7868 replies to this topic

[Ancient Mariner]

A recent buy in mint condition but out of collimation due to a cross threaded objective tube was a Swift "Classic" 8x40. Once that fault was corrected they were in collimation. This type dates back to the late 60s and early 70s and they were advertised as "SCF" - Swift Centre Focus. There were four others in the series: Marlin 6x30, Sportstar 7x35, Highland 8x35 and Hunter 8x30.

 

All shared the same SCF prism housing which was a modified BCF except that the objective tubes were screwed on ZCF style. The prism shelves are only removeable from the top. The maker was JB32, Miyako Seiki, and the body was JE34, Musashi.

 

My example is amber coated on all surfaces except for the prisms which are blue coated. An anti UV filter appears to be sandwiched between the two elements of the objectives. The strapped prisms are Bk7 and are held in place by punched holes rather than blobs of glue in their surround. The oculars, with screw up and down adjustable eyepiece height, are Erfle type, or "Quintar" - as inscribed on an objective cover. Field of view of 376ft at 1,000yds is quite narrow for an Erfle device. So, not surprisingly, the useable field of view extends to about 70%. I have seen a US version of this binocular named the "Chevy Chase". It had Trilar oculars, which I presume is Swift speak for Kellner. That version had a stated slightly wider field of view of 393ft at 1000yds.

 

In the UK this binocular retailed at about half as much again as the Swift 7x50 Mk1. Poor value considering that despite the quality of the optics and the sturdy mechanical construction the light transmission could have been improved by the use of BaK4 prisms and the omission of the UV filter - which removes much more than UV, as can be seen by the strong reflections from the objectives.

Attached Thumbnails

• 
• 

[semlin]

A recent buy in mint condition but out of collimation due to a cross threaded objective tube was a Swift "Classic" 8x40. Once that fault was corrected they were in collimation. This type dates back to the late 60s and early 70s and they were advertised as "SCF" - Swift Centre Focus. There were four others in the series: Marlin 6x30, Sportstar 7x35, Highland 8x35 and Hunter 8x30.

 

All shared the same SCF prism housing which was a modified BCF except that the objective tubes were screwed on ZCF style. The prism shelves are only removeable from the top. The maker was JB32, Miyako Seiki, and the body was JE34, Musashi.

 

My example is amber coated on all surfaces except for the prisms which are blue coated. An anti UV filter appears to be sandwiched between the two elements of the objectives. The strapped prisms are Bk7 and are held in place by punched holes rather than blobs of glue in their surround. The oculars, with screw up and down adjustable eyepiece height, are Erfle type, or "Quintar" - as inscribed on an objective cover. Field of view of 376ft at 1,000yds is quite narrow for an Erfle device. So, not surprisingly, the useable field of view extends to about 70%. I have seen a US version of this binocular named the "Chevy Chase". It had Trilar oculars, which I presume is Swift speak for Kellner. That version had a stated slightly wider field of view of 393ft at 1000yds.

 

In the UK this binocular retailed at about half as much again as the Swift 7x50 Mk1. Poor value considering that despite the quality of the optics and the sturdy mechanical construction the light transmission could have been improved by the use of BaK4 prisms and the omission of the UV filter - which removes much more than UV, as can be seen by the strong reflections from the objectives.

outstanding review.  the 8x40 is rare in north america.  i have never connected the trilar and quintar notations to the eyepiece elements  so now i need to go through my swifts and check.  right away i notice my saratoga is a "quartar".

[Ancient Mariner]

Thanks Semlin, I suppose Quartar refers to a four element ocular, maybe a simplified Erfle. By the way I should have mentioned the 7x50 I referred to for price comparison was a Mk1 Skipper.

[brentwood]

I have a really nice Deltarem 8x40 that has a very stiff, virtually frozen focuser. I was able to lift one eyepiece off but the other appears to be held down by a tiny grub screw, that I cannot remove after trying WD40 and now penetrating oil. What else can I do. I tried posting a photo from IMGUR but all I got was a message to say I'd been blocked by Cloudy nights!

Edited by brentwood, 06 February 2025 - 01:54 PM.

[semlin]

I have a really nice Deltarem 8x40 that has a very stiff, virtually frozen focuser. I was able to lift one eyepiece off but the other appears to be held down by a tiny grub screw, that I cannot remove after trying WD40 and now penetrating oil. What else can I do. I tried posting a photo from IMGUR but all I got was a message to say I'd been blocked by Cloudy nights!

use a photo editor to reduce file size to about 1000x800 which will reduce the jpeg file to under 500kb.  then upload directly.

 

i can't help with your question i am afraid but i also want to see the answer.  i really struggle with zeiss disassembly issues.

[semlin]

Thanks Semlin, I suppose Quartar refers to a four element ocular, maybe a simplified Erfle. By the way I should have mentioned the 7x50 I referred to for price comparison was a Mk1 Skipper.

plossl maybe?

 

i avoid taking binocular eyepieces apart after bitter early experiences!

[brentwood]

use a photo editor to reduce file size to about 1000x800 which will reduce the jpeg file to under 500kb.  then upload directly.

 

i can't help with your question i am afraid but i also want to see the answer.  i really struggle with zeiss disassembly issues.

Thanks , but I have no idea how to do that, but when I look at the image in my photos it shows as being only 123KB? 

[ChrisNYPilor]

Is JB45 Taisei Kogaku Kogyo the same company and same optical quality as JB45 Tamron?

[ChrisNYPilor]

I see JB45 Tamron often used JE47, and I see a JB45 paired with JE27 so I am wondering if the difference indicates different levels of quality of the optics.

Edited by ChrisNYPilor, 06 February 2025 - 04:42 PM.

[MisterDan]

Taisei Kogaku changed its name to Tamron.

 

Don't confuse Taisei Kogaku with Taisei Koki, maker of "Welmy" branded cameras, photo goods, and binos (strictly "Welmy" binos to the best of my knowledge).  I confused them for years.

 

Even more than Tokuhiro and/or Sanyo, Futaba (J-B26) was BY FAR Tamron's most-frequent (basically "expected") partner.  Many of their "joint ventures" were contracted and sold by Swift.  And they "traded places" often (Futaba as "finisher" and Tamron as parts/metalworker).

Edited by MisterDan, 06 February 2025 - 05:16 PM.

[ChrisNYPilor]

Taisei Kogaku changed its name to Tamron.

 

Don't confuse Taisei Kogaku with Taisei Koki (maker of "Welmy" branded cameras and photo goods, but no binos).  I confused them for years.

 

Even more than Tokuhiro and/or Sanyo, Futaba (J-B26) was BY FAR Tamron's most-frequent (basically "expected") partner.  Many of their "joint ventures" were contracted and sold by Swift.  And they "traded places" often (Futaba as "finisher" and Tamron as parts/metalworker).

JB45 is Tasei which is Tamron.  So if the bins say JB45 then I can be confident the quality of optics will be excellent?  .......even if the frame maker was JE27?

[MisterDan]

Consensus and "common knowledge" are:  "J-B" (assembler/finisher) => producer/supplier of optics.

 

I "go with that" for the most part, but my own guess is that there may have been scenarios/binoculars where that "rule" may not fully apply.  Some (very few) binoculars may have been produced by more than two "direct" manufacturers.  Again, that's my own guess; I seriously doubt there would be any "proof" or "invoice" documentation in such scenarios.  The JL standard was: JL-B = manufacturer responsible for final assembly/finishing; and JL-E = manufacturer responsible for parts & metal work; one stamp/company for each (they could be the same company but usually were not - that was the nature of the industry, back then: it was a complex collaborative business).

 

Cheers.

Dan

 

EDIT (specific to Taisei and Tamron):  As Taisei, the company produced photo lenses, binos, and other optical instruments from 1950 to ~1952.

 

In '52, Uhyoue Tamura came to Taisei as optical designer/engineer/general "guru"; THAT's when things took off for the company. Tamura's name became the source of the company's new name "Tamron" (as of 1953).  Their inital "directive" in their binocular designs was wider fields of view. The produced an 11^o 7x35 bino that first year as Tamron (1953).  -Sorry: I don't know which model it was or who they made it for. 

 

Tamura was the key to Tamron's success in both industries:  binoculars/"sport" optics and photographic instruments.

Edited by MisterDan, 06 February 2025 - 05:48 PM.

[ChrisNYPilor]

So this is the item in question.

Attached Thumbnails

• 
• 
• 

Edited by ChrisNYPilor, 06 February 2025 - 05:58 PM.

[ChrisNYPilor]

Or did I misread that and it is a JB345?

[MisterDan]

I think that's a J-B46 (Otsuka).  The eyepieces look like Otsuka, and the bino in general is likely a "sibling" of the Sears  model 6243 - like this one:

https://www.ebay.com/itm/196387990337

 

I have zero personal experience with either the 6243 or that Zenith Tempest model.  I'm sure others reading this thread can offer their own insights.

 

Otsuka is one of the many bino makers that has a reputation for mediocrity, but they made some very good models, too. Even the "legends" of binocular manufacturing have been known to produce some "meh" (or even "blah") models.  Manufacturers produce what their contractors pay for.  Sears DID pay for some primo binos, during their heyday, but they also sold a bunch of mid-tier ("typical") models.

 

Best wishes.

Dan

[ChrisNYPilor]

I think that's a J-B46 (Otsuka).  The eyepieces look like Otsuka, and the bino in general is likely a "sibling" of the Sears  model 6243 - like this one:

https://www.ebay.com/itm/196387990337

 

I have zero personal experience with either the 6243 or that Zenith Tempest model.  I'm sure others reading this thread can offer their own insights.

 

Otsuka is one of the many bino makers that has a reputation for mediocrity, but they made some very good models, too. Even the "legends" of binocular manufacturing have been known to produce some "meh" (or even "blah") models.  Manufacturers produce what their contractors pay for.  Sears DID pay for some primo binos, during their heyday, but they also sold a bunch of mid-tier ("typical") models.

 

Best wishes.

Better picture

Attached Thumbnails

• 

[ChrisNYPilor]

I do agree that the top of that "5" looks awfully rounded.

[ChrisNYPilor]

Well I may end up with a pair of overpriced junk bins.  We will see if I can get confirmation before shipping.  Seller may just decide to ignore me until the post office opens in the morning.  LOL.

[semlin]

tamron marked on a binocular as the maker is extremely rare.

 

the tamron made models i can think of would be the following:

 

bushnell rangemaster (transition and batwing)

bushnell custom compact

swift neptune mark 2 (second and third versions)

swift holiday and holiday mark 2

swift audubon

 

i am sure i am forgetting a couple.  every one of these except the neptune is an unusual innovative model.  except for the first two, other makers (usually futaba) took over production after an initial production run by tamron.

 

the other visual optics by tamron would be the swift telestar zoom spotting scope and the bushnell televar monocular.

[ChrisNYPilor]

JB46 it is.  I really hate the bad pictures sellers post.

Attached Thumbnails

• 

[ChrisNYPilor]

tamron marked on a binocular as the maker is extremely rare.

 

the tamron made models i can think of would be the following:

 

bushnell rangemaster (transition and batwing)

bushnell custom compact

swift neptune mark 2 (second and third versions)

swift holiday and holiday mark 2

swift audubon

 

i am sure i am forgetting a couple.  every one of these except the neptune is an unusual innovative model.  except for the first two, other makers (usually futaba) took over production after an initial production run by tamron.

 

the other visual optics by tamron would be the swift telestar zoom spotting scope and the bushnell televar monocular.

The thought that these might be tamrons was exciting...........except for the really ugly EP's.  LOL.   Doing my best Homer Simpson DOH at the moment.  At least the seller was kind enough to clarify before shipping.

[ChrisNYPilor]

Impulse buys are best made after the post office closes.  LOL

[MisterDan]

tamron marked on a binocular as the maker is extremely rare.

 

the tamron made models i can think of would be the following:

 

bushnell rangemaster (transition and batwing)

bushnell custom compact

swift neptune mark 2 (second and third versions)

swift holiday and holiday mark 2

swift audubon

 

i am sure i am forgetting a couple.  every one of these except the neptune is an unusual innovative model.  except for the first two, other makers (usually futaba) took over production after an initial production run by tamron.

 

the other visual optics by tamron would be the swift telestar zoom spotting scope and the bushnell televar monocular.

The only other well-known (or "kinda-known") binos that come to mind were those "streamlined" magnesium ZCF binos sold by Tower, Regent, Como, Baker, Mirador, Simor, and others.  I think they were "J-B'd" by both Tamron and Futaba (and "J-E'd" by both too, of course), but I'm not sure of that.  Vast majority were J-B26, but - as semlin noted in the cases of those Swift models - Tamron may have "kicked things off" before Futaba took over.

 

See this Baker:

https://www.cloudyni...8x30/?p=5085424

 

and this Como:

https://www.cloudyni...iii/?p=11669537

 

and this Simor:

https://www.flickr.c...ion/47879122951

 

and this Tower:

https://www.ebay.com/itm/144202651133

 

Most (if not all) had BaK4 prisms.

 

Cheers.

[semlin]

The only other well-known (or "kinda-known") binos that come to mind were those "streamlined" magnesium ZCF binos sold by Tower, Regent, Como, Baker, Mirador, Simor, and others.  I think they were "J-B'd" by both Tamron and Futaba (and "J-E'd" by both too, of course), but I'm not sure of that.  Vast majority were J-B26, but - as semlin noted in the cases of those Swift models - Tamron may have "kicked things off" before Futaba took over.

 

See this Baker:

https://www.cloudyni...8x30/?p=5085424

 

and this Como:

https://www.cloudyni...iii/?p=11669537

 

and this Simor:

https://www.flickr.c...ion/47879122951

 

and this Tower:

https://www.ebay.com/itm/144202651133

 

Most (if not all) had BaK4 prisms.

 

Cheers.

right, i have one of those in 7x50 as a tower and made by futaba.  ridiculously light.  i did not realize or forgot that tamron designed them but it makes sense.  they certainly qualify as innovative.

 

the list of binoculars where tamron is the "je" supplier is bigger and compiling that list that may point to other designs or innovations that started with tamron.  

[MisterDan]

One more note regarding Otsuka:

They are one of the remaining older "classic era" binocular manufacturers still alive and kicking in Japan.

https://otsukaopt.co.jp/en/

 

Not long ago (2019), Otsuka acquired Katsuma and continues to produce "Glory" binoculars (as well as their decades-old "Dia Stone" house brand).