Binoculars for field target

brassgbits

New member
Anybody got any recommendations for field target cost less than £100
 


KidCurry

Active member
I own some Opticron 10x25 which are excellent but cost over £200. If I was buying again I would go for the Nikon Travelite EX 8x25 or 10x25. They are outstanding value, very good quality, good glass across the whole field of view, waterproof and nitrogen filled, 10 yr guarantee. My brother owns some 10x25 and I find them excellent right up to, and including, 100 yds. They can be found for less than £100. Make sure they are the fully armored version. John lewis sell them for £99.95 but they can be found cheaper.
 


robert43

Member
What ever you get make sure they are BAK4 type I use cheap Scokc 10 x 42 I had a better pair for get the brand they cost about $400 Oz & these cost about $100 Oz & I cant see the difference & field is all I shoot as no target clubs under 3hrs away & my clubs about 15 mins away
 


Emmadragon

Supporter
Supporter
I got a Gillo monocular for Christmas, and it's actually really good, especially for the price (around £40). I was very pleasantly surprised when I used it recently. Perris Archery was the supplier, I think.
 


Geophys

Member
I tried various binoculars for field archery. problem was that any that were really good at light gathering in the woods were quite bulky. After a trip to the USA where I got to talk to a number of bow hunters they all without exception said that they used a monocular. Their monocular of choice seemed to be the Vortex 10x36, I found one on amazon. They are not cheap, but are great in woodland shooting. image quality and light gathering are superb. If I lost this one I'd get another one in a shot.

 


Kernowlad

Member
I tried various binoculars for field archery. problem was that any that were really good at light gathering in the woods were quite bulky. After a trip to the USA where I got to talk to a number of bow hunters they all without exception said that they used a monocular. Their monocular of choice seemed to be the Vortex 10x36, I found one on amazon. They are not cheap, but are great in woodland shooting. image quality and light gathering are superb. If I lost this one I'd get another one in a shot.

Looks good; I may have to buy one...
 


fbirder

Supporter
Supporter
I tried various binoculars for field archery. problem was that any that were really good at light gathering in the woods were quite bulky. After a trip to the USA where I got to talk to a number of bow hunters they all without exception said that they used a monocular. Their monocular of choice seemed to be the Vortex 10x36, I found one on amazon. They are not cheap, but are great in woodland shooting. image quality and light gathering are superb. If I lost this one I'd get another one in a shot.

The problem I can see with them is that 10x36 will not give a very bright image. 10x50 will give an image that is twice as bright, but then you're looking at 50% extra weight (compared to the Barr & Stroud 10x50 Sprite Monocular).
 


Geophys

Member
I have found that they give very good light transmission. It's the quality and coatings of the glass that makes the difference, it's also what contributes to the relatively higher price. Do not assume that the 10x50 from one maker will transmit more light than the 10x36 from another. I have used these Vortex 10x36 now for 2 years of field shooting and as I said would by another one in an instant. I'm afraid with optics you do get what you pay for. They are certainly the equal of any 10x50 I have looked through that was under £300. One of my club mates had the B&S 10x50 and it didn't compare to the Vortex for image quality, he now has one these instead.
 


fbirder

Supporter
Supporter
I have found that they give very good light transmission. It's the quality and coatings of the glass that makes the difference, it's also what contributes to the relatively higher price. Do not assume that the 10x50 from one maker will transmit more light than the 10x36 from another. I have used these Vortex 10x36 now for 2 years of field shooting and as I said would by another one in an instant. I'm afraid with optics you do get what you pay for. They are certainly the equal of any 10x50 I have looked through that was under £300. One of my club mates had the B&S 10x50 and it didn't compare to the Vortex for image quality, he now has one these instead.
The transmission difference will be, at the very most, 15 percent. Nowhere near the 100% difference you get from having a huge hole in the front.

Before archery my main hobbies were photography, birding and astronomy - all rely on a good knowledge of optics. And in all of them you learn that you need a large might-gathering hole to get a bright image. I have spent tens of thousands on lenses. My binoculars were £1200. My scope was £1600 (although I use my £500 travel scope for archery).
 


fbirder

Supporter
Supporter
Of course, brightness isn't the be all and end all. Image quality depends on lots of other things. Cheap glass can give you a bright, blurry image with coloured edges. Expensive glass might not be so bright, but it will be clearer. There is a trade off between the two.

Then there's useability. Hardly anybody talks about eye-relief. But it's really important for scope users who wear glasses.
 


brman

Member
I was curious about this - I am fairly clued up on optics (not an optics expert but I used to run a camera development team....) but I have never really considered it in relation to binoculars.
My first reaction was: it is likely to be more complicated than just size and a few coatings.
So... I just pulled out the three sets of binoculars I have in the house. Nikon 9x25 travel, Zeiss 10x50 and Bushnell 8x42. So about £100 worth, £300 worth* and £100 worth respectively. (*"what you would pay new nowadays to get the same quality" according to the guy who cleaned and fixed them for me)

Now these are all different magnifications but not massively so. So I thought the apparent brightness might follow the size. It does not. Worst by far are the nikons. Fair enough, they are pretty small. 2nd was the zeiss and first were the bushnell. So the slightly smaller but much newer bushnell are noticably brighter than the older zeiss. Maybe that is coatings, the zeiss are "multi-coated" but coatings have come on a long way in 50 years.
BUT: to my eyes, despite not being as bright, the zeiss are much better binos. Clearer, sharper and higher contrast images. For low light I would use them anyday.
So why are the zeiss better when the bushnell are brighter? My guess (and it is a half educated guess) is that brighter means more light gets through. So more advanced glass and coatings maybe on the bushnells? But perhaps also more light where it should not be - the brighter image is partially veiling glare (scattered light) which makes the image brighter but also reduces contrast and resolution. Hence the zeiss being sharper and better contrast but less bright. What light does come through the zeiss is from the image, not something scattering from somewhere else.

So yes, my first reaction was correct, it is more complicated than just size and coatings.... ;)
 


robert43

Member
The transmission difference will be, at the very most, 15 percent. Nowhere near the 100% difference you get from having a huge hole in the front.

Before archery my main hobbies were photography, birding and astronomy - all rely on a good knowledge of optics. And in all of them you learn that you need a large might-gathering hole to get a bright image. I have spent tens of thousands on lenses. My binoculars were £1200. My scope was £1600 (although I use my £500 travel scope for archery).
Yes there a big difference in glass in lens / binos as I don't want to think what I have spent over 25+ years in camera gear lens ( a bit like archery LOL)
 


fbirder

Supporter
Supporter
I was curious about this - I am fairly clued up on optics (not an optics expert but I used to run a camera development team....) but I have never really considered it in relation to binoculars.
My first reaction was: it is likely to be more complicated than just size and a few coatings.
So... I just pulled out the three sets of binoculars I have in the house. Nikon 9x25 travel, Zeiss 10x50 and Bushnell 8x42. So about £100 worth,
You can calculate a theoretical maximum relative brightness for binoculars as the square of the (objective lens size/magnification).

For your three bins you get - 7.7 for the Nikon, 25 for the Zeiss, 27.5 for the Bushnell.

So, in theory the Zeiss and Bushnell should be similar and way better than the Nikon. The difference you saw in the two better ones is almost certainly differences and lens (and prism) coatings. Every time light crosses (or bounces from) an air/glass interface some of it will be absorbed/reflected/scattered. Good coating can make a huge difference to this. It's why some camera lenses are prone to really bad flare and low-contrast images when shooting into the sun.

This was brought home to me in Africa. The lodge we were staying in was on a river bank and, every evening, they would leave meat out on the opposite bank for a leopard. I had my 8x42 Hawke Frontier bins and couldn't see anything apart from a moving shadow. The guy sitting next to me lent me his Leica's (also 8x42) and suddenly the shadow became a leopard.

In theory they should have been just as bright. In practice it was night and day. I bought some Swarovski bins before my next Africa trip.

But when I compare my Hawke's with the Swaros under most lighting conditions there's no real difference noticeable.
 


brman

Member
You can calculate a theoretical maximum relative brightness for binoculars as the square of the (objective lens size/magnification).

For your three bins you get - 7.7 for the Nikon, 25 for the Zeiss, 27.5 for the Bushnell.

So, in theory the Zeiss and Bushnell should be similar and way better than the Nikon. The difference you saw in the two better ones is almost certainly differences and lens (and prism) coatings. Every time light crosses (or bounces from) an air/glass interface some of it will be absorbed/reflected/scattered. Good coating can make a huge difference to this. It's why some camera lenses are prone to really bad flare and low-contrast images when shooting into the sun.

This was brought home to me in Africa. The lodge we were staying in was on a river bank and, every evening, they would leave meat out on the opposite bank for a leopard. I had my 8x42 Hawke Frontier bins and couldn't see anything apart from a moving shadow. The guy sitting next to me lent me his Leica's (also 8x42) and suddenly the shadow became a leopard.

In theory they should have been just as bright. In practice it was night and day. I bought some Swarovski bins before my next Africa trip.

But when I compare my Hawke's with the Swaros under most lighting conditions there's no real difference noticeable.
Agreed, which is why I wanted to make the point that specs don't tell you much. Which I think is the point relevant to this thread, Just because one is a 10x50 and other is 10x40 doesn't necessarly make the 10x50 better. It might be, but it might not......
 


brassgbits

New member
I tried some Olympus 10x50 DPS they seemed 90% effective in the woods. I bought some Olympus 10x42 EXP on eBay as I assumed they would be better from the same maker but at more than twice the cost. This as it turns out to be true were I could not see the knocks on around 4 dark targets with the DPS I can see even the black carbon shaft entering the black target seems that size does not matter but price does
 


bimble

Active member
Supporter
Fonz Awardee
Ironman
In theory they should have been just as bright. In practice it was night and day. I bought some Swarovski bins before my next Africa trip..
One evening we had the Swarovski guy come down to our club last summer with a crate of binos & one of spotting scopes... I swear looking through the spotting scopes was brighter than using just my eyes!!
 


Top