In praise of cheap binoculars.

As I've said before, I always take binoculars along on canoe trips.
I use them for more than just wildlife viewing.
But I'm reluctant to take an expensive pair, especially on trips in Utah, where the fine sand get's into everything.
I'm happy to tell you that you can get a pretty darn good pair of binoculars for less than $40.
When I was on Amazon, the other day, on a whim, I decided to see if there were any good deals on binoculars.
I found some POCZE 12X42, for less than $40, that were highly rated, so I ordered a pair.
I'm pretty impressed with them.
They seem well made, image is quite sharp and they focus very close.
They seem like a steal, at that price.
Since those turned out so well, I thought I'd take a chance on a pair of GIGAPENGUIN 15X52, for less than $90.
Not quite as good a deal, but these too are very nice, for the price.
I can't vouch for their durability, since I just got them, but how far wrong can you go, at those prices.
There were a pair of compact binoculars that looked very good too.

I love cheap glass! I have a nice Vortex monocular that I hardly take anywhere because I have a bunch of $20 ones floating around that I'm not afraid to drop.

I can't use binoculars or other two-eyed equipment but I love a good, inexpensive monocular. Even name brands like Bushnell and Celestron make affordable monoculars that weigh half of what a pair of binoculars do. Skip the no-name ones.

boy&hisdogs said:

I love cheap glass! I have a nice Vortex monocular that I hardly take anywhere because I have a bunch of $20 ones floating around that I'm not afraid to drop.

I can't use binoculars or other two-eyed equipment but I love a good, inexpensive monocular. Even name brands like Bushnell and Celestron make affordable monoculars that weigh half of what a pair of binoculars do. Skip the no-name ones.

Click to expand...

I have vision problems that even glasses can't fix, so binoculars are an even bigger help to me than for most people.
I stopped buying Barska optics. I've gotten Barska stuff I was fairly happy with, but a lot of it isn't very good.
Some of these cheap Chinese binoculars seem as sharp, or nearly as sharp as my Nikon Prostaff but, with my eye problems, if there was a difference in sharpness, I'm not sure I could tell.
I got some Bushnell H2O 8X42 off the clearance rack at Walmart for $57. Maybe not the deal of the century, but I was pretty happy with that.

I have a Celstron 6x30 monocular that I like very much. It weighs about 8 ounces. The image is remarkably sharp, clear, and free of distortion.

I have double vision issues that are mostly corrected by my glasses. Most inexpensive binoculars do not have enough eye relief to use with glasses, causing me to see two of everything, just larger.

The only binoculars I have found that work well are Steiner 8x30s. They are compact and weigh about a pound. They are handy for hunting in Eastern woods habitat, probably would not be so great in the West.

These are the Captain's Binoculars, and nobody else is allowed to touch them.

I like my Vortex Solo monocular I figured they had to make a decent pair if bino's, so I bought a set. Bino's are junk but the Solo make up for it. Not hating on Vortex yet, but if even a small screw comes loose I'm going with someone else, possible Steiner.

I looked at my Bushnell and Nikon, to see where they are made, and they are both made in China.
It's quite possible that the companies that make binoculars for them also make and sell binoculars under their own name for less money.
Vortex makes several levels of binoculars. Their higher end models are considered among the best and their less expensive models are considered a good value.
Vivitar makes some very inexpensive optics. Some of it's not bad but some is just junk.
I think every person needs to decide, based on their finances and how critical they are of optical performance, where to draw the price line on optics that might get lost or ruined on a canoe trip.
I have several spotting scopes and the extra power is great, but having binocular visions is a big advantage to binoculars. Two eyes see better than one, especially if you dominant eye is your worse eye. I've been looking at higher power binoculars, but sharp, high powered binoculars aren't cheap.

I am a big proponent of the old saying, “you get what you paid for!” Especially if it is optics, I bought some cheap binoculars that I thought were serving me just fine. One day while watching peregrine falcons feed their young on a cliff along the Yukon river, a birder let me use his Zeiss 10X40 binoculars. The difference was amazing, I scrimped & saved until I could buy my own. Twenty years later, I still think they were one of the best purchases I’ve ever made.

Boreal Birch said:

I am a big proponent of the old saying, “you get what you paid for!” Especially if it is optics, I bought some cheap binoculars that I thought were serving me just fine. One day while watching peregrine falcons feed their young on a cliff along the Yukon river, a birder let me use his Zeiss 10X40 binoculars. The difference was amazing, I scrimped & saved until I could buy my own. Twenty years later, I still think they were one of the best purchases I’ve ever made.

Click to expand...

I'm a big fan of quality optics as well. They can pick up small details in poor lighting and be absolutely stunning with good lighting.
When I was pretty serious about birding I found a set of Zeiss Victories that were half off due to a fella going out of business. They were great but as I spent less and less time birding I found I never took them on walks because of the weight. I sold them to a friend. Instead I've been very happily using Leica Ultravid 8x20 at home and on canoe trips with no worries. Very small, very light, great optics, good eye relief and waterproof.

This year I started to miss the big 10x40 binoculars so I picked up a pair of Zeiss Conquests. Not as nice as the Victories but pretty darn good. I use them around home to view the slough across the road and when I'm going out specifically for birding.

All that being said I managed to survive the first 33 years of my life without owning a pair of binoculars and I got by just fine. If it wasn't for having a little thing about birds there's no way I would have ever spent that much money on binoculars. But they sure are nice to have, even when it isn't birds I'm looking at.

Alan

Boreal Birch said:

I am a big proponent of the old saying, “you get what you paid for!” Especially if it is optics, I bought some cheap binoculars that I thought were serving me just fine. One day while watching peregrine falcons feed their young on a cliff along the Yukon river, a birder let me use his Zeiss 10X40 binoculars. The difference was amazing, I scrimped & saved until I could buy my own. Twenty years later, I still think they were one of the best purchases I’ve ever made.

Click to expand...

I agree, up to a point. I like to use bike components as an analogy.
Shimano's top of the line road groupo is Dura Ace, but Ultegra is nearly as good for considerably less money.
You always pay through the nose for that last little bit.
It's a matter of how rich or demanding you are. If you have the money or nothing but the very best will do, you get Dura Ace, but Ultegra is the far better value.
In the case of binoculars, it might also be a case of where you use them. I bought a pair of Bushnell Legends. They are no Swarovski, but not bargain binoculars either. After only a couple trips they were pretty much ruined by the fine sand you find on rivers in Utah. It gets into everything. I was upset enough at the loss. If they have been some Swarovski, expensive as heck, binoculars, I would have just about shot myself.
I can buy the expensive binoculars for home, but for river trips it gets just too expensive to keep buying $2,000 binoculars every few years.

You might find this helpful.

I gave up on binocs years ago- I'm not a birder and don't go out of my way looking for animals, so my primary use is to spot portages, ledges, or rocks. My little 8x monocular is more than up to the task for that, and I don't have to continually fiddle with it to adjust for the difference in my eyes. if I want a really crisp, long distance view, I'll whip out an old 20x 42 scope left over from my hunting days

Here's something else you might find useful.
I use a lens resolution test chart to test my binoculars.
Here's a spoiler: $400 binoculars don't have eight times better resolution than $50 binoculars.
They don't even have two times better resolution. I'd say it's between 10 and 20%.
I can find the portage trail just fine with the $50 binoculars.

Idiot Savant said:

Here's something else you might find useful.

https://www.graphics.cornell.edu/~westin/misc/ISO_12233-reschart.pdf

I use a lens resolution test chart to test my binoculars.
Here's a spoiler: $400 binoculars don't have eight times better resolution than $50 binoculars.
They don't even have two times better resolution. I'd say it's between 10 and 20%.
I can find the portage trail just fine with the $50 binoculars.

Click to expand...

That's what I have found as well. One summer I bought several different cheap monoculars to compare them against my vortex one. The more expensive glass is better, but not proportionally better, same as the study says.

The no-name Amazon ones were significantly worse than the others, even when they cost the same or more. Not worth buying at any price since the budget name brand monoculars (Bushnell, Celestron, Tasco, etc) were only 15-20 dollars.

The best of all the cheap ones was the Celestron, if anyone was wondering. I'd say it's 85% as good as the Vortex, but a quarter of the cost. The others were very close, but side by side I liked the Celestron best.

It's on sale for $12 right now, I just ordered another one to give to my nephew.

However, I will say that my uncle's $$$ Zeiss binoculars are noticeably better than even my Vortex monocular, especially in lower light situations like early in the morning or overcast days, rain, etc. But they cost 10 times as much.

scoutergriz said:

I gave up on binocs years ago- I'm not a birder and don't go out of my way looking for animals, so my primary use is to spot portages, ledges, or rocks. My little 8x monocular is more than up to the task for that, and I don't have to continually fiddle with it to adjust for the difference in my eyes. if I want a really crisp, long distance view, I'll whip out an old 20x 42 scope left over from my hunting days

Click to expand...

On a lot of binoculars, not all, you can lock the diopter adjustment so, if only one person is using it, you only have to set it once.
I've looked at monoculars a few times but, so far, haven't bought one. The main attraction for me, besides size, is you can get them pretty high power for fairly cheap. The downside is you can't see as much detail as you can with binoculars. At least I can't.

I just ordered this monocular:
A little on the large size, which probably defeats the main purpose of getting a monocular, but sounds pretty good for the price. I had a coupon so I got it even cheaper. It should fit in my thwart bag, so it would be handy without the danger of binoculars around my neck.
We'll see.

After hunting all my life and now watching birds, I like quality glass. But it does not feel so good to lose a pair on a boat trip. It happened once in the Ruby Marshes of Nevada. My friend's wild kid just jumped up and went over the side by climbing on the gunwale. Over we went.

I"ve got a set of Leitz Trinovids from the 80s, and a newish set of Nikon Accurons, both in 8x40. The Leitzs live by my office window, and the Nikons live by the window overlooking the birdfeeder. I've also got a set of light, cheap something or others that live in various gear bags when I'm going outside somewhere. Don't like them much, but won't worry if/when I trash them and need to replace them.