 roof with it's phase corrected prism coatings and it's ED glass would walk all over the Oberwerk porro prism 8x56's but it didn't... to my surprise. I can only attribute this to the porro prism design and the larger aperture. Then of course there's that hard to quantify thing called my vision