How much did you (or would you) spend on your binoculars?

[Dave7]

I'm dithering over a £4k scope. Should I, shouldn't I or will the £1.3K one be OK? Will I actually use it? Maybe I need I need a test at the telescope shop.

As for bins £400 is about right I think. Unless you have 20:20 vision

I had an Opticron scope which cost c£500. It was good but never got the use it deserved so I let my brother have it. TBH I don't he uses it now the novelty has worn off.
My mate has an expensive swarovsky scope. He can justify the expensive bins and scope as birding has been his life for 60 years.

 

[Profpointy]

Many years back I was impressed by the little Leica miniature binoculars a pal had so I too got a pair of their 10x25s. The quality is tremendous though to be fair I didn't do much of a comparison with top quality jap ones, but they are heaps better than cheap ones - as indeed they should be given the price. The only snag is x10 is hard to hold steady in a small size binocular. They also do a slightly smaller 8x20 which might be a better bet, though sadly they don't (or didn't) do 8x25 which would be perfect. The advantage of this size is that you have them with you on a walk, but you have to decide if a full size pair is worth carrying.

Some years later I fancied a full sized pair, so being so impressed with the little German pair I had, I gritted my teeth and went for Leicas again. These are 8x42 Ultravid. The 8s are a good bit easier to hold steady than 10x and being in late middle age my eyes likely can't take advantage of larger objectives in low light so there was no point in anything bigger than 40mm. The were 2nd hand but still a sizeable wodge of cash. I hate to think what they cost new these days. They are genuinely superb, but I day say Nikons or whatever are also pretty damned good for half the price. I also wonder if by the time of life you can afford Leica your eyes might not really be good enough to see the difference!

Somewhere along the way I also bought a Zeiss 6x18 monocular. Again German quality - mine was £100 on fleabay. Not sure I'd be willing to pay full price but it's nice to have and it gets used.

If I'd bought the items in a different order I'd likely miss out the 10x25s but if only having one item a 10x25 or 8x20 would be what I'd get - and I would buy German.

I suspect it's like most things in that you get what you pay for but there are diminishing returns at the top end.

 

[MichaelW2]

I sold a lot of binos in the central London camera store years ago. Buyers wanted the 10x rather than the 8x but most users prefer 8x. You magnify wobble too much at 10x.
With premium glass, the quality of the image holds right to the edge no fall off. They give much better contrast in low light and produce less internal flare.
I got my brother some Minolta 8x30 "pocket size"; a Leica design but good enough quality and a really convenient size.

 

[Profpointy]

I sold a lot of binos in the central London camera store years ago. Buyers wanted the 10x rather than the 8x but most users prefer 8x. You magnify wobble too much at 10x.
With premium glass, the quality of the image holds right to the edge no fall off. They give much better contrast in low light and produce less internal flare.
I got my brother some Minolta 8x30 "pocket size"; a Leica design but good enough quality and a really convenient size.

From experience, agree on 8x being better than 10x for the reason you say.

 

[Bromptonaut]

I've got several pairs dotted about house, cars and caravan. Most expensive were Olympus 18-16*40 zooms and a pair that live in Mrs B's car that are 'hers' and get little use. Both were around the £120 mark. They're mostly used as 'grabkit' around the house for when something flying, could be a bird or a plane, catches my interest. Otherwise they're round my neck when out walking for general viewing.

No doubt that a friend's £500+ Leica which I've borrowed occasionally are in another league but unless/until I get into serious birdwatching I cannot justify that sort of expense.

First pair I had as a teenager (birthday present at 14) were 7*50 built to a price for what eventually became Dixons. When they got nicked insurance money was utilised on 10*50 Greenkats. The 7 power were actually better for plane spotting; less shake when trying to 'cop' registrations across the width of an airfield.

 

[byegad]

If you are a keen enthusiast then always get the best you can afford. I bought some Celestron 71018 SkyMaster 20 x 80 Binoculars a couple of years ago to study the sky at night. They are so heavy that they have to be perched on a tripod. I also bought Digital Night Vision Binoculars which are a lot of fun and take photos and videos. They both retail at about £140. The only problem is that I'm an early morning person and usually in bed around 9.30pm.

Dirty stop up. Should be tucked up by 8pm, either that, or go home!

 

[Dave7]

From experience, agree on 8x being better than 10x for the reason you say.

Yes......8x40s (or close) are birdwatchers go to size. Easier to hold and excellent light gathering make details clearer.

 

[byegad]

I inherited a pair of Zeiss 10x 50s. My dad had bought them for bird watching. While, at 40 or 50 yrs old they still give excellent performance, but are very heavy. So I used to use some 8 x 40 bins I paid £120 for, but of late use an Endurance ED 8 x 42 monocular which is lighter. I paid £135 last year.

 

[twentysix by twentyfive]

I had an Opticron scope which cost c£500. It was good but never got the use it deserved so I let my brother have it. TBH I don't he uses it now the novelty has worn off.
My mate has an expensive swarovsky scope. He can justify the expensive bins and scope as birding has been his life for 60 years.

I have an Opticron scope and a Nikon - can't remember costs now. The Nikon is quite a good one but doesn't have a "mahoosive" objective so struggles in poorer light at range. Recently picked these both up for a birding trip to Norfolk with Mrs 26 but really they haven't been used much for quite a few years. I picked up on the birding a bit this year as I haven't been able to ride my bike. So got interested in upgrading the scope but if I can get back on my bike it will languish. Hence the dithering. Just about all of the birding around here is perfectly doable with the Nikon. It's when I get to Norfolk and folks are picking out stuff on the horizon at sea that I feel a bit left out.

 

[Illaveago]

I saved up and bought a pair of Swift Blue Ribbon Newport 10x50's back in 1980 for around £90. I had always wanted a pair of Swift's. They had been very good until I dropped them once and a prism shifted . I still have them but they produce double images .
I have since bought some old binoculars from auctions and boot sales . I have several pairs of Ross of London binoculars which are very good and can focus down to close range .

 

[Amanda P]

I sold a lot of binos in the central London camera store years ago. Buyers wanted the 10x rather than the 8x but most users prefer 8x. You magnify wobble too much at 10x.
With premium glass, the quality of the image holds right to the edge no fall off. They give much better contrast in low light and produce less internal flare.

When I was an employee, my job supplied me with binoculars of my choice. I went for Leica 10x42s. They were amazing - like suddenly having the vision of a buzzard when you put them up to your face: no perceptible distortion or dimming, no odd colour fringes. They were a touch heavy, though. Also, having got used to Leica quality, I knew I could never go back to anything less if I left the job. So I got a pair of secondhand Leica 8x32s for myself.

This was a great combination: lots of my work was surveying or observing farmland birds out of a car. You'd be looking over long distances, so the greater magnification of the 10s was helpful, while the weight didn't really matter: I wasn't carrying them round my neck. And if you're working out of a car or hide, you can generally steady your elbows on the window frame or use a short Finn stick.

When I wanted smaller binoculars to carry with me on foot, or if I was working in woodland, I'd use the 8s: small enough to fit in a pocket, light enough to carry around your neck and to hold steady 'freehand' with no problem.

I'm now freelance, so I only have the 8s (and a 'scope on permanent loan from a client). I don't really miss the 10s much.

 

[Dave7]

They had been very good until I dropped them once and a prism shifted . I still have them but they produce double images .

For bird watching that is excellent as you can tick 2 birds off each time

 

[Dave7]

Slightly off topic......I uses to do a lot bird photography.
I had 2 excellent lenses.
1. Canon 500mm f4. Brilliant lens but very
heavy to lug around.
2. Canon 3mm f2.8 which I could use with
a 2x convertor. Superb results.

 

[MichaelW2]

I have tried 2 technologies that take binoculars to the next level.
Leica 10x42 with built in laser rangefinder for when you absolutely have to rangefind +-1m out to 3000m.
Canon image stablised binos. A 1st gen IS version that allowed you to handhold the big magnifications.

Not sure that built in camera is useful.

 

[slowmotion]

I bought an Opticron 8 x 42 pair for Mrs Slowmotion about four years ago. They cost about £160 then but are a bit more now. She's quite keen on birdwatching and mainly uses them when out walking rather than spending hours in hides. I chose something that was just about light enough to carry with a neck strap but not too precious that we would think twice about taking it. I'm amazed at the optical quality that you get with budget binoculars today. Here are the details...

https://www.opticron.co.uk/our-prod...-binoculars/discovery-wp-pc-mg-8x42#technical