Sorry for the repeated bother, but for me this is a major, major purchase. I want to make sure I get something that will satisfy me for years to come, and I am finding I am not the best at telling images apart when I try them in person.
My budget is around $600.
I want a binocular with very, very low or no CA at all, and I'd also like to have a wide field/long depth of focus for easy viewing. I bird in the woods and at the lakeshore (Lake Michigan) all seasons (light is lower in winter). My light demands would initially lead me to a fullsize binocular, but I have a trick back and would prefer something closer to 20oz than 30.
Most have suggested the Nikon 8x32 SE, which I'm sure is excellent optically but does not to much for me otherwise. I have come across refurbished Nikon 8x32 LXs which add attractive features like locking diopeter, smooth focus, waterproof, durable but I've read about a CA problem and a depth of focus on the short side (but not by much). The E2 8x30 is supposedly close to the SE in image, with a better focus and at half the price, but possibly not as durable. I have read the 8x30 Zeiss ClassiC perform better with regard to CA and depth of focus but they are not as bright or fully waterproof (But damn, they are a Zeiss, points there). Swift Audubon or Audubon EDs are very clear and fot the bill optically but too big/heavy. The Leica Ultravid 10x25 is the only 10x I can steady well enough, are good optically and durable, exptremely light and portable (the 8x20s even more so) but possibly not quite big enough (but again, they do say Leica).
I suppose the SE 8x32, ClassiC 8x30, and Ultravid 10x25 are leading the list in that order.
WHAT IS A MAN TO DO!?!?!?!?
Apologies for the redundancy, but I nead some clarity lest I go insane.
Maybe I should just spend the money on a Parrot or a cage full of finches. Maybe I should lay of the coffee.
Thanks again, Rob.
My budget is around $600.
I want a binocular with very, very low or no CA at all, and I'd also like to have a wide field/long depth of focus for easy viewing. I bird in the woods and at the lakeshore (Lake Michigan) all seasons (light is lower in winter). My light demands would initially lead me to a fullsize binocular, but I have a trick back and would prefer something closer to 20oz than 30.
Rob, To my mind you've just described the Nikon 8x32 SE's! The SE's did not blow me away initially either, (like they seem to for some), but the more I use them and compare them with others the more I appreciate them. The SE's depth of field is significantly deeper than my Nikon 8x32 LX's. Both have nice wide, sharp field of views. The SE's image to my eye is much brighter and sharper than the LX's in low light, I particularly notice this viewing in timber. This is not too say I don't like my LX's. It is just when I compare them side by side with the SE's it is clear to me the SE's image is superior. (pun not intended) I happen to like 8x30ish binoculars. The SE's and LX's made me sell my Leica 8x32 BN's and Swarovski 8x30 SLC's. If you don't mind not dunking your bins in water and are more concerned with the image you see through them than the image you present with them hanging on your neck I heartily recommend the SE's. If you absolutely need to have them be waterproof and and can find some bargain prices (might be able to within your price range) I would recommend the LX's (I really can't say much about the issue of CA since I don't see it and really don't want to start). However, I don't think that you will ever regret purchasing the SE's. Just my two cents for whatever it's worth. Hope you really enjoy whatever you decide to purchase.
[QUOTE=cbushme]My budget is around $600.
I want a binocular with very, very low or no CA at all, and I'd also like to have a wide field/long depth of focus for easy viewing. I bird in the woods and at the lakeshore (Lake Michigan) all seasons (light is lower in winter). My light demands would initially lead me to a fullsize binocular, but I have a trick back and would prefer something closer to 20oz than 30.
Rob, To my mind you've just described the Nikon 8x32 SE's! The SE's did not blow me away initially either, (like they seem to for some), but the more I use them and compare them with others the more I appreciate them. The SE's depth of field is significantly deeper than my Nikon 8x32 LX's. Both have nice wide, sharp field of views. The SE's image to my eye is much brighter and sharper than the LX's in low light, I particularly notice this viewing in timber. This is not too say I don't like my LX's. It is just when I compare them side by side with the SE's it is clear to me the SE's image is superior. (pun not intended) I happen to like 8x30ish binoculars. The SE's and LX's made me sell my Leica 8x32 BN's and Swarovski 8x30 SLC's. If you don't mind not dunking your bins in water and are more concerned with the image you see through them than the image you present with them hanging on your neck I heartily recommend the SE's. If you absolutely need to have them be waterproof and and can find some bargain prices (might be able to within your price range) I would recommend the LX's (I really can't say much about the issue of CA since I don't see it and really don't want to start). However, I don't think that you will ever regret purchasing the SE's. Just my two cents for whatever it's worth. Hope you really enjoy whatever you decide to purchase.[/QUOTE]
Rob,
I was going to reply with exactly the same advice. SE optics are unbeatable. The Nikon LX's are great roofs (really great for the price), but not optically equivalent to the SE 8X32. If I could only own one, it would be, without the slightest hesitation, the SE.
John