From: BUNNER@MACC.WISC.EDU (Dana A. Bunner)
Subject: Review of 8X Binoculars (long)
Date: 5 Jun 1995 21:41:48 GMT

Version 1.4

Quick summary of Sub-$300 8X binoculars.  Some comments on lower-priced
models are found near the end ... all the way down to $50.

Due to the number of requests I received from my review of 10X binoculars
to take a look at 8X models, I did just that.  However I didn't spend
quite as much time comparing them.  Prices are discounted mail order, but
from places with good reputations.  It might be possible to get lower
prices from other mail order suppliers.  Expect to pay more over-the-
counter unless you are lucky and located close to a discounter.

Models evaluated:

  Model                      Approx Price Range

  Bausch & Lomb 8x36 Custom      $240-250
  Celestron Ultima 8x42          $200-210
  Celestron Ultima 8x32          $190-200
  Mirador 8x40                   $170
  Nikon 8x30 Series E            $300
  Swift Audubon 8.5x44           $220
  Swift Audubon 8.5x44 ED        $420  (included for comparison with non-ED)
  Swift Ultralite 8x42           $200-210

Quick Overviews of less expensive 8X options follow this summary.

I selected these models because all of them had received favorable
reviews from one publication or another and I just didn't have time to
look at a wider group.

Note:  I do test each model for focus travel by attempting to focus them
on long-distance objects without my eyeglasses.  My eyes are pretty poor
and I wear a -7.75 diopter eyeglass.  This test is unimportant for anyone
with less than a -5.0 perscription (all should work for you) and for
anyone who will always wear their eyeglasses or contacts.

Bausch & Lomb Custom 8x36:  Moderate Field of View at 341'.  Lightweight
at 22 ounces.  Sharp images in center, still good at edges.  Very good
contrast.  Close focus was very good at 10'.  Good eye relief (17mm).
Was able to get a sharp focus w/o eyeglasses.  Mechanics were stiff (in
two 8x36s and a Custom 10x40).  Known for rugged construction, can take a
beating in field.  Personally, I don't like the design as well as most
others.  B&L inverts the prism chambers so they are below the barrels
instead of above and they don't open quite as wide as most other models
(but should be sufficient for nearly everyone).  But this is a personal
perference.  Eyepieces only separate to 72mm, wide enough for most people,
but not me (I need 74mm).

Celestron Ultima 8x42:  Moderate Field of View (FOV) of 346'.
Lightweight at just 22 ounces.  Nice sharp images with wide center "sweet
spot" where image was well-defined.  Very good contrast.  Close focus was
moderate at around 16'.  Sufficient eye relief for eyeglass wearers.
Without eyeglasses I was just barely shy of getting a very sharp focus
at infinity.  Focusing out to 100' or so was possible.  "Leatherette"
covering was comfortable but not as rugged as rubber-coatings.

Celestron Ultima 8x32:  Wide FOV of 436'.  Very lightweight at 18 ounces.
Nice sharp images over center 2/3 of image, still acceptable out to lense
edge.  Very good contrast.  Good close focus of about 10.5'.  Eye relief
only measured to 12mm and I was not able to see the full FOV while
wearing eyeglasses (despite Celeston's claim of 17mm of ER), however I
could see about 85-90% of the field.  I was also able to achieve a sharp
focus at infinity without my eyeglasses.

Mirador 8x40:  Moderate FOV of 330'.  Moderately lightweight at 24
ounces.  Good image sharpness in center, falling off a bit to edge.
Contrast was good, but a few internal reflections were visible when
looking at very bright objects.  Very rugged construction with internal
O-rings on all joints, not fully waterproof but more weather-resistant
than a typical binocular.  Close focus was decent at 13-14'.  Long eye
relief.  Forgot to test without my eyeglasses.

Nikon 8x30 E:  Wide FOV of 436'.  Lightweight at just over 21 ounces.
Very good image sharpness right out to lense edge.  Very good contrast.
Eye Relief was just a bit shy of giving a full FOV while wearing glasses,
but difference was very small.  Close focus was fairly good at around
12'.  These are surprising small binoculars that use a very traditional
design (much like the old Aus Jena models of 20+ years ago).  Simple but
elegant.  Definite loss of brightness in low-light but should be fine
well into twilight (IMHO), and brighter than almost all compact/mini
binoculars.  Easily able to get a sharp focus without my eyeglasses.

Swift Audubon 8.5x44:  Wide FOV of 430'.  Moderately heavy at 29 ounces.
Very good center field sharpness falling off toward lense edge, but still
usable.  Very good contrast.  Insufficient eye relief for eyeglass
wearers, I noticed a definite loss of field with glasses.  Close focus
was decent at 13'-14'.  Very bright images, even in low-light situations.
Unable to focus at infinity w/o eyeglasses.  Interpupillary distance was
a bit narrow, just over 70mm, at maximum separation.  I found these 
comfortable to handle but some others feel they are a bit "thick" through
the middle for their comfort.  Not quite as "weather-resistant" as most
in this group.

Swift Audubon 8.5x44 ED:  Same specs as standard Audubon.  Image just a
bit sharper, colors just a bit brighter, but overall it performed very
similar to the non-ED model.  Hard to justify the price difference.

Swift Ultralight 8x42:  Moderate FOV of 346'.  Lightweight at 20 ounces,
particularly light for a 42mm.  Good image sharpness, but ever so
slightly less than the similar Celestron Ultima.  Contrast was good, but
again just a bit under that of the Ultima.  Good eye relief.  Close focus
was about 15'.   Thin rubber coating gave it a nice "feel."   Long range
focus without glasses was usable but I had to push it to maximum settings
and it wasn't quite "razor-sharp."

Summary:

I felt that all, excepting the Audubon ED, were worth the price being
asked.  Each had its own strengths and weaknesses and the buyer is left
to decide which model best addresses their own needs.  This wasn't 
surprising as I tested only recommended models and not a random sample.

If you want a wide field, lightweight, close-focusing binocular that you
don't expect to use a lot under low-light conditions, then the Celestron
Ultima 8x32 is a heck of a buy at under $200.  If you can pop for another
$100 then the Nikon is very impressive and better for eye/sunglass
wearers.

If you are willing to sacrifice a bit of FOV and close focus for better
low-light brightness then the Celestron Ultima 8x42 & Swift Ultralight
8x42 are good choices.  I like the Ultima a bit better but the difference
is minor and the Swift's do have a look & feel that some prefer over the
Celestron.  Both are good with eye/sunglasses.

Continuing to sacrifice some FOV but getting a good close focus in a
design with not quite the light-gathering of the 42mm but more than the
30/32mm models is the B&L Custom 8x36.  Good eye relief and rugged
construction in an unusual shape.

If you want a combination of good light gathering with a wide field and
fairly good close focus (and don't mind a few extra ounces of weight)
then the Swift Audubon is your choice.  It is easy to understand their
popularity.  But if you plan on wearing eye/sunglasses then you should
test them before buying.  Oversized prisms make them a bit thicker than
other binoculars but you gain some FOV and get nice bright images for
your trouble.

The Mirador was the lowest cost model tested and optically it was a bit
below the rest of the group.  However it was still a good binocular and
if you want a reasonably-priced glass with rugged construction and can
live with a moderate FOV, then it should be given some consideration.
It's not a Zeiss but if you drop it in a marsh then you may appreciate
it's construction.

If you want a binocular that gives a wide FOV with plenty of eye relief,
very good edge-to-edge sharpness, close focuses to 10-12' and is
rugged/waterproof then you'd better bring more money.  Those aren't found
in the $200-$300 price range.

Other binoculars I have not tested but would consider in the $200-$300
range are the Carton Adlerblick 8x42, Orion Vista 8x42 and Optolyth Alpin 8x40 
& 8x30 models.  The Carton & Orion are similar to the Celestron Ultima/Swift 
Ultralight models, having moderate FOVs, good eye relief, lightweight 
(21-22oz), large center-focus knobs, and good multi-coatings.  The four of them
look like they came off of the same assembly line.

I have not tested the Optolyth 8Xs but both their 7x50 and 10x50 Alpins are 
very good.  Neither Alpin has great eye relief (12mm & 10mm), the 8x30 is much
like the Nikon 8x30 with a wide FOV and good close focus.  The 8x40 has a 
moderate FOV and reasonable close focus.  Both are very lightweight, the
8x30 weighing only 14.8 ounces, the 8x40 only 17.4 ounces, and both are
lightly rubber-coated.  Optolyth's multicoatings do a good job of cutting
through haze.

I'm not as high on the Fujinon 8x40 BFL, Pentax DCF HR 8x42, Brunton Eterna
8x40, or Steiner 8x30.  All have some good features and may be a good choice
for some, but in very limited exposure to them I was not impressed for 
one reason or another.

  ** LESS EXPENSIVE OPTIONS ($100-150) **

I have looked these models over in the past but did not include them in
any direct comparisons with the above on this go-round.  These are what I
consider to be the best options available for under $150.  I should note
that I am partial towards models with good eye relief as I wear glasses, so
that does influence which models I like better.  I didn't like the models
I tested from B&L, Nikon, and Pentax as well, but they were okay and if
you can find them at a good price or from a reputable dealer that you
like doing business with, then they are reasonable alternatives.

1) Celestron Pro 8x40:  This is hard to find as not all stores carrying
Celestron have access to it.  The Wild Birds Unlimited chain does carry
it as a store brand (a WBU 8x40, but it is the Celestron Pro).  It has a
nice combination of a wide field (around 400'), moderate close focus,
around 15mm of eye relief, and good multi-coatings.  It isn't quite as
sharp as the Celestron Ultima series and weighs 3-4 ounces more (26oz),
but is a good value at around $140.  Light rubber coating.  [The Pro 7x50
is a good, economical low-light glass too which doubles as a nice 
astronomical binocular.  Good eye relief but a touch heavy at 29 oz.]

2) Minolta 8x40 XL:  Good center-of-field optics (but fuzzier toward edges),
wide FOV (429'), 16mm of eye relief, and a close focus of 14' make for a nice 
package in the $130 range.  Contrast is fairly good but not in class of 
$200+ models.  A bit heavy at 31 oz.  Rubber coated but not waterproof.  
Again, not as sharp as more expensive models but I like these much more than 
your typical $75-90 sporting goods binoculars. [I actually like the 7x35 and
10x50 XL's a bit better than the 8x40.]

3) Bushnell Natureview 8x42:  Wide FOV (430'), 16mm of eye relief (specs
say 19mm but it measures to 16mm), close focus of 9'-10'!   Moderate 26
oz weight.  I've seen these in several stores for $95-99.  In the center
of the field these give a very sharp, bright image.  Both sharpness and
brightness fall off toward edges.  Contrast is good for price range.  If
someone is shopping for a good pair of binoculars for the casual birder
with a $100 upper limit, these are an excellent choice.  Worth paying the
difference to move up to these from the group below.  [But I don't like
the 10x42 as well ... see note below.]

  ** Even Cheaper Options  **

At under $75 you have to allow for reduced contrast, more glare, rougher
mechanics, less rugged construction, and usually a smaller sharper-focused
area.  But there are some usable general purpose choices.

 - Celestron Nature Series.  Can be found in $69-79 range.  Available
in 7x35 and 8x40.  Wider FOVs, less sharp on edges.  Decent for price range.
Test with eyeglasses as eye relief is shorter.  Less Contrast than either 
Ultima or Pro-series, but good for this price range.

 - Minolta EZ:  Also in 7x35 and 8x40.  Very wide FOVs (579' @ 1000 yds in
7x35).  Lense edge is very fuzzy.  Eye Relief is short.  But are well-made
and sharp in center of field.  A little bit heavy.  Rubber coated.  $69-79
I bought a pair for my father-in-law and he loves them.

 - Bushnell Birder:  Available in 7x35 and 8x40.  Advertises 16mm of Eye
Relief but doesn't deliver, I could not see a full field with glasses on.
Construction not quite as rugged as Celestron & Minolta.  FOV is
only moderate, but a benefit is a sharper image.  Nothing fancy here,
just a good implementation of your standard everyday binocular.  I've
seen recently for as low as $49 (and the 7x35 for $39).

>>> NOTE on comparison of 7X,8X vs 10X

I found from my tests conducted on 10X models that you cannot assume that
a brand and series that produces a good 8X will do equally well with
their 10X models.  Many manufacturers switch to a different type of
eyepiece in their 10X models, going with wide-angle eyepieces in order to
compensate for the narrower FOVs.  In these lower price ranges I have
found this frequently results in:

 - A smaller "sweet spot" where images are very sharp.  This isn't a big
   deal to some as they only care about the image when their object is
   centered.

 - Reduced eye relief.

 - Reduced Depth of Focus, that is the depth of the field that is in
   focus is shallower.  So if you are focused on an object that is 30'
   away, the depth of your focused field will be shallower using a 10X
   than an 8X in most models.

 - Slight increases in chromatic aberration.

In my opinion the Celestron Ultima and Swift Ultralight 10x42s are not as
nice as the 7x & 8x42 models.  They are still decent binoculars, just not
as outstanding as their lower-powered counterparts.  The Bushnell
Natureview 10x42 is also not as sharp as the 8x42.  Nikon does a good job
with their 10x35E, but the exit pupil is getting fairly small at 3.5mm so
not these are not for everyone.

10X models that don't employ wide-angle eyepieces overcome many of the
above problems, but at the expense of FOV.  For example the Celestron
Ultima 10x50 is very nice, but only has a 263' FOV and gives up a several
feet of close focus (at nearly 25').

Dana Bunner