Benocklurs
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /out/ - Outdoors
You are currently reading a thread in /out/ - Outdoors
Are binoculars worth spending more than $200?
Discuss.
Yes, a good pair of binos will last you basically forever. If you're actually gonna use them, it's a good investment.
As long as you actually use them, good pair of nocks will last basically forever and if you take care of them they're worth their value.
>>627923
If you hunt they are imperative
I have shitty Vivitar binoculars and my brother has some expensive German Stein something. It seems like I'm always saying, while looking through my binoculars and he through his "where... I don't see it" and my brother always seems to say "here, look through mine"
>>627933
I'm guessing you've never actually looked through a set of Swarovski ELs...
>>627990
I like looking through my brother's Swarovskis but not enough to pay for my own Swarovskis
Save money by getting shittier seats than you otherwise would have.
>>627990
yeah there's tons of things i would rather spend 2k on like a telescope
2k for some binos is retard teir unless you are a professional birdwatcher or some crazy shit
>>627948
>German Stein
Steiner, I have a pair of their binoculars and I have a rifle scope they make on my AR. They make very nice glass and they have a very nice warranty to back it up should anything ever go wrong. The only downside is their price.
>>627933
Depends how often you use them as well.
If you're only ever going to use them once a year a $100 pair is the threshold for something that if not abused should still last.
If you're using them a couple times a year then $300 models provide a decent upgrade.
If you're using them every week then a >$1000 model is a reasonable investment.
I have a ~$100 Vortex mono to get a closer look at things when hiking and am happy.
>>628054
I'd multiply your prices by a factor of 0.2. Even $60 binocs can be pretty decent these days.
Wouln't ever consider going over $1k on binocs even for daily use unless I had a specific reason to need that kind of resolution over my Celestrons. I'd rather put that kind of money towards DSLR lenses or an astronomical telescope, or at least a spotting scope, where it actually makes a meaningful difference.
>>628033
safety: always off
>>628054
>100 for something you will use once a year
what the fuck am i reading
>>627923
Good binoculars are absolutely essential for hunting (you should always identify your targets with binocs first rather than your scope) and wonderful to have on /out/ings like canoe trips where you have lots of opportunity to watch birds and survey your surroundings.
I find them less important backpacking since they're heavy and I don't own a good small set.
I have a Vortex Diamondback 8x42 and they're great. I spent about $250 and am happy with the clarity and value.
However the advantages of good glass are significant. I have a Zeiss Conquest 3-9x40 scope on my 308 and it's head over heels better than my less expensive scopes I own like the Vortex Crossfire on my 22.
The funny thing with optics is you never realize how much better the good stuff is until you've been using it; I always used to think Oakleys were foolish until I owned some for a while.
>>627933
the longer you're trying to see, the more those minor aberations matter.
Nikon has really let their quality slip over the years.
I rock Leupolds and they are much clearer than a pair of bushnells I have, Zeiss and Swarovski and Schmidt and Benders are the top of the line because of the clarity of the glass and the QA in the finished product
>>628134
oakleys are plastic trash though
What about NODs?
>>628118
You do realize you can't put the safety on unless the hammer is cocked right?
>>628644
You serious? If so, I did not know that.
>Also, will be sticking to my Kalashnikov as at least the safety works at all times.
>>627923
As a birder I definitely believe that more than 200 for binos is worth it. Depending on your use though it might not always be. Vortex are great though and I believe they have a lifetime warranty so it a long term investment.
today B&H has some pretty spiffy nocks for $250 off. I'm not much of a nocker myself but in case anyone's in the market figured i'd letcha know.
>>628028
>2k
Reread the OP. Then come back and correct yourself.
>>629924
lol i wish i could see the look on your face when you realize it
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_WCiBPjckTg
you should always bring your nocs, little dog.
>>628033
Gotta call this one.
Ain't nothing. a Leupold Mk4 can't do for less than 1/2$.
German glass is good, but Nikon and Leupold are right there for less than half the meme.
Total <$175. Breddy good, though @ 15x 70 cannot resolve rings of Saturn.
>>628121
I know, right?
For $29 USD you can pick up a pair of 10 x 50 Barska's from Big 5 that are coated glass for $30!
>>627923
im getting some vortex diamondbacks @ 12x by 50mm in the mail this week, with a 6x rangefinder that goes out to 650 yards, im pretty much set for glass hunting wise.
>>630120
Solid. I got the 10x42, use them for birding. Since you're a hunter I'll assume you're rugged and won't have problems with the extra weight.
>>630122
>Since you're a hunter I'll assume you're rugged and won't have problems with the extra weight.
pretty much, i travel fairly light when im off of a vehicle.
>>627923
what uses a binocular has anyways?
i mean not on sea or if you are a soldier but innawoods?
>>630150
Seeing things you want to see from far away. Kinda self explanatory.
>>630171
but i can see everything i need to see just fine
mostly i search for hilltops to get a rough estimate where i am maybe look at where the sun is or the stars if night you don't need a binoc for that.
>>630176
> but Papa, the world is flat, Man wasn't meant to fly
>>630180
no i just don't see the fucking point
that's all there are terrains where it can come handy just not in hilly woodland
there is no particular detail you can get with a binoc in a forest if you see a tree or if you can count the leaves on a tree it's all the same
>>630182
If you don't hunt there's really no use for them desu.
>>630190
i guess i just like to look at stuff close up.
also i hate it how a binoc limits your field of view.
> i dont need input
#5 is not alive...
>>630192
Birds, animals and nude sunbathers tend to run away if you get too close. Full size binoculars are a pain in the ass to carry on a hike, but compacts are small and light, the main drawback is in low light.
I just got picture related for $50 Canadian on amazon.ca - small, light, waterproof, and the optics aren't bad at all. Even comes in a Bear Grylls version if you're into it.
>>630196
>Even comes in a Bear Grylls version if you're into it.
lolno
i like the color scheme and there was a lot of thought put into some of the design but they all fail to be a good tool for the price.
basically it's all overpriced shit.
>>630200
sorry, i meant overpriced gimmicky shit
>>630002
>Ain't nothing. a Leupold Mk4 can't do for less than 1/2$
That simply isnt true, they will work fine but you get what you pay for, if you want very little chromatic aberration and a larger fov at longer ranges you will need nicer glass. Buy once cry once. Admittedly, the nicer glass is much more expensive and it only offers a small increase in usefulness but to say there is no difference is outright a lie. So either you have never looked through nice glass or are just mad that people can save money/have more money than you. If it is the last option I highly suggest you vote for Sanders.
I picked up 10x42 vortex diamondbacks for deer season this year and was really happy with them. Got them for around 225ish w/ a $50 dollar rebate so it was a solid deal.
I highly recommend vortex. The price point for vortex is typically higher than competitors, however their unconditional lifetime warranty is unbeatable. The peace of mind is worth the extra up front.
Also this pair comes w/ caps to protect lenses and comfy neck strap.
>>627923
What about monononocks? I'd like to add some kind of optical scope to my EDC and was contemplating mono for weight savings.
Are there substantial advantages to getting binocs other than comfort?
>>627923
There is a big difference between shit glass and good glass. Going from baska to a nightforce is night and day.
That said, its subjective if its worth it to you
>>630304
And NightForce is merely mediocre glass.
HD Razor or the Steiners would likely be an upgrade. NF glass is from Japan and I have better glass than that from LWO Japan.
Those two binoc companies are one's I'm also considering for sighting optics, btw.
>>630200
In this case it's exactly the same product with some orange on it, I know because I got my mom the BG ones for her birthday last year and I liked them. Only gimmick was the signal mirror that came with them which I stole for my kayaking kit.
I was actually willing to pay a bit extra for the non-BG version (local cheap place only carried the BG one) until I found it on sale.
>>630247
>Are there substantial advantages to getting binocs other than comfort?
a 3D image.
What would you guys suggest for a reasonably priced compact pair with at least 10x magnification?
>>630229
> vote for Sanders
Now that's just low, man. Pretty much invalidates your whole post.
> doesn't have the balls to say it to my face and get his ass kicked
>>630499
I think there's a 12x version of those Bushnells I posted.
>>630229
>Bringing politics into a nocs discussion.
You've already lost.
Like most other things binoculars are subject to the law of diminishing returns and your positive emotions regarding your $3000 binoculars play a much larger role in your experience with them than you'd ever be willing to admit.
>>630229
Please, the Steiner on top of that AR is easily bested by a $300 SWFA Super Sniper.
A 30mm tube with 64 MOA of elevation adjustment, with a $1k+ MSRP? Hilarious!
Minimum parallax >150 FT? Hilarious!
The SWFA HDs, by the way, crush everything Steiner has ever made, by a lot.
PS - nice mount! >what is ring spacing?
Boob.
>>628673
I don't see why it needs to, other than to sooth people's autism. I mean there are two ways to cock the hammer, obviously by using the charging handle or shotgunning it and cocking it by hand.
Either way, if the hammer isn't cocked you won't have a round in the chamber unless you pulled the bolt carrier back and dropped it in by hand. In which case you either need to charge it and eject the round in the chamber (rendering doing that completely pointless) or shotgunning it and cocking the hammer by hand (very combat ineffective). There is literally zero good reason to have the safety on without a round being chambered.
>>628673
some ak variants fire when safety is engaged with excess force tho... there is nothing more dangerous than that.
>>630557
It's worse than that, the /k/unt is talking about rifle scopes.
Saving this gem of a thread from 404'ing
>>633149
Yet it still applies to all binoculars and rifle scopes.
>>628118
Found the nofuns faggot. Enjoy your mudlsime overlords eurocuk
http://www.amazon.com/Bushnell-Powerview-Compact-Folding-Binocular/dp/B00CTUXKWY/ref=pd_sim_sbs_200_1?ie=UTF8&dpID=41naR93BcwL&dpSrc=sims&preST=_AC_UL160_SR160%2C160_&refRID=0PDNTSAEVWC0E3BCGJ2M
Got these on amazon for about $20 and used them a few times for birding. For the cost, weight, and size they're perfect.
Here's a tip: Pentax and Zeiss use the same lens coatings and optical designs in their lines. Save some money and go Japanese.
I have a pair of Zeiss binoculars which were among the last to say Made In West Germany. Also, Minox monocular is fucking kick ass. Too bad they quit making the flat ones.
>>635974
>Here's a tip: Pentax and Zeiss use the same lens coatings and optical designs in their lines
Do they both use Schott glass?
What's /out/'s opinion on these?
http://shop.nationalgeographic.com/ngs/product/gear---gadgets/binoculars-and-optics/national-geographic-10-x-50-compact-roof-prism-binocular
