33 replies to this topic

[pinchme123]

Hello all,

 

I'm looking to add a pair of lower-power binoculars to my astronomy arsenal (see my signature), to add something grab-and-go and with a wider FOV. My preference is to get something that can be used for occasional daytime terrestrial viewing as well. Reading past topics and some of the pinned posts has me pretty sure an 8x42 pair will accomplish what I'd like. I'm shooting for sub-$400, but am not looking to spend all of that budget if the extra performance between a $200 pair and a $400 pair is less justifiable, given that these won't be my most-used piece of equipment or anything.

 

I've been trying to figure out some models to go with and have found a lot of descriptions that have pointed me in the direction of Celestron. But my spouse also already owns a pair of Vortex Diamondback HDs (10x28) and I do rather like them for terrestrial use. But their nighttime use is definitely lackluster (not enough aperture, and too powerful to hold steady).

So I've got these four in mind right now, all 8x42:

 

Vortex Diamondback HD - $210

Celestron TrailSeeker - $240

Celestron Regal ED - $280

Celestron TrailSeeker ED - $330

 

Does anyone want to share their thoughts on these models? Or have other models you want to recommend?

I don't wear glasses, so I'm a bit worried about the long eye relief on the Regal EDs, but perhaps it isn't that long?

That current sale price I'm seeing for the Regal EDs looks awfully attractive. I think they're 'higher' on Celestron's model list than TrailSeeker EDs? Maybe I'm wrong about that though, I just don't know.

 

But also, maybe at this low of power the ED glass isn't anywhere near as important and for my use case the much more economical Diamondbacks would make sense. 

So, thoughts?

[Dale Smith]

FWIW, I own the 8x42 Oberwerk Sport ED, which runs $349 (including shipping):

https://oberwerk.com...port-ed-series/

 

8.1 degree FOV, sharp across 80+% of the field, excellent color rendition, mechanically smooth, with great balance and feel. The reviews at the site give a lot of helpful information. 

 

Definitely worth reading through. Good luck!

[binocular]

Athlon Midas G2 8x42 UHD that go for $298 currently on Amazon and have a 8.1° FOV, sharp almost to the edge and built like a tank.

 

I've had the Diamondback HD 8x42 before and the optical quality of the Athlon 8x42 is much higher.

 

https://www.amazon.c...B08295XC45?th=1

 

https://athlonoptics...as-g2-uhd-8x42/

Edited by binocular, 02 August 2024 - 12:13 AM.

[Taosmath]

Having read this thread https://www.cloudyni...42-ed-binocular I bought a pair of svbony SV202 8x42 and have been very pleased with them.  I'm no binocular guru but I really enjoy them for grab and go when I don't want to drag out my Canon 15x50 IS.  Should be available for well under $200.

[Tom S.]

You really should check out:   Svbony SV202 8x42 ED phase coated roof prism binos.   

[Cajundaddy]

I have owned 5-6 pair of binoculars and of all the sizes I do think 8x42 has a lot to offer.  The Vortex Diamondback HD are my most recent pair and they are sharp, light weight, and easy to use.  They always come along whether stargazing, birding, or wildlife viewing.  There are probably better views out there for a lot more $$ but I prefer these over my Celestron 8x56 Pro. Certainly worthy of your short list.

Cheers!

[wrighty338]

Il 2nd Dale's suggestion of spending the extra $19 over the trailseeker on the oberwerk sport ed, genuine FK61 grade glass, QC checked, looks fantastic and its also very compact. Binomania reviewed the 10x42

 

If you have $499 to spend then the Sky Rover Banner Cloud 8x42 would be a further step up and has been discussed in depth here recently. 

[exup]

Of the bins I own, I would rank in this order:

 

4. Trailseeker

3. SV202

2. Regal

1. SRBC

[Sebastian_Sajaroff]

I have the Svbony 8x42, less chromatic aberration than Celestron, they’re not prone to misalignment (as Celestron) and they’re cheaper

[jcj380]

I have Vortex 8x42 Crossfires.  I think they were about $100 less than the Diamonds at Scheels.  The optics are quite sharp and they've become my favorite binos (sold my Nikon Aculon 10x50s after getting the Crossfires).  

[exup]

I have the Svbony 8x42, less chromatic aberration than Celestron, they’re not prone to misalignment (as Celestron) and they’re cheaper

Which 'Celestron' are you referring to, there are multiple roofs cited?

 

I am not aware of any Celestron roofs that have ever been reported to have collimation problems; many cheaper range porros of multiple makes, are more fragile and can suffer from prism problems.

[Sebastian_Sajaroff]

I had Celestron 9x63 and 15x70 Skymaster, plus a 10x50 (which I don't remember the model).

All of them came with heavy chromatic aberration and severely misaligned. Had to return them all.

[exup]

I had Celestron 9x63 and 15x70 Skymaster, plus a 10x50 (which I don't remember the model).

All of them came with heavy chromatic aberration and severely misaligned. Had to return them all.

These sound like all porros, none with ED glass and not uncommon in this entry class of bin.

Edited by exup, 02 August 2024 - 08:07 AM.

[f18dad]

The best build and quality per buck IMO would be the Oberwerk Sport ED's or the Athlon Midas or Cronus. I own 10x42 Oberwerk Sport ED and 8.5x42 Athlon Cronus and I am pleased with both. I would avoid Celestron as I have had bad experience with that brand and collimation can be a problem. Oberwerk does a thorough QC check before shipping out each sample.

[exup]

 I would avoid Celestron as I have had bad experience with that brand and collimation can be a problem. 

 

Have you had problems with Celestron roofs?

 

I have a number of Celestron roofs and 4 porros and never had a problem.

[jrazz]

Another option that is less expensive but might be a good choice is Oberwek’s new Explore line. Though much heavier (2lbs as opposed to 0.625 or 10 ounces) it does look solidly built and has a nice 8° FOV. 
 

At $120 it certainly seems to be a good value.

[f18dad]

Have you had problems with Celestron roofs?

 

I have a number of Celestron roofs and 4 porros and never had a problem.

No, no roofs. Only 20x80 Skymaster which was my first bino purchase and a disaster. It is so bad I am too kind to give it away or to drop it off at Goodwill. Once burned twice learned. Others on CN have had similar experience with Celestron binos. The good news is it has trained me to buy quality. No more Celestron for me. YMMV 

[exup]

No, no roofs. Only 20x80 Skymaster which was my first bino purchase and a disaster. It is so bad I am too kind to give it away or to drop it off at Goodwill. Once burned twice learned. Others on CN have had similar experience with Celestron binos. The good news is it has trained me to buy quality. No more Celestron for me. YMMV 

Yes, Celestron porros can have problems, maybe I have been lucky with the Ultimas and a 25x70 Skymaster years ago.

 

To give them credit, their roofs are reasonably good and often come high up in the big reviews such as Cornell shootouts.  The Regal is very good (MMC level) and probably one of the cheapest wide flat field bins available (recent Svbony is cheaper and reported to be good by Neil).   

[Binojunky]

The Celestron Regal, returned as I couldn,t get rid of the kidney bean blackouts,a shame as they were nice looking and excellent fit and finish, the Vortex Diamondback HD had to be returned also, one eyepiece assembly  was floating around in the box, tried to screw it back on but the threads were undercut and it wouldn,t tighten down.

  The Trailseeker, current version non ED ,I,m very happy with it, also a second vote for the Athlon Midas , either Generation ! or 2, excellent views and construction. Dave.

[exup]

The Celestron Regal, returned as I couldn,t get rid of the kidney bean blackouts,

Yes, others have mentioned this and I have experienced it too, but with some use it is easy to eliminate it, unless I am peeking at the extreme edges of the FoV.

 

I have heard 'theory' that some bins with a wider FoV (8x42 = 141m) and a flat field tend to suffer the most from this issue. However, my SRBCs are even wider and are less prone (but it can happen still).

[DrJ1]

I have 3 excellent 8x binoculars:

Eschenbach Trophy D 8x42 B ED 7.8 degree (Roof)

Bushnell Legend M 8x42  8.1 degree  (Roof)

B&L Discoverer 8x42  8.2 degree   (1990s vintage Porro)

 

If you don't want to spend much money, consider a legacy Bell & Howell 8x40 Porro with its very wide 9.7 degree FoV.  I have several and the center sharpness is very good with a wide sweet spot in the Japan-made version.  Contrast is a bit lower than more recent binoculars but the FoV can be very immersive on a clear, dark night.  This B&H can be bought on ebay in good condition for $35-40 delivered US with patience.

 

Good luck, DrJ1

[pinchme123]

Wow! Thanks everyone for all these responses!

 

I'm going to have to think long and hard about the justifications for my budget and decide if I can bring myself to jump up to the midrange. Right now, for the midrange the Oberwerk Sport ED is basically what I'd think of as "ideal" for me, in terms of what I'd want to see from a manufacturer: I don't have a problem with Chinese-made optics when they're put through proper quality control and inspection and Oberwerk's attention to these things along with their binos' highly-regarded performance really does help with my personal justifications. I'm now pretty sure that if I went with a more expensive option, this would be it.

But I wasn't aware Svbony had a line of binoculars and certainly not ones with ED glass, which really do look like a good option at the budget side of my thought process. They're only $145 (after shipping) if I order them direct from the Svbony website, or less than half the cost of the Oberwerks. Would they be 'good enough' for me, such that I'd be quite satisfied with their performance and wouldn't miss out on the clearly-better optics of the Oberwerks? I just don't know. Also, the Svbony's will be a not-insignificant quality control/warranty hassle risk; going with a Vortex option would alleviate most of these concerns for me and at least a couple people here see them favorably, so I'm still seriously thinking about them.

 

But I'm thinking now that the Celestron options are probably not for me.

 

Anyway, lots to think about!

[wrighty338]

To put another spanner into the works, svbony have a recent addition to their line-up to consider the SA205, svbony confirm its a step up from their SV202, the optics are described as ED and flat field but the FOV's come in just under the SV202's (on paper) The sv202 was top notch in build quality but fell a bit flat with CA on their "prime ED glass" certainly on the 10x models

 

At 350 ish my money would go to Oberwerk, at 499 my money would go to sky rover for that extra full degree on the FOV and apochromatic optics but there is quite a size and weight difference to consider. 

 

Do update the thread with a picture and impression of whatever you purchase!

[JonasJ]

I`ve had the 8x42 Trailseeker and the Prostaff P7.
For day time, the Trailseeker is better then the Prostaff... (  biger AFOV, a little beter colours, no rolling effect )
For night time, the views in the Trailseeker were more immersive ( because of the bigger FOV/AFOV ) but,  the stars in the Trailseeker were just not pinpoints.... like in the Prostaff. So it is clear that the Trailseeker has a problem, but who use it only for day will be happy with it.  In the end I kept the Trailseeker because I use it on daytime too and get used to the "not so pinpoint stars".
I also compare it with a 10x42 ED Svbony. This one produce a slightly warmer view than the Trailseeker and more pinpoinstars.

[Milos1977]

I recomend a wide field Nikon Monarch 7 8.3* FOV for about $360 (refurbished from nikon/amazon) New are $489. 

If youcan strech the budget a bit more, go for Sky Rover Banner Cloud 8x42 9.1 FOV extra wide field, and sharp to the edge. SRBC is the best wide field  8x42 in under $1k nowdays. (and probably under $2k as well). These go for $400-$450 shipped. 

Edited by Milos1977, 02 August 2024 - 03:30 PM.