Hunting Binoculars

[Pilot]

#6804

Been thinking about buying a good quality binocular and asking my fellow trads what their suggestions are. Leaning towards a Leopold brand but am open to anything below $500.00, after all, I’m married. Thanks

[bruc]

#55077

I have a pair of Bushnell 10 x 42 Excursion. They were in the $250 range in Canada. They are average size and I really like them. I had tried a very expensive pair of Zeiss that were in the $900 price range. on a 30 day trial period. I returned them and got the Bushnell. I found very little difference in the two pairs of binos. I was told that in low light conditions, the expensive ones are better. Hope this helps. 😉
Bruce

[David Petersen]

#55115

Pilot — you’ll get a hundred different opinions. I have two pair, some big 8×40 Zeiss-Genna with extremely good low-light capability, but too big and heavy to carry bowhunting. My everyday go-to hunting binocs are Zeiss 6×25 shirtpocket size, $500 years ago but you can shop around and beat that price. I love them so much, when I lost the first pair I bought another; had ’em for maybe 15 years now and recently returned to Zeiss to replace the rubber eye pieces, and they reconditioned the whole works to like new and didn’t even charge postage. That’s service! In any event, for all of my hunting I prefer shirtpocket size in high quality with good low-light capability. Take your time and shop around and when you find what you like, go online for the best deals. dave

[Patrick]

#55282

Dang, I wish someone still made a high quality 6x25mm binoc! That would be perfect! I didn’t know Zeiss ever did. 🙁

[William Warren]

#55361

What Dave said, if you can afford Zeiss.

If not, there are some less expensive shirt pocket models. I purchased a pair in 8×25 back about 1985 which are not Zeiss, but the shirt pocket type binocs at affordable prices were just coming out, for just under $100.00. The finish is worn but they still work great.

[Patrick]

#55433

8×25’s are very common, but, relatively speaking, they suck in low light. It doesn’t matter how good the binoc is…an exit pupil of 3.125 just doesn’t cut it for use in low light. The better 8×25’s will eek almost every bit of light possible out of it, but nobody can overcome physics, Zeiss or otherwise. I would recommend an exit pupil of at least 4.0. To calculate, divide the objective lens size into the magnification.
8x25mm binoc 25/8 = 3.125
6x25mm binoc 25/6 = 4.167

[Clay Hayes]

#55473

I use a pair of 10X42 Nikons with a harnes system. I do a lot of still hunting and they’ve never been a problem while sneaking around. Except maybe when crawling on hands and knees. the optics are fairly good but for another 200 bucks you could get a lot better. Mine were $300.

For me, the 8X binos just don’t cut it.

ch

[David Petersen]

#55509

Patrick — You are right. I ‘disremembered’ in thinking my little Zeiss are 6×25. They’re 6x18B, but darn good in low light for such little glasses. On my recent deer trip to AZ I forgot and left them home. I felt naked without them and maybe that had to do with not seeing a single deer in several days of hunting! If it’s not asking to much, you seem to really know your optics, P. Can you recommend a model or two or three in shirt-pocket size that you feel are best buys for the money? When I replace my Zeiss next time, it won’t be with Zeiss as I’ll be retired, aka impoverished. Thanks, d

[Patrick]

#55579

No problem at all Dave. I love talking about glass. I’ll do some looking tomorrow when I have access to a pc (too tough searching this stuff out on my iPhone).

Sorry Pilot, I got a bit excited about the 6×25’s and forgot to add my 2 cents. :lol:…

First, and foremost (this is addressed to both Pilot AND Dave), do you guys wear glasses?

[William Warren]

#55597

Patrick is right about the 8×25’s not doing so well in low light but I hate carrying my 10×42’s around in the woods. Since most of my hunting is in eastern woodlands the 8×25’s work OK, just not so well at last light. For you guys hunting in open country I can understand the need for more glass. And you may have to be prepared for both open and thick situations as well.

[Patrick]

#56253

For a pair of compact binocs, the Bushnell 7x26mm Custom Compact would be a great compromise at approximately $250. They’ll work better in low light better than your Zeiss 6×18’s. Here’s some reasons:
1. They have porro prism’s (Roof prism’s are MUCH more expensive to make at the same quality level as a porro prism binocular)
2. 3.71 exit pupil isn’t too shabby for low light performance.
3. They’re still compact/lightweight.
4. They’re waterproof.

[Patrick]

#56352

pilot wrote: Been thinking about buying a good quality binocular and asking my fellow trads what their suggestions are. Leaning towards a Leopold brand but am open to anything below $500.00, after all, I’m married. Thanks

If you can stretch it, The Nikon 8.5 x 45 Series Monarch X Binoculars are awesome. They’ll blow away anything close (price wise you’d have to pay MUCH more to get better), although the eye relief isn’t the best (for glass wearers). Leupold makes good stuff on their higher end binocs NOW (their older high end binoculars were crap and I’m still embarassed that I convinced my dad to buy a pair a number of years ago 😳 ), but they’re lower end stuff ain’t up to snuff with the Leupold name IMHO.

[Alexandre Bugnon]

#56378

I have the Leupold Cascadia, right under $400 I believe. They are good, but I realized that I got what I paid for, when I compared them to a friend’s Leicas. Ouch! the difference was literally… night and day.

[Patrick]

#56582

How timely: I just recieved the Feb/Mar 2010 issue of Traditional Bowhunter, and behold, an article about binoculars by G. Fred Asbell!

[William Warren]

#56602

Patrick wrote: For a pair of compact binocs, the Bushnell 7x26mm Custom Compact would be a great compromise at approximately $250. They’ll work better in low light better than your Zeiss 6×18’s. Here’s some reasons:
1. They have porro prism’s (Roof prism’s are MUCH more expensive to make at the same quality level as a porro prism binocular)
2. 3.71 exit pupil isn’t too shabby for low light performance.
3. They’re still compact/lightweight.
4. They’re waterproof.

Hey Patrick,
Thanks for all the thoughtful research. I have been thinking about replacing my old 8×25’s and the Bushnell you mentioned just may be the ticket for me.
Duncan

[Rocks]

#56753

I currently carry a pair of 10X42’s, previous to that a pair of 8X42’s. I use a bino buddy and after a while I find it just becomes habit to put them on and I don’t really notice them on me (except when I’m on a horse then I sling them under my arm so they don’t hit the saddle horn) and they’re always handy.

For under 500 bucks I think the Leopold or Bushnell models in that price range should be good. I had a pair of early Celestron 8X42’s I loved in that price range, but I don’t like their newer models.

[Champno6]

#58355

I have a pair of Bushnell 7X26 custom compacs that I’ve had for over 25 years and they’re great and very high quality. Weigh 10 or 11 oz I believe and are very convenient and compact to carry. They fold in the middle and are much more convenient to use than those compacts that fold at each side. Bought a pair of Zeiss Diafun 8X30 a couple years ago and they are very nice too. These weigh 16 oz. As far as I can see these Zeiss Diafun are about the only roof prism glasses that weigh anywhere near only 1 lb., the max wt I’d consider as a lightweight binocular Both binoculars are good quality and reasonably affordable for most of us. No idea how much better the Swarovski’s, Leitz, or much more expensive binos are as can’t afford these anyway.

[MontanaFord]

#8010

I’ve got a pair of Simmons I got at Wal-mart about 3 or 4 years ago, for 25 bucks. They aren’t the greatest, but they seem to do pretty good in low light for such cheap optics. But, I would eventually like to get something a bit nicer, perhaps, say, in the 3-500 dollar range. IF the wife ever lets me. Oh, the Simmons are a 10×50 binoc.

Michael

[Nick D]

#8117

I am NOT rich ( retired school teacher ) but I love my glass and take up to a year to find what I want at my dollar level.
I have owned three good binos over the last 15 years. First I bought a pair of Pentax WBC 10X40. About $500 retail.
I love them, took them to Africa and used them on my first elk hunts. I actually traded a guy even for his Pentax 8X40’s just for the weight reduction. I loved these glasses but sold them to my son for a big reduced price. BECAUSE— I got a large Christmas gift ( $500 from my father-in-law ) and threw in another $500 of my own and bought the Holy Grail–10X42 Swarvoski’s. Wow. I have compared them against my hunting buddie’s Zeis in low light on a mountain in CO and I think mine are better. He thinks his are. Over a year ago I again found myself with some accumulated cash from a bow sale and starte to search for a lighter binocular of equal equality that I could hold more still while sitting in a tree stand here in Indiana or on the ground turkey hunting ( while holding them with one hand and bow in the other.) I found a guy on a message board that had a pair of Swarvoski’w 8X30 and he was asking $750. I waited him out as he began dropping the price. I got them for $450. I love my 10X40’s but for 90% of the hunting I do I can not imagine a better mid size bino than my Swarvoski 8X30’s.

I guess the moral of the story is ( as others have said ). Find what you want, have patience and search around and you can have it for under $500.
Sorry for the long ramble but I love my binos.
Nick

[Buckhorn73]

#8475

I am not an expert or, for that matter, even very knowledgeable about binoculars, however, several years back I obtained a set of Ranging 5 x 30 camouflage binocs, which seem to be ideal for hunting our wooded areas. I’m not sure these are still made or available today but for $60.00 used, I was and am still quite impressed.

[JJ]

#9997

Buckhorn73 wrote: I am not an expert or, for that matter, even very knowledgeable about binoculars, however, several years back I obtained a set of Ranging 5 x 30 camouflage binocs, which seem to be ideal for hunting our wooded areas. I’m not sure these are still made or available today but for $60.00 used, I was and am still quite impressed.

I was going to mention those Ranging binocs. I remember seeing them years ago, and I wish I had picked up a pair while they were still being made. That used to happen to me a lot, I still kick myself for not getting a set of Bill Fratzke’s Winona camo when it was available too, but that’s a topic for another day {sigh}

Anyway, most of the time I hunt in pretty thick stuff, so what I look for in a binocular is not necessarily high magnification, but clarity and low light capabilities. The Leupold Katmai 6×32 look like good ones for the money (I think you can find them for less then $350 on the internet). They are compact (but not too compact), lightweight, and the ones I tried were bright and clear.

A couple of years ago I got some Minolta 7×35 roof prisms for around $120. I have been really pleased with these, they are pretty lightweight for a roof prism, and work very good in low light conditions.

[JJ]

#10000

Buckhorn73 wrote: I am not an expert or, for that matter, even very knowledgeable about binoculars, however, several years back I obtained a set of Ranging 5 x 30 camouflage binocs, which seem to be ideal for hunting our wooded areas. I’m not sure these are still made or available today but for $60.00 used, I was and am still quite impressed.

I remember seeing those Ranging binocs years ago, and I wish I had picked up a pair while they were still being made. That used to happen to me a lot, I still regret not getting a set of Bill Fratzke’s Winona camo when it was available too, but that’s a tpoic for another day {sigh}.

Anyway, most of the time I hunt in pretty thick stuff, so what I look for in a binocular is not necessarily high magnification, but clarity and low light capabilities. The Leupold Katmai 6×32 look like good ones for the money (I think you can find them for less then $350 on the internet). They are compact (but not too compact), light, and the ones I tried were bright and clear.

A couple of years ago I got some Minolta 7×35 roof prisms for around $120. I have been really pleased with these, they are pretty light for a roof prism, and work very good in low light conditions.

[Mark Turton]

#10697

I have an old pair of 8 x 50 tasco marine binoculars that are excellent but very heavy steel and rubber, generally stay in the truck, and 8 x 25 Docter Optics ‘asheltics’ not sure of the spelling as those are also in the truck and number one son has borrowed it. The Docter bins are good but as has been said previously they are limited in low light or even looking into cover in good light.

Does anyone make a good quality monocular this would allow 8 x 50 capability at half the price and weight any suggestions?

Mark.

[desertdude49]

#13528

I really love my Nikon Monarch 8×42. very lite and great in low light conditions. When I’m hunt I never want for a different pair of optic’s. I paided $300 and they have a great warrenty.

[?ucznik]

#15876

Most people want roof prism binoculars – which is not surprising considering they are generally slightly smaller and lighter than porro prism binoculars. However, Porro prism models will optically outperform any roof prism binoculars in comparable price ranges. In fact, they will be almost universally optically superior to roof prism binoculars costing 2-3x as much. I have a Bausch and Lomb Discoverer porro prism binocular and it blows my hunting buddy’s Swarovski EL out of the water. The EL cost him almost $2000. The Discoverer cost $400. Unfortunately, the Discoverers are not made anymore. Too many people insisting upon buying roof prism models despite their lower performance.

Good options to look at would be the Leupold Yosemites, Cascades, Mesas, and/or Rogues, the Nikon Action Extremes, the Bushnell Legends, the Pentax PCF WP II, and the Minox BD BP. The Minox would be the highest-end model, with an appropriately higher price tag, though still well within your sub-$500 budget. The Yosemites by Leupold are a steal of a deal at around only $100 – their performance is way above their price category.

If you really just want a roof prism, then good options to look for in your budget range would include:
Pentax DCF WP II
Pentax SP
Nikon Monarch
Bushnell Legend Ultra HD
Leupold Cascades, Olympics, Acadias, Mojaves, and/or Northforks
Vortex Diamondbacks, or Furies
Brunton Eternas

There are lots of others. In fact, the one thing we have a plethora of in today’s marketplace is reasonably good binoculars.

I don’t know if it’s O.K. to post links to stores on this forum. If so; I can point you to a few online dealers that consistently have the best deals – including the option of buying demo and or “cosmetically flawed” options that are perfect mechanically and optically and retain their full warranty – and offer great customer service as well.

[Patrick]

#16035

With all due respect, if his EL’s are “blown out
of the water” by your Discoverers, his EL’s need to be repaired, as they are clearly defective. Not that the Discoverers weren’t great, but a good roof prism binocular with phase coating is every bit as good as a good porro prism binoc, albeit at a considerably higher price.

[Steertalker]

#16515

Pilot,

For your budget constraints I would recommend the Nikon Monarch series. Personally I use the 10×42’s with a harness (see my avatar) In my opinion the only thing better are the Zeiss. Nikon optics are high quality. They are my go to optics for elk hunting.

Brett

[?ucznik]

#16574

Patrick wrote: …a good roof prism binocular with phase coating is every bit as good as a good porro prism binoc, albeit at a considerably higher price.

That tends to be the prevailing consensus among people who spent a lot of money on their roof prism binoculars. It just doesn’t happen to be based in objective fact.

Phase coating helps roof prisms attain better images than they would have without the coatings but, it is simply not possible with today’s technologies to fully repair the scattering (or perhaps separation is the better term) of light waves that occurs with roof prism optics. We get close, but it still isn’t perfect and results in higher levels of chromatic abberation than occurs with high quality porro prism optics.

This same principle is one of the reasons why almost no high-end optics makers bother with roof prism spotting scopes. Even with high-end mini scopes like the Nikon ED50 where they tried for the smallest, lightest unit they could get, they still went with what gives the best image because they knew the people that would actually buy this little scope would be predominantly those with very high optical standards; standards which could not be met with a roof prism design – even with phase correction coatings. Jump up in size to 60, 70, or even 80+ mm scopes and you see this almost total dearth of roof prisms even more prevalently.

[Patrick]

#16677

Theoretically, you are correct, but only theoretically. We are only talking about binoculars here. I haven’t had enough experience with scopes to have an opinion about any percievable differences, but that’s not the case with binoculars.

[?ucznik]

#16740

The principles involved in designing and manufacturing binoculars and prismatic spotting scopes are essentially identical. The only real differences come from:

1. The levels of magnification (higher for spotting scopes – which makes them more prone to visible abberation) and

2. The need for proper optical barrel collimation in binoculars, which is not necessary with the single barrel of a spotting scope/telescope.

The design features, optical principles, and relative image issues are otherwise identical. Binoculars are, in point of fact, just two telescopes mounted in tandem.

The principles I’ve described are not optical theory. They are basic, practical realities of optical design encountered and dealt with by all optics manufacturers.

Not that any of this really matters. Despite their failings (higher levels of chromatic abberation, lesser 3D image, poorer depth perception [not the same as depth of field], etc.) Roof prism binoculars are more popular because they just look “sexier” and that’s what gets marketed and so; they sell better.. They will undoubtedly remain more popular for the foreseeable future.

[Patrick]

#16772

I understand very well the design and manufacturing principals. I’m saying there is no perceptual difference between the very best roof prism (IMO: Nikon EDG) and the very best porro prism (IMO: Nikon Superior E). I don’t have enough experience to have an educated opinion about scopes.

Roof prisms are GENERALLY more durable, easier to waterproof, more compact. So it isn’t for just some frivolous aesthetic reason that roof prism binocs are popular.

[?ucznik]

#16850

Patrick wrote: Roof prisms are GENERALLY more durable,

I’m not so convinced this is true. Certainly it is the mantra that has been raised for a very long time and I’m sure it is more-than-likely true if you are comparing a very expensive roof prism to a very cheap Porro prism but, if you are comparing optics of similar build quality, I think there is more fantasy and clever marketing than reality in this claim.

For years (even before the advent of common phase correction coatings to help the roof prism’s optical problems) designers of binoculars claimed that added durability and ruggedness was a reason to go with a roof prism binocular. It was explained back then that the roof prism’s long, piano-wire hinge was more stable and less prone to being knocked out of alignment than the relatively flimsy dual arms of the common Porro prism binocular. Then comes the Swarovski EL that has a very Porro-esque dual-arm, split-bridge design and yet they claim it to be the most rugged design ever. It takes only the blink of an eye before just about everyone copies the EL’s racy design (including your favorite, the Nikon EDG) and produces a dual-arm, split-bridge binocular that is “more rugged than anything ever produced yet.” Sounds like mere marketing smoke and mirrors to me.

How are these new split-bridge binoculars supposed to be more rugged? Especially considering there are a few Porros that now even include long piano-wire hinges that were supposed to be the source of the roof prism design’s great strength?

Phil Shoemaker, a popular Alaskan Guide and writer for a few different magazines has been pretty open about his disappointment with the Swaro EL as a “rugged” binocular. He has stated publicly that the EL fails more than any other binocular he sees in his camps.

Patrick wrote: [Roof prisms are GENERALLY] easier to waterproof,

This is partially true. Most Porro prism binoculars use an external focusing mechanism with an integrated O-ring system to supply their waterproofness. This is not as watertight as the fully-internal focusing mechanisms of most roof prism binoculars, though it is still not nearly as weak as many would have you believe and would likely only become an issue if you were to submerge your binocular into fairly deep depths where water pressure could overwhelm the O-rings – and from where you would be unlikely to ever retrieve the binocular anyways. Nevertheless, if the issue is of primary concern to a particular individual, there is actually a selection of Porro prism binoculars that have incorporated fully internal focusing mechanisms and are thus, just as secure and waterproof as any roof prism binocular made.

Patrick wrote: [Roof prisms are GENERALLY] more compact.

This is actually true. With Porro prisms you do, as a general rule, sacrifice some portability for the benefits of the better image quality and lower price.

However, even this is not always as cut and dried as one might hope or expect. It is primarily complicated by the fact that often Porro prism models come with larger objective lenses than do roof prisms; hence you often see Porros of 7×50 and/or 10×50 configurations whereas such are not as common with roof prisms. So too it depends on what exactly we are comparing. It is generally true that Porros are wider than comparable roof prisms (which actually gives them two of their more important optical advantages) but, they are also often shorter making for dimensions that lie somewhat differently on the body but that aren’t really all that different over all. This is certainly true with my 8×42 Porro prism B&L Discoverer and my 8×42 Leupold Golden Ring.

Then there is the issue of weight and here there is even more variability. For example, the Porro prism 8×40 Pentax PCF WP II weighs in at 28.2 ounces. The “comparably priced” Roof prism 8×42 Pentax DCF WP II weighs exactly the same (as does my more expensive B&L). The vastly more expensive 8×43 Nikon EDG actually weighs a touch more at 28.6 ounces and, somewhere right in between the two price extremes, the 8×42 Leupold Golden Ring weighs in at an even heavier 33.2 ounces.

[Steertalker]

#17639

Pilot,

Check out this link:

https://www.camofire.com/?utm_source=Camofire.com+Daily+Shooter&utm_campaign=6b04bd648d-Daily_Shooter_09_05_099_4_2009&utm_medium=email

Brett

[Mark Turton]

#17671

If I may gentlemen, couple of years ago I nearly bought a Zeiss scope (could not bring myself to part with the cash), when comparing two there was a clear difference in image quality.
On reversing the scope and looking through the objective lens it was clear that one of the scopes barrels was not prepared or coated properly creating internal reflection.
Now I know very little about optics but if a top end manufacturer can miss this during final inspection it may help to explain some of the inconsistencies with other manufacturers.

Any suggestions regarding a monocular?

Mark.

[?ucznik]

#17720

Pothunter wrote:

Any suggestions regarding a monocular?

Mark.

That depends on what you are looking for in a monocular. Most of the little mini-monoculars that you can get for like $15–$50 from brands like Alpen, Barska, Eagle Optics, Yukon, etc. are pretty worthless.

Zeiss makes a 5×10 monocular called the MiniQuicks. It is pretty good, though it’s magnification in pretty low and it costs 3x what other mini-monoculars run ($150).

Zeiss also makes an 8×20 and a 10×25 monocular in their “Design Select” line. They are very good optically but, at almost $300, they cost almost as much as some of their mini-binoculars.

Leica makes one called the monovid. I have never actually seen one but, judging by the brand, I’m sure it’s pretty impressive. At $500 it better be.

Brunton makes a 6×30 monocular in their Eterna line and also a 7×40 Macroscope. Both are quite a bit larger than these other mini-monoculars. The Macroscope is really more of a tiny little low-powered spotting scope. It even has a tripod mounting bracket and would probably make for a pretty great little telescope for young children to learn on.

Leupold makes a 10-20×40 spotting scope in their Golden Ring Line. I owned one for a couple seasons and was very surprised just how well it could be used hand-held. Then mounted to a tripod at 20x it was again surprisingly good, despite it’s low 2mm exit pupil. Definitely not as bright as scopes with larger objectives, but then again, it is small enough that it will be readily taken to places where larger scopes would have been left at camp or at home. It is quite a bit larger than these other monoculars but, its added versatility could be a big plus.

Leupold’s 15-30×50 Golden Ring is yet again a bit larger and a bit more powerful. It can still be used at 15x handheld, though not as easily.

[Mark Turton]

#18517

?ucznik, thank you for doing the leg work for me, looked at two:
1. Zeiss 10 x 25, possibly better performance but not sure the construction is tough enough for field use.
2. Leica 8 x 20, these I like the look of.

I know these are a lot of money but I only want to buy once, which way would you jump?

I’m looking for low light capability, dawn and dusk, a reduction in bulk and reliability.

Look forward to your comments, Mark.

[?ucznik]

#18926

Honestly, as far as the little mini monoculars are concerned, I wouldn’t personally buy any of them. I just don’t know what purpose they would really serve. These tiny telescopes just don’t have all that much appeal as a hunting optic. Their diminutive size might be nice from a packing standpoint but, you really can’t glass through them very effectively or for very long before getting a massive headache caused by the need to squint one eye as you gaze through the scope with your other. They are so small that they will suffer from terrible ergonomics resulting in that they will be hard to hold steady and hard to focus properly.

Personally, I would opt to (maybe) spend just a few dollars more and get a good mini-binocular. The dual barrels with resultant use of both eyes makes them far, far better for glassing; which you can do for far longer and not get the squint-induced headache that you would get with the monocular. Binoculars are also ergonomically superior and thus easier to hold steady and to focus properly.

Good ones that are within the same budget range (or maybe just a few dollars more) as the monoculars you were saying you were willing to buy would include:

Zeiss Conquest – 8×20 or 10×25 – $400
Nikon Premier LXL – 8×20 – $430 or 10×25 – $450
Leica Trinovid – 8×20 – $450 or 10×25 – $480
Zeiss Victory – 8×20 – $500 or 10×25 – $600
Leica Ultravid – 8×20 – $700 or 10×25 – $750

I suppose I would rather have a monocular than nothing at all and perhaps there is a reason why you personally need a monocular as opposed to a binocular of which I am ignorant, but as a rule, I just can’t see the appeal of the monocular.

[Mark Turton]

#19187

Thank’s for the comments and suggestions, I’m going to give the subject further thought.

[Buzzard]

#21865

OK now for my 2 cents worth. I’m very happy with my recent purchase of Steiner Wildlife Pro 8X26’s. Best low light,compact bino i’ve ever used!

[Anonymous]

#158295

I think Bushnell H2O 10X42 Binoculars is the best binoculars for hunting. you can buy it from affordablemag.com in affordable price

• This reply was modified 3 years, 1 month ago by Robin Conrads. Reason: suspected spam, delete hyperlink in text

[richard roop]

#158298

To each their own ……………. For me Vortex 6.5 x 32s work for the hunting that I do and the shoots that I go to.  Something to be said for hand held steady and good field of view with my glasses on.

Gotta wonder though when somebody’s first post contains a link.  Be that as it may, Welcome to the board. What kind of stick do you shoot ????

[aeronut]

#158302

For the timber I hunt the small monoculars are just fine for me.  I travel light and like the shirt pocket size.

Since I had retina surgery back in 2006 I have split vision which is corrected by my glasses.  I have never liked looking through binoculars while wearing my glasses because it restricts the field of view and without my glasses I have to look through just one optic at a time.

That said, I do own a pair of Nikon Monarch M511, 10×42 5.5*.  The clarity is great and the objective lenses have individual covers so I can look through either side individually.  To me they are too heavy to pack around all day.  I bought these cheap at an estate auction or I would not own them.  I can’t make myself spend the large amount of cash wanted for binoculars that I may use once a year.

As for spotting scopes I have a Bushnell Spacemaster 25x that I have owned for decades now.  It is too heavy to pack around.  I have a BSA Down Range rifle scope that is 8-32×44.  I modified a rail mount to fit a tripod and it is a lightweight package and the clarity is very good on it.  I have packed it in the hills of southern Arizona on border watch ops.  I bought this scope at a gun show for a very cheap price and am very pleased with it.

[Raymond Coffman]

#158330

I use an old pair of Swarovski 8x30wb slc. They are light, and  work well for my bowhunting needs.

When I used to chase Coues a lot,  I broke out the 10 x 42 and 15 x 50s ( leica/Swarovski) for glassing in the western mtns….

Scout aka Ray

[Raymond Coffman]

#158378

PS

For those interested I just picked up a pr of the new Bushnell 10×32 “mini” ( these are a little bigger than the shirt pocket size opera type) forge 13.7 ounce binos. I was looking for a small powerful glass for out to 100yds (200 max) mostly for use from a blind / hide. These are a very good binocular for 250 bucks +-. Very clear. rubber armor to boot…

Scout aka Ray

 

[David Coulter]

#160904

I used the Bushnell 7X26 custom compacts for year. Great glass and easy subject acquisition. The problem for clumbsy me was they were fragile and Bushell no longer supported my versions.  I replaced them a couple years ago with Vortex 8×30. Plenty of magnification for eastern PA woods and also easy on the eyes.  I’d buy them again in a heartbeat. What convinced me was the warranty.

[Author]

Posts