can anyone enlighten me as to the quality of some older russian bins? the particular model im interested in merely as a collector is a BPC5 8x30 porro stamped made in the USSR.
i just bid and won a pair for the princely sum of £15 and am awaiting delivery. went out on a bit of a limb as i dont know an awfull lot about russian stuff apart from some of it is very good.
any information regarding coatings and performance would be great as well as any models to look out for or avoid
thanks mark
The current BPC5 is listed as multicoated when you go to the web page shown in info by Holger Merlitz. [I] have a series of them and all of them are sharp to the point of ridiculum, although the older ones are not water resistant, the new ones say they are, although not waterproof.
In general I have found them to be lightweight even going back a few models/versions. The bridge may not be tight on some I've heard, but mine are all excellent. I don't wear eyeglasses but some reviews say this is difficult when using this binocular.
All in all my BPC5s are fast handling, low cost, lightweight, and very sharp. The field of view isn't the widest in my collection but it is very good. I now have 4 pairs and none has given me or any other user a problem. I have Nikon E and E11 8x30s and they are very good as well, in fact likely better but that isn't always obvious. I don't have the 8x32 SE. I do have many other 8x30 bins because it is my favorite size for birding. Good luck and have fun.
i've been looking back through old posts here and on other forums and seen conflicting revues. i am however looking foward to recieving the pair i won in the post to see for myself.
some report a mild or strong yellow cast and variation in coatings from seemingly none to fully multi coated, i have heard of a multi coating proccess that leaves the lenses seemingly clear. but why the strong yellow cast? is this an intentional thing similar to yellow filters found on rifle scopes to cut through haze? seems strange as they come with filters that fit into the eyepeices for this. maybe its an aging proccess? or the reviewer had filters already attached with out reallising it?