36 replies to this topic

[mdanese]

I saw that Maven has 30% off the B.2 and I was looking at the 11x45.  Then I decided to see what else is in the <$1,000 price range and found the following binos below.  Note that I am excluding those made in China, although I know that some top quality binos that people really enjoy are made there.

 

Maven B.2 11x45 as above

Canon 15x50 IS

Canon 10x42 IS

Nikon 18x70 IF

 

I am a new user and would use it for general astronomy:  moon, planets, and some DSOs.  Just for 20-30 minutes at night when setting up is too much of a hassle.  I would also take it on vacations to places with dark skies, rather than a small telescope.  I wouldn't use it with a tripod or other support device, although I have no problem leaning against something for support.  I have read through the Scopeviews reviews but I have not read through many other reviews.  

 

The Canon's seem quite popular.  The Nikon seems extremely well-regarded, but it is literally 2x heavier than the other three.  So I was concerned about how realistic that assessment is.  I am assuming that it will become more available shortly, which could be wrong.

 

Any reason to choose one of the above, or a different bino?  The only one that is a rush is the Maven due to the sale.  But no sense in rushing into the wrong decision.  But if I don't go that way, I would probably order from Japan (depending on the bino, of course).  

 

Thanks for your guidance.

 

EDIT:  Corrected IF to IS for Canon above.

Edited by mdanese, 30 November 2024 - 12:15 PM.

[wrighty338]

The current deal on the B.2 is excellent imo, the real question is are you able to get the other 3 binoculars you listed for under 1000 bucks? 

[DVexile]

An unstabilized 18x70 without support is going to be a big waste of money, scratch that one off the list for sure.

 

For the Canons (for which I think you meant IS instead of IF) the stabilization is going to likely make a big difference compared to the Maven.  Without support at 11x there really isn’t any point to spending money for good optics, you will never realize the advantages of the sharp optics because the view will never be steady enough.  So of your list the Canons simply win by default because they are stabilized and the others aren’t and you say you aren’t using any support.

 

I’m going to make a bold statement, that is probably controversial to some, simply to avoid you wasting a lot of money:

 

Unsupported 10x or higher astronomical views aren’t worth spending hardly any money on.  No one is steady enough unsupported to have a stable enough view for good optics at that magnification. At 10x or higher a supported $50 binocular will outperform an unsupported/unstabilized $1000 binocular.

 

To be clear, I mean for stars - daylight is a different matter.  And “support” doesn’t necessarily mean a tripod.  Folks have a lot of clever ways of providing support (e.g. monopods, various elbow bracing aids, chair arm rests).  But as you describe in your post it sounds like you are talking about standing, or maybe sitting, with no other support.  In that case, I’ll stand by the statement above.

 

Honestly, I think what you should really do is buy an inexpensive 10x bino, perhaps used here on CN, and try that for a bit.  That should ground your expectations in what binocular observing is really like.  You will probably discover what all bino observers do: it is really hard to hold a bino pointed at the sky (rather than the horizon as in daytime viewing) for any length of time with any degree of steadiness.  Be sure to also try out the binocular on some sort of solid support just so you can understand what you should be able to see supported, you will probably be surprised how much is lost by hand holding without support.

 

As to the Canon IS binoculars there are mixed opinions.  But if you really insist on unsupported viewing then they really should be on your radar and may very well be worth the various compromises.  Definitely only buy them from a place with a generous return policy though.

Edited by DVexile, 30 November 2024 - 05:28 AM.

[edwincjones]

< $1000    fujinon 10x50s and 10x70 

16x70 just over price (B&H) but need tripod

10x70 -most need tripod due to weight

 

note the Canon 10x42 is CF

 

edj

Edited by edwincjones, 30 November 2024 - 05:44 AM.

[Sebastian_Sajaroff]

Tip : binoculars are a wonderful tool, but, sadly, they’re not the right choice when it comes to observe planets.

[Spikey131]

< $1000    fujinon 10x50s and 10x70 

16x70 just over price (B&H) but need tripod

10x70 -most need tripod due to weight

 

note the Canon 10x42 is CF

 

edj

I am very happy with the Fujinon 10x50s.

 

I think the only 10x42s that Canon currently makes are image stabilized, and probably >$1000

[tmichaelbanks]

For general purpose use, Amazon has the previous generation Zeiss Conquest HD 10x42 for $679. That is quite a deal. See also the reviews on Roger Vine's website for the Canons and many others:

http://scopeviews.co.uk/

[dmorrow]

Tough to go high mag and no tripod, but I noticed these a while back in the classifieds:  https://www.cloudyni...uced-price-985/

 

If you wanted something that is hand holdable but would be willing to mount on a lite weight tripod, then you have a lot more options.  

[mdanese]

I appreciate the information, particularly about the Nikon.  I have read that people can use them with very little support (Roger Vine included) which didn't make a lot of sense given their size and weight.  So I appreciate the real-world assessment.

 

So, it sounds like the smaller Canon and the Maven are better choices for my use case.

 

If I get the easiest to use monopod for some support, does that change the assessment?  It is all about ease of use since I have a couple of telescopes, so my guess is that anything that isn't literally "grab and go" would not get used.

[dmorrow]

The 15x56 might work for you, they get high praise here on CN.  

 

https://skyroveropti...=47289258541293

[dmorrow]

Also oberwerk 15x56 ultra https://oberwerk.com...15x56-ed-ultra/

[Dale Smith]

I appreciate the information, particularly about the Nikon.  I have read that people can use them with very little support (Roger Vine included) which didn't make a lot of sense given their size and weight.  So I appreciate the real-world assessment.

 

So, it sounds like the smaller Canon and the Maven are better choices for my use case.

 

If I get the easiest to use monopod for some support, does that change the assessment?  It is all about ease of use since I have a couple of telescopes, so my guess is that anything that isn't literally "grab and go" would not get used.

FWIW, I regularly use my 18x70 Astroluxe handheld, for what I call “pan-and-sky” of the sky, but agree that mounting is necessary for truly detailed views that make the most of this wonderful binocular’s sharp optics. I also regularly use 10x50 and 10x70s handheld. For me, a binocular weighing 3-4 lbs is easier to stabilize. YMMV of course.

[DVexile]

If I get the easiest to use monopod for some support, does that change the assessment?  It is all about ease of use since I have a couple of telescopes, so my guess is that anything that isn't literally "grab and go" would not get used.

With a monopod I think you quickly get into the "it depends" category.  

 

The issue with all straight through binoculars is that it is gets progressively harder to use them closer to zenith.  Of course laying down or using a zero gravity chair makes it easier to point them at the zenith, but then more standard supports like monopods or tripods don't work well in those positions.  With lower power and lower weight binoculars often lying down can be fairly stable with some sort of ad hoc support for your arms/elbows and some of the weight resting on your face.  But with higher power and heavier binoculars that doesn't work very well, they are long, heavy and thus astable pointed straight up and awkward to hold/stabilize when lying down.

 

On the other hand, if you are looking at targets closer to the horizon a monopod can be very stable even with higher power binoculars.  You don't have to get too far above the horizon for things to get more awkward than you think.  If you've got clear horizon views and don't suffer from bad light domes near the horizon then binocular viewing, given its low magnifications and thus resistance to bad seeing, may actually be preferable when targets aren't at zenith!

 

I have a pair of 16x70s that I use exclusively in dark desert skies.  They are great on a tripod or monopod at low angles and provide some spectacular views.  As soon as I start chasing higher targets they get frustrating fast since I don't have anything fancy like a parallelogram mount and they are difficult to support.  At my house due to trees I have no horizon views at all and I'd expect the 16x70s to be never used at my house.

 

Conversely, I have a nice 8x42 that works well in a zero gravity chair at home near zenith with just a little aid for bracing my elbows in the chair.  And at 8x power I can get half way decent views hand held, though of course supported is still better.  They are a great power for sweeping the Milky Way in the desert and so I often bring them along on those trips.

 

Since you already have some nice refractors I'd also lean towards lower magnification with wider TFoV.  It gives a different view than a telescope and is wonderful on a variety of open clusters.  I find my 16x70 to be a bit awkward as it isn't giving me more TFoV then I can get from my 4" refractor and isn't giving enough magnification to really chase anything too "deep".  My 10x and 8x binoculars on the other hand are giving me some unique wider views along with the freedom to "sweep" or "point" without much setup.

 

Lastly, there is light pollution to consider.  Wider field large exit pupil binoculars are naturally wonderful under dark skies.  In suburban/urban areas now you might also benefit from the background darkening that a higher magnification provides and thus have effectively a better limiting magnitude for the same aperture size.

 

So anyway, I'd think through where you expect to observe from and what you expect to observe when choosing.

[djeber2]

 

So, it sounds like the smaller Canon and the Maven are better choices for my use case.

 

I would go with the Maven out of these choices

[DaveL]

The original poster said they did not want Chinese made, so the Sky Rover Banner Cloud (SRBC) is not an option. Same with the Oberwerk.

 

The Sig Sauer Zulu9 series satisfy your criterion.

 

The Sig Sauer Zulu9 series are likely very similar or possibly the same as the Maven B2 series as they have a 9x45 and 11x45 Abbe Konig Prism as well. There is also a 15x56 Sig Sauer Zulu9 15x56, which I have. All these Zulu9's are made in Japan and have a Maven like warranty. My Sig Sauer 15x56 was my best binocular I had ever had when I got it last year. Since then, I've got a SRBC 10x50 which I believe takes top honors among my binoculars. However, my Sig Sauer is better for bright objects (i.e. Jupiter, very bright stars) because there are not prism spikes like the SRBC. The main benefits of the SRBC are the super wide view with excellent sharpness everywhere. The Sig Sauer is no slouch, however. It has a wide view and a very wide sweet spot. Widest sweet spot of any other binocular I've owned until the SRBC came along.

 

BTW, I am getting the SRBC 15x56 on Monday. I do not like to have redundancy in my collection so the Sig Sauer might be on sale for a good used price on the CN classifieds soon.

 

-Dave

Edited by DaveL, 30 November 2024 - 01:44 PM.

[Chuck2]

An unstabilized 18x70 without support is going to be a big waste of money, scratch that one off the list for sure.

 

I’m going to make a bold statement, that is probably controversial to some, simply to avoid you wasting a lot of money:

 

Unsupported 10x or higher astronomical views aren’t worth spending hardly any money on.  No one is steady enough unsupported to have a stable enough view for good optics at that magnification. At 10x or higher a supported $50 binocular will outperform an unsupported/unstabilized $1000 binocular.

 

To be clear, I mean for stars - daylight is a different matter.  And “support” doesn’t necessarily mean a tripod.  Folks have a lot of clever ways of providing support (e.g. monopods, various elbow bracing aids, chair arm rests).  But as you describe in your post it sounds like you are talking about standing, or maybe sitting, with no other support.  In that case, I’ll stand by the statement above.

As you mentioned, your statement above is ‘bold’ and ‘controversial’ only because it is a strong, closed ended statement. Astronomy, as any hobby or sport, is very personal and based on individual interests, finances, time, effort, location and physical ability. A softer perspective would go further to promote interest, such as:

 

“Most people find lower magnification 7x-10x binoculars easier to handle, providing a steadier view with less ‘shake & jitter’. However, many CN members do enjoy observing with hand held binos well above 10x. The link below shares 156 responses from CN members, the equipment they use and their tips & techniques for success. Using their experience, you may wish to visit a local retailer where you can try binoculars first hand, and actual see what magnification and weight works best for you.”
 

https://www.cloudyni...team-hand-held/

[sevenofnine]

For just general astronomy use, I prefer a 10x50 porro prism binocular. It can be used with a little bracing standing but I like it best from a zero gravity chair. These seem to get good C/N reviews. Good luck with your choice! 

 

https://www.bhphotov...ular.html/specs.

[edwincjones]

For just general astronomy use, I prefer a 10x50 porro prism binocular. It can be used with a little bracing standing but I like it best from a zero gravity chair. These seem to get good C/N reviews. Good luck with your choice! 

 

https://www.bhphotov...ular.html/specs.

Based on my memory and recall,

these have been the favorite on CNs for handheld in the past.

The Canon 10x42s are a close second.

 

edj

[Albie]

 

If I get the easiest to use monopod for some support, does that change the assessment?  It is all about ease of use since I have a couple of telescopes, so my guess is that anything that isn't literally "grab and go" would not get used.

I have the Kunming BA8 15x70 . It weighs roughly one pound more than the Nikon 18x70 and works great on my monopod . The Nikon 18x70 being significantly lighter would work even better on the monopod  . Hand holding any 15x70 or 18x70 is not for me , especially while stargazing .

Attached Thumbnails

• 

[mdanese]

It sounds like I need to focus on 10x-12x given the light pollution in Los Angeles, and to consider some other options for mostly hand-held use.  That probably means the Canon 10x42 or the Maven 11x45, at least from my list.  But what other options would very sharp, on the lighter side (say no more than the Canon's 1150 grams), with mostly edge-to-edge, color-free viewing?  

 

DaveL mentioned Sig-Sauer Zulu 9 which is like the Maven.  Any others?

[DaveL]

The Zeiss conquest 10x42 and Fujinon 10x50 mentioned above are options too. The more expensive Meopta series are made in the Czech Republic, but they might be out of your price range. Theres also a Canon 18x50 on the CN classifieds now

[tmichaelbanks]

If you are in a highly light polluted environment, you may be better off with 12x vs. 10x for nighttime viewing. Yes, it may be a little harder to handhold while walking about, but from a stationary position it’s much easier. It’s surprising how much magnification dominates aperture and even higher quality.

 

A few years ago I compared a high-quality mid-range 10x42 with an entry level 12x50, both binos having approximately the same exit pupil. The 12x won out overall under my white-to-red transition zone night skies, which are almost always grayish, especially in the winter when there’s no foliage to block some of the ridiculously bright LED street lighting.

 

https://www.cloudyni...air comparison

[Rich V.]

Since you're in LA, the LP can cause disappointing results. It can be compensated for best by increasing aperture (which collects more light, so focuses more light into each star) and increasing magnification, which decreases exit pupil, so makes the background sky darker, increasing contrast. There's a give and take you have to consider.

If you choose hand held, do consider an IS bino. Under $1000. leaves you the Canon 12x36IS. Many members enjoy them and they are reasonably priced and relatively light weight. Well over $1000., there are a number of 50mm IS binos available now, besides the tried and true Canon 50mm models.

The 10x42L IS is outstanding day and night, but you'd likely want more mag/aperture for LA skies. You'd still see more and go deeper than a standard 10x42 or 10x50 hand held with the 10x42L IS, no question, IMO.

We usually end up with several binos over a range, just because no one bino satisfies all needs. ;^)

[DVexile]

I agree with the other comments regarding light pollution, in that environment magnification can help a lot despite the drawbacks of stability.  

 

If your primary use is going to be quick backyard viewing then I’d consider a monopod.  It is much cheaper than IS, allows you a wider selection of binoculars (especially wider fields of view), and really doesn’t have any setup time.

 

That said, if an IS binocular exists that works for you there is an awful lot of convenience to that!

[mdanese]

Actually, I see a lot of interest in Maven, but nothing really on the B2 11x45.  Anybody have those?