Gear

Hi Folks,

 Noticed F & T had some Lugar binoculars in the never ending sale and I though some small, light waterproof ones would be good for hills, windsurfing and fishing...Anybody tried them? I dont want to spend a fortune.

Cheers for any advice or alternatives - not much recent in the reviews section.

Roger

A lightweight pair of bins are very useful on the hill.  As Trevor says, for hillwalking when you just use them for scouting ahead (I say 'just' but it is incredibly useful to be able to do so)  and watching wildlife etc. then a cheap lightweight pair are fine.  There's not much in the Review section as most people on this site don't seem to use binos.  

I see that the Lugars are only 6x18 (i.e 6x magnification and an 18-degree field of view).  Check how much they weigh.  For £25 (£10 less than the Lugars) you can get a pair of Silva 10x25s; better magnification and field of view, also waterproof and with dual eyepiece focussing.  These weigh 200g. I have a pair and I wouldn't be without them.

You can of course go totally Gucci on binoculars and pay a few hundred pounds for Zeiss compacts but even a kit whore like myself can't justify having a pair of binoculars as my most expensive bit of equipment 

No idea about that model in particular, but there are an awful lot of very cheap binoculars coming out of China these days. They are astonishly good value for the money if you get a good pair, but quality control is almost completely lacking at the bottom of the price range, so you could find that the alignment is far enough out that you can't merge the two images.

 Some alternatives:

Meade 8x21 £10,  Opticron 10x25 £20,  Nikon 8x24 £40, Bushnell 8x25 W'proof £45  

 You will always get a better view through porro prism binoculars (with the traditional dogleg shape) than with roof prism bins (straight through tubes) unless you pay for a pair with phase corrected prisms (usually starting at £200, though there are a few pairs claiming it at £100). The drawback is that they are a bulkier shape, and that they are rarely fully waterproof.

Look at the Opticron Vegas near the bottom of this page (£39). The Tiaga 8x25 (£79) further up the same page is highly recommended in birdwatching circles. If you want the more compact shape and waterproofing of roof prisms. I'd probably look at the Veranos or Imagic at £100

Jake wrote (see)

I see that the Lugars are only 6x18 (i.e 6x magnification and an 18-degree field of view).  Check how much they weigh.  For £25 (£10 less than the Lugars) you can get a pair of Silva 10x25s; better magnification and field of view, also waterproof and with dual eyepiece focussing.

 The 18 and 25 at the end of the specification is nothing to do with field of view. It's the diameter of the objective lens at the end, and is to do with how well the bins work in poor light.

Divide the diameter by the magnification to get the exit pupil size. If it's dim enough that the result (3mm for 6x18 or 2.5mm for 10x25) is smaller than the actual diameter of your pupil, then what you see will be dimmer than with the naked eye. If it's bright and your pupil is constricted to eg 2mm, you are only seeing the light through the central part of the lens and both would look equally bright. A large exit pupil is still an advantage as it makes it easier to get your eyes correctly positioned behind the eyepiece.

a cheap pair of binos are just fine for general looking about - like in a "what's that over there". you can also get a monocular but i personally don't get on with them.

expensive ones are great for studying things or you like expensive toys

up to 8 magnification is fine for hand held. above this they start to shake - depending upon how steady your hand is.

http://www.alpenoutdoor.com/about/terminology.shtml Or short link too. -

This binos terminology article here might help anyone buying binos for the first time perhaps maybe.

Thanks for the replies folks,

I think my list of priorities in order is probably something like:

waterproof (must be able to rinse of sand from the beach), price (must be able to afford to leave living room), quality (expensive toys must be better than everybody elses -good point Parky), bulk (has to fit in pack), weight (oh I suppose I have to carry it).

The lugar ones seemed to be specifically waterproof but I guess 6* mag is probably on the limit of worth bothering with so the 8* ones suggested by OS look good. The Bushnell H2O 8X25 also seem very good cheers AS - £40 at http://www.campkinsonline.com (not used them).

I think I might have to go see a few in the flesh with my own beady eyes...

Rog 

Silva binos, unlike Silva compasses, are shite.

Anally edited for punctuation.

Again for spelling!

OK then, the pair I got from TKM were crap but then I'm used to my Viking Navigator 8x42 bins, far too heavy for backpacking but really good quality kit. I bought the Silva Lite Tech 7x24 for not a lot. I thought they were poorly finished and although supposedly waterproof, they fogged up in the first shower of rain they were exposed to. They were bloody heavy for compacts too.

I was just unlucky I guess because I know others who are more than happy with their Silva bins.

ah! they may have been just like yours. but at £8? couldn't grumble.

Rob, would these be suitable?

http://opticswarehouse.co.uk/proddetail.asp?prod=hawkesample842green

or these,

http://opticswarehouse.co.uk/proddetail.asp?prod=HawkEnd2828&cat=451

andrew sweetman wrote (see)

 The 18 and 25 at the end of the specification is nothing to do with field of view. It's the diameter of the objective lens at the end, and is to do with how well the bins work in poor light.

Divide the diameter by the magnification to get the exit pupil size. If it's dim enough that the result (3mm for 6x18 or 2.5mm for 10x25) is smaller than the actual diameter of your pupil, then what you see will be dimmer than with the naked eye. If it's bright and your pupil is constricted to eg 2mm, you are only seeing the light through the central part of the lens and both would look equally bright. A large exit pupil is still an advantage as it makes it easier to get your eyes correctly positioned behind the eyepiece.

I stand corrected.

It sounds as though the performance of binoculars is limited by the diameter of the objective lens, which determines weight and volume.  I haven't measured the diameter of my pupil under various light conditions so cannot comment on the suitability of x25 vs. x18 for me

Given those limitations, how can Zeiss justify charging £300 for a pair of compacts when the mag and objective lens specs must be similar to cheap Silvas?  Surely the physics apply equally to all bits of glass?  

In the meantime I'll stick with the cheap Silvas.  They are fine on the hill.  I'm not trying to spot enemy snipers in the twilight at 600m with them. 

Jake wrote (see)

Given those limitations, how can Zeiss justify charging £300 for a pair of compacts when the mag and objective lens specs must be similar to cheap Silvas?  Surely the physics apply equally to all bits of glass?  

They're similar like a 'Cag in a Bag' is similar to a Mera Peak.

The physics of light does apply equally to all bits of glass but not all bits of glass are equal. The worst thing about some cheap compact binos is the lack of contrast and poor edge sharpness together with pincushion distortion (look at something perfectly horizontal or vertical, as soon as the subject gets close to the edge of the frame they'll appear to be bent). Look through an expensive or even moderately expensive pair after looking through a cheap pair and you'll notice a difference even in good light. The poorer the light the bigger the difference and that apart from the obvious premium of a name like Swarovski/Leica/Zeiss is what you're paying for, whether you need the performance is another matter but that doesn't mean that there isn't a difference.

 Would I spend £300 on a pair of Bino's? no but that doean't mean they aren't worth the money in terms of quality.