Binocular suggestions

Heading to Alaska, northbound out of Vancouver, next August and because I'm a chronic overthinker, we need a good pair of binoculars. Obviously ones that provide clear views, but also small enough to be able to carry everywhere in a backpack or around our neck. Suggestions?

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

http://www.birdguides.com/webzine/article.asp?a=6232

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

After nearly one month of research, I chose the Celestron 8X32 Trailseeker binoculars for my recently completed Alaska + Denali cruise. They are small enough to fit the 5X5X3 compartment in my camera backpack, have attached lens covers, very lightweight, waterproof, nice carrying case with belt loop option, two neck straps, and they dramatically brightened the heavy overcast days.

Any power higher than "8X" would be difficult to use with rocking whale watching boats, buses, or trains.

I wish that I had purchased these years ago and not relied on my camera telephoto lens to find wildlife.

$189 from BH Photo.

I don't know what your price range is, but we wanted some nice binoculars but were not going to pay over $100 for them. We did research and ended up choosing these:

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0000AKGX3/ref=oh_aui_search_detailpage?ie=UTF8&psc=1

They worked great for us. Wide angle and easy to use. Only downfall is that the lens covers are not connected with a string or anything. I thought about retrofitting them myself, but didn't have time.

I've had a set like this for years used them on my 40' boat so rockin' and rolling is good; nice wide view and BRIGHT. I know some one talked about Celestron and someone talked about 10x50; yea' I know this is not the same but I've also got the Celestron 10X50 and they just don't get as much use since I got the Cabela's. Just so much more bang. Maybe not for the buck but for the eye!

Best of luck,

I've had a set like this for years used them on my 40' boat so rockin' and rolling is good; nice wide view and BRIGHT. I know some one talked about Celestron and someone talked about 10x50; yea' I know this is not the same but I've also got the Celestron 10X50 and they just don't get as much use since I got the Cabela's. Just so much more bang. Maybe not for the buck but for the eye!

Best of luck,

Silly me I forgot the URL

http://www.cabelas.com/product/CABELAS-INTENSITY-BINOCULARS/2312955.uts?searchPath=%2Fbrowse.cmd%3FcategoryId%3D734095080%26CQ_search%3D8x42%252Bbinoculars%26CQ_page%3D0

I got some Bushnell 10x42 on sale for under $60 and were compact, light weight, came with a case and lens covers. Worked wonderful for seeing wildlife off of our veranda. Also good for whale watching.

Swarovski EL's . Heading to Alaska in two weeks with a pair of 10*42 EL's . I've been glassing with Swarovski binoculars now for 19 years. Birding, Hunting and cruising.

I've been wondering about what binoculars to buy for our Alaska trip too. We have a very old compact pair which are light weight but I've been wanting something that would be easier to use and provide a better image. I decided to do some research on line before asking here.

I found this site helpful for explanations of what the specs mean and what features are important:

http://www.bestbinocularsreviews.com/binocular-awards-2016.php

And the reviews here were also quite helpful:

http://thewirecutter.com/reviews/the-best-binoculars/

I've decided that I want an 8x42 or 8x32 pair.

8x (how much they magnify) because as magnification goes up, the field of view (how much area you can see) goes down and it gets harder to find things and then keep them steady in the field of view. 7x or 8x is enough magnification most of the time and a low enough magnification to be easier to use without a tripod and from a boat/ship.

32 or 42 (the size of the objective lens where the image enters) because that is big enough to gather enough light for good images but not so big as to get too heavy. For Alaska in the summer where the daylight lasts so much of the day, perhaps even a lower size would be fine, but I figure this will make the binoculars generally useful beyond this trip. I'm undecided between 32 and 42. The models of the former that I'm looking at weighs about 16 oz while 42 pushes it up to around 25 ounces.

They must be waterproof/fogproof and have good long eye relief (a feature that lets them work well for glasses wearers like me).

Beyond the size, quality optic material and full multicoating delivers more light to the eyes and a clear, un-distorted image.

So these are the models that I'm trying to decide between. They all show up as recommended in many reviews and have all the features and specs I want.

Athlon Midas 8x42

Celestron Trailseeker 8x42 or 8x32

The Athlon Midas costs more but is supposed to deliver a slightly better image. That line doesn't have an 8x32. Celestron Trailseeker gets great reviews and it's priced at under $200. My husband has a pair of Celestron Nature DX 8x42 (a lower priced series) and they are quite nice to use. I like that they Trailseeker has a wider field of view, but if cost is an issue, they would be a good choice too.

I'm tempted by the 8x32 to get lower weight but exit pupil also goes down and I wonder if I will be happy with them.

So these are the models that I'm trying to decide between. They all show up as recommended in many reviews and have all the features and specs I want.

 

Athlon Midas 8x42

Celestron Trailseeker 8x42 or 8x32

 

The Athlon Midas costs more but is supposed to deliver a slightly better image. That line doesn't have an 8x32. Celestron Trailseeker gets great reviews and it's priced at under $200. My husband has a pair of Celestron Nature DX 8x42 (a lower priced series) and they are quite nice to use. I like that they Trailseeker has a wider field of view, but if cost is an issue, they would be a good choice too.

 

I'm tempted by the 8x32 to get lower weight but exit pupil also goes down and I wonder if I will be happy with them.

As I posted earlier on this thread, I really like my Trailseeker 8X32) because of their compact size (can fit in a jacket pocket) and their brightening of images in lower light. The additional case was a nice addition because it has both a neck strap and a belt loop.

As a glasses (progressives) wearer, the eye relief works fine for me.

We're planning on bringing what we already have but seeing this thread is making me reconsider. I have a decent pair of 10x50 that I got from Harbor Freight and we have a couple of 8x25's. We just don't really have much of a need for binoculars otherwise.......

Okay, since none of the models I'm considering are stocked anywhere local, I ordered them to compare with each other and with my husband's Celestron Nature DX. They arrived today.

They are all quite good and the differences between them are small. All feel similar to my hands in use except for the Celestron Trailseeker 8x32 being noticeably lighter and the Athlon Midas having a bit more texturing. All focus easily - sensitive enough that I can dial in the right focus from near and far pretty quickly but steady enough that I don't overshoot and have to fiddle around to get things exactly in focus.

Athlon Midas 8x42 and Celestron Trailseeker 8x42 are very close. The Midas might have a touch more clarity, maybe.

The biggest difference that I notice between them and the Celestron Nature DX is field of view. Field of view is about 9% less and it is noticeable.

The Celestron Trailseeker 8x32 gives up a bit of field of view to get the smaller size. It's 4% less - not that noticable. I had to compare what I was seeing between it and the 8x42 a couple of times to notice it. The view is quite clear and even looking into a dark area under the trees, it was hard to see a difference in the amount of light gathered vs the 8x42. I notice is the smaller exit pupil size at times. I may notice that more than the average because I had amblyopia that was corrected fairly late in childhood so when my eyes get tired one may wander a bit.

With the Trailseeker 8x32 and the Midas 8x42, I was able to quickly find and focus on a plane that happened to be overhead - it wasn't around long enough to check with all 4.

I'm leaning toward the Trailseeker 8x32 because when using the binoculars for a long time, the difference in weight gets noticeable, but I'm a bit torn because of the smaller exit pupil bothering me occasionally. (My arm muscles and my eye muscles in conflict.) I think I'll sleep on it and try them out again tomorrow.

As I posted earlier on this thread, I really like my Trailseeker 8X32) because of their compact size (can fit in a jacket pocket) and their brightening of images in lower light. The additional case was a nice addition because it has both a neck strap and a belt loop.

 

As a glasses (progressives) wearer, the eye relief works fine for me.

It works fine for me too (also a progressives wearer). I also found that the image was quite clear if I used them without my glasses and the long eye relief dialed out. Lasik took away most of my astigmatism and the image without glasses is quite clear. All the 4 models that I'm considering have diopter adjustment so if the diopter prescription (near sighted or far sighted correction) for your eyes is different, you can adjust the binoculars for that and take the glasses off. Of course that doesn't correct for astigmatism so it doesn't work when there is much astigmatism.

The Celestron Trailseeker 8x32 were really great for viewing in Alaska. I used them for our visits to Glacier Bay and Hubbard Glacier as well as for a 7.5 hour Kenai Fjords boat trip and the 8 hour Denali shuttle ride.

I was very satisfied with the image. The 7.8 degree angular field of view was large enough to make it easy to find things and keep them in view. The exit pupil size was large enough to make them easy to use. I appreciated the lighter weight (compared to the 8x42) which made holding them steady more comfortable). It was worth giving up a bit of field of view and exit pupil for lighter weight.

They came with a harness which I used. It made carrying the binoculars for the day seem effortless. Very convenient to have the binoculars always ready to use. It is more comfortable than a neck strap and the binoculars don't swing as much. The downside compared to a neckstrap is that the harness needs to be worn outside your outer garment or you can't fully close the front of the garment. So it needs to be taken off and put back on when changing how much warmth. For glacier viewing and the boat trip where I was frequently moving between inside and outside, I compromised by leaving it on under my rain shell and not fully closing the front of the shell and using the ends of my scarf to keep the breeze out of the gap.

There was one issue: the lens caps on the objectives come off too easily. I almost lost one because it fell off. After that, I kept them off when walking around with the binoculars on the harness. That comment has been made about objective caps on other brands too so it seems to be a pretty common problem.

8x42 roof prism would be my recommendation. It's a good time to buy in August because new models are coming in and old models get cleared out. I have generally been happy with Leupold and just picked up a great pair on clearance for my wife at MidwayUSA.

8x42 roof prism would be my recommendation. It's a good time to buy in August because new models are coming in and old models get cleared out. I have generally been happy with Leupold and just picked up a great pair on clearance for my wife at MidwayUSA.

We really like our Leupold's. We have the 8x42 BX-2 Cascades. They are roof prism and water proof. I ordered direct from them.