New = Better? (binoculars)

[moribundman]

About ten years ago I bought a pair of relatively compact rubber-armored, weather resistant and nitrogen-filled 8x24 (7.5° FOV) Pentax binoculars with BAK-4 prism and internal focus. These binocs were made in Japan. They were very well made and rugged with good daylight perfomance, and I have always used them when I didn't want to haul my large Steiner binocs around. These Pentax binoculars (8x24 UCF WR) have been discontinued, but are still available as NOS for around $190, but often for under $90.

I recently wanted to buy another pair of this type of binoculars. After comparing specs and various options, I decided to go with the current Pentax 8x25 (6.2° FOV) UCF WP, which were submersible. Their MSRP is around $150, but I found them for under $70 at Adorama. How could I resist?

I have to say I'm disappointed in what should be a modernized version of the decade old design I have been using. Both binoculars are almost identical in terms of size and weight. The new binocs have a rubber armor that not only feels cheaper and that is thinner, but which is also attached poorly to the polycarbonate shell. The new design allows also easy sand and dirt ingress into the folding mechanism. The optics of the older binocs are far superior with better resolution and better sharpness (tested it on newsprint over 20 meters). I don't know for sure, but I assume that sloppy and careless alignment of prisms and lens elements during assembly is to blame for the inferior optical performance rather than a worse lens design. The new Pentax binocs were made in China.

The only feature that is superior on the new binocs are the extendable twist-and-click eye cups with positive detents. The older binocular has simple, pull-out eye cups, which do work however just fine, and which are probably more reliable in the long run.

So, if you are looking for relatively compact, weather resistant binoculars, I suggest you snap up a pair of "old" Pentax 8x24 UCF WR binocs. Don't buy the new version, which is junk!

End of rant.

 

[Bob Woods]

I have an old pair of 7X50 binoculars I bought in Japan in the early 60's that have glass lenses, most of the newer ones have plastic lenses. Could that be the problem?

 

[moribundman]

Quote:
most of the newer ones have plastic lenses

Not if you pay over $10.

No. No plastic lens elements here. I'm sure it's an alignment/collimation issue due to shoddy assembly.

I never even bought any of those Nikon SLR lenses that had a aspherical hybrid lens element, which was made by sandwiching a pressed plastic lens (donut) and a glass lens, as Nikon did, for example, with their 28-90mm AF D lens.

 

[GMBoy]

May it needs Auto RX to clean it up...

 

[moribundman]

Returning it is what it needs!

 

[oilyriser]

Returning through a time machine will fix the problem... for a while.

 

[moribundman]

I'm still working on that...

 

[1sttruck]

For awhile newer models seemed to offer better performance in spite of what appeared to be lower quality polishing and lighter / less robust mechanics, due to better designs and especially better coatings. I was impressed at the resolution on some old models in spite of the lower contrast / more flare. Now though it's hard to find stuff not made in China.

Unfortunately companies tend to provide what people want to buy, and the mass market wants light weight, low cost stuff so it ends up being cheaply made.

 

[wavinwayne]

I'm thankful that I still have the pair of USA made binoculars that my Dad bought back in the late 60's or early 70's. They were probably relatively inexpensive when he bought them, but the craftsmanship of them is much better than most of the Chinese junk on the market today.

With that said, I'd trade them for a new Swarovski Habicht binoc. in a split second.

 

[tdi-rick]

Originally Posted By: 1sttruck


Unfortunately companies tend to provide what people want to buy, and the mass market wants light weight, low cost stuff so it ends up being cheaply made.


Yes.

I bought a pair of Steiners fifteen years ago that I wont willingly part with for a long time to come.

They were relatively exxy at the time, but a lot cheaper than Zeiss, Swarovski et al, (and probably not in the same performance league, either) yet a lot lot better than the 'cheaper' more common brands.

 

[moribundman]

Originally Posted By: 1sttruck
Now though it's hard to find stuff not made in China.


Olympus has gone back to camera lens assembly performed mostly in Japan due to quality issues with outsourced productions for several years. Trends can reverse.

 

[Rolf]

Originally Posted By: moribundman
I have to say I'm disappointed in what should be a modernized version of the decade old design I have been using. Both binoculars are almost identical in terms of size and weight. The new binocs have a rubber armor that not only feels cheaper and that is thinner, but which is also attached poorly to the polycarbonate shell. The new design allows also easy sand and dirt ingress into the folding mechanism. The optics of the older binocs are far superior with better resolution and better sharpness (tested it on newsprint over 20 meters). I don't know for sure, but I assume that sloppy and careless alignment of prisms and lens elements during assembly is to blame for the inferior optical performance rather than a worse lens design. The new Pentax binocs were made in China.


These days if you're going to spend less than $200-300, you're going to find the quality of porro prism binoculars a lot higher than the roof prism like this low-end Pentax.

Alignment in the roof prisms is much more critical and it requires sophisticated multi-coatings to approach the contrast and clarity of a porro prism design. Here, for example, is a sampling of binoculars at various price points:

http://www.birds.cornell.edu/Publications/LivingBird/Winter2005/Age_Binos.html

If you want the compact size of a roof prism, you're going to spend a lot more than $100 for optical quality.



.

 

[mechtech2]

Korea {South] seems to be the next Japan with regards to quality.
But even then, there are no guarantees.
China stuff is often iffy, concerning any item.

 

[moribundman]

Originally Posted By: Rolf
Originally Posted By: moribundman
I have to say I'm disappointed in what should be a modernized version of the decade old design I have been using. Both binoculars are almost identical in terms of size and weight. The new binocs have a rubber armor that not only feels cheaper and that is thinner, but which is also attached poorly to the polycarbonate shell. The new design allows also easy sand and dirt ingress into the folding mechanism. The optics of the older binocs are far superior with better resolution and better sharpness (tested it on newsprint over 20 meters). I don't know for sure, but I assume that sloppy and careless alignment of prisms and lens elements during assembly is to blame for the inferior optical performance rather than a worse lens design. The new Pentax binocs were made in China.


These days if you're going to spend less than $200-300, you're going to find the quality of porro prism binoculars a lot higher than the roof prism like this low-end Pentax.

Alignment in the roof prisms is much more critical and it requires sophisticated multi-coatings to approach the contrast and clarity of a porro prism design. Here, for example, is a sampling of binoculars at various price points:

http://www.birds.cornell.edu/Publications/LivingBird/Winter2005/Age_Binos.html

If you want the compact size of a roof prism, you're going to spend a lot more than $100 for optical quality.



.


Mr. Mouse, first of all I already said I was pretty sure it was an alignment issue.

Second, you got it wrong. Both of these Pentax binocs use inverted porro prisms (BAK-4), they do not have roof prisms.

Third, it is roof prisms that have the inherent issues not only with the quality of prisms, which require phase correction, but which also require super accurate alignment due to how the optical path is "folded." An inexpensive roof prism design is always optically inferior to a porro prism design, but the latter can, at high cost, achieve near identical performance. Porro prism designs do not got out of alignment as easily as do roof prism designs.

Don't tell me about price point, without knowing the purpose for which I need small binocs. You simply do not know my requirements in this case.* My post was a complaint about the older Pentax binocs that I mentioned, it was rather an observation regarding the lower quality of the equivalent current production model, which is lower in almost every regard.

*
water resistant
rubber armor
under 13 oz
7x or 8x 24 to 28
internal focus (only other binocs in this size price range were Chinese Vortex)
inverse porro prims design (reduces the size simply through design)
>$200 (for rough use around water sand and dust)


My old Pentax binocs gave me all that I needed. I had hoped they newer version would match the old pair, but no. Even if they matches optically, just the fact that the rubber armor on the new model is attached very poorly would be reason enough to return those binoculars.

 

[moribundman]

I'll elaborate a bit:

As you can see from the pictures below, these two Pentax binocs, one obviously being the newer version of the other, "should" compare in performance. At least that's what I would expect.

Check out the massive gap in the folding mechananism of the new version. You can tell in the picture, so you will just have to believe me that the rubber armor is glued on shoddily and only in spots in case of the new version (blue). The old version (grey) is much better designed and much better put together.

The new materials suck. The new rubber armor and the eye cups attract dust like mad and feel cheap compared to the materials used on the older version. Also note the huge gap between the rubber armor and the tripod mount. The mount itself is now smaller (and probably weaker).

Here are some of my binocs (plus the new which is being returned) plus one tiny monoculars. As anybody can guess, I'm not going to stick the Steiner binocs in my jacket pocket wherever I go.

The small Nikons binocs (ca 25 years old) in the front are not weather resistant. Optically they are pretty good, though. The monocular is small enough to fit in the "condom" pocket of a pair of jeans.

The Pentax binocs are the largest size I'm willing to carry anywhere and anytime. I'll just get another one of the old version, which are still available. Oh, and Pentax will hear from me and my dissatisfaction with their shoddily designed and slapped together Made-in-China binocs.

 

[Shannow]

In the second pic, the newies look more scuffed/worn than the oldies.

 

[moribundman]

That's because they attract dust like mad. The dust trails on the barrels are from the binocs picking up dust from the seamless (see first shot). The eye cups were speckled with dust within milliseconds of unpacking the binocs. Keep in mind that my old grey Pentax have spent many hours on sandy beaches, in the desert, spending the rest of the time rattling around in the glove box.

 

[CivicFan]

Why do you need to carry binoculars with you so frequently? Who o you 'look' at?

 

[moribundman]

Mrs Otter and Mr S. Lion are on my observation list, as is Ms Wren.

 

[Rolf]

Originally Posted By: moribundman
Mr. Mouse .....


Yes, Tinkerbell?

I believe, I believe, I believe .....



.