binoculars

[mr.big]

I am all but blind in low light,need something that is pretty compact but still are good binos,

anybody have first hand use of these

http://swfa.com/Zeiss-10x25-Conquest-Bi ... -P866.aspx

 

[RUGER]

I haven't but with the name Zeiss on them, I would bet they are good ones.

 

[Boone 58]

Steiner 8 x 42 merlins....wont break the bank, paid 425 for mine some years back and they are excellent.

 

[mr.big]

want something a little smaller than 42 mm

 

[TheLBLman]

I am all but blind in low light,need something that is pretty compact but still are good binos,

anybody have first hand use of these

http://swfa.com/Zeiss-10x25-Conquest-Bi ... -P866.aspx

Those are good glass,
but cannot be good in low light.

Either go down on the magnification, or go up on the size of the objective. For the most ideal view, you want an "exit pupil" of at least 5.0.

With extremely high quality glasses, you can still have acceptable low-light viewing with an exit pupil around 4.5 to 5.0. On these Zeiss 10 x 25's, the exit pupil is listed as only being 2.5.

Not sure just how important the low-light capabilities are to you, but these Zeiss 8 x 30's would be considerably better in low light (exit pupil rating is 3.75).
http://swfa.com/Zeiss-8x30-Conquest-Bin ... P2025.aspx

In GOOD light, you would be happy with either, maybe even happier with the 10 x 25's. Just depends on what you're mainly doing with them.

 

[TheLBLman]

Note these Zeiss 8x40's have an exit pupil of 5.0
meaning they should provide great clarity in low light.
http://swfa.com/Zeiss-8x40-Conquest-Bin ... P5268.aspx

Only drawback (beyond the price!) is they weigh 29 oz.

 

[Hogbear]

Leupold makes a pretty nice, small 6x32 (exit pupil 5.3, 18 oz).

http://www.eagleoptics.com/binoculars/l ... ular-black

 

[mr.big]

I need at least 8x

 

[Kimberman]

Im sure there is better glass out there than mine, but I have been very pleased with my Burris Landmark 8x32. For the 150$ I have in them, they have worked well for me.

 

[Model70Man]

I have a pair of Promaster Infinity Elite ELX 8x42. They will hold their own with the Big 3 easy at a fraction of the cost. You can read some reviews on them at 24hourcampfire. Got mine at Cameraland (demo model) at a deep discount.

 

[cdw338]

Big I can not say more than Wes has said and I strongly agree.
I have the same problem as you. I like and use 7 X 35.

 

[W.Seay]

pentax dcf sp 8 x 42! Trust me!

 

[stik]

nikon monarch atb 10x42. like them so much i replaced a stolen pair with the same thing. no eye fatigue after long periods of glassing and crystal clear.

 

[Wildcat]

Wes is right.

I have several different models and each one has it's place.

At the start of the thread you was looking for something for LOW LIGHT. The ones you posted will not do that job.

Go for a pair that will help in low light and work from there. You will end up getting some a little bigger than what you was looking at.

If you wanted some for long rang looking from a fixed location like a truck or house then you would want one of the larger models. If you want something to carry with you all day but only use them to check things out every so offten then the smaller models are what you are looking for.

You said you was looking for low light so go for that.

 

[W.Seay]

My pentax dcf sp 8 x 42 run about $800 but can be bought off the web at one certain place for $350.00, i have owned the zeiss, nikon monarch, burris, steiners and the pentax are much better!

 

[TheLBLman]

He also stated . . . . . . . .

want something a little smaller than 42 mm

But he hasn't stated his main use for them, other than he needed low-light capabilities.

Leupold makes a pretty nice, small 6x32 (exit pupil 5.3, 18 oz).

http://www.eagleoptics.com/binoculars/l ... ular-black

For the money, I agree, those are nice, at least for much of my uses.

Just my opinion, but I believe most hunters choose too much magnification at the expense of sacrificing low-light clarity and depth-of-field (what's CLEARLY in focus between close and far without having to adjust the focus).

If most of your anticipated viewing is in more typical Tennessee woodlands, you'd probably find 6x magnification adequate. And typically with the big advantages of greater low-light capabilities, greater DOF (I've found that to be a HUGE advantage when "looking for" deer as opposed to "looking at" deer previously seen), not to mention a much wider field of view.

But then, I'm using my binoculars more for the purpose of "looking for" game, rather than "looking at" game I've already spotted with the naked eye. And most of my "looking" is at distances ranging from 40 yards to 300 yards.

Even at 300 yards, those 6x binoculars present a 50-yd "naked-eye" view. The difference between 6x & 10x is the difference in a 50-yd vs. a 30-yd "naked-eye" view at 300 yards. Yet to get the same low-light capabilities of 6x32, I would need something like 10x50's.

 

[Boone 58]

If you insist on 8x then you are limiting yourself on Light.....
you still need a decent objective to get enough light to see at the higher power.
Alpen makes similar models in quality but generally run about a hundred bucks less.

 

[W.Seay]

To me, a great quality 8 x 43 is the perfect all around binocular.

 

[TheLBLman]

To me, a great quality 8 x 43 is the perfect all around binocular.

I prefer my 8 x 30 Steiner Nighthunters for "all around".
18 ounces of perfection.

 

[jakeway]

I use Leupold Yosemite 6X30 in bow season; help a lot in low light, and very light and compact. When the leaves are down and I'd like a little longer range, I use Nikon Monarch ATB 8X36. If I hunted more fields and places where I'd be watching 300-600 yards away I might go for a bigger or more powerful glass, but these two are great for woods use.

I owe my best buck last year to the Monarchs; I saw him at 100 yards at first shooting light. With bare eyes I couldn't see him, and even after I saw him in the binocs, I couldn't see him in my 2-7 Leupold scope with the power set to 2.