Pentax NV and CS series

Right, same here. The 8x32 is one of my favorites as [link=http://www.opticsplanet.com/binoculars.html]binocular[/link] sizes go.

[link=http://www.opticsplanet.com/pentax-brand.html]Pentax[/link] will do the job, try to get 8x.

I had fun with the [link=http://www.opticsplanet.com/eagle-optics-brand.html]Eagle Optics[/link] 8x32, they were quite sharp in the center, I took them hiking. Much more pleasant view than the 8x25s. I still have the [link=http://www.opticsplanet.com/pentax-brand.html]Pentax[/link] 8x32, sold the EO as they were older, but not really more worse I would say. The [link=http://www.opticsplanet.com/pentax-brand.html]Pentax[/link] maybe wider sweet spot.

8x32 is fine. With 10x, get as big as you feel you can carry, as 10x32s ara a bit shaky.

[quote="librarian"]Hello,
I'm interested in something in roughly the $200 to $500 price range. Use would not be extremely heavy but I do like to have them for day hiking. I know people think very well of the [link=http://www.opticsplanet.com/pentax-brand.html]Pentax[/link] SPs, but I think they're a bit outside my budget. I have not seen much comment on the [link=http://www.opticsplanet.com/pentax-brand.html]Pentax[/link] NV (36 mm) and CS (42 mm)series and I'm curious about comparisons with the [link=http://www.opticsplanet.com/eagle-optics-brand.html]Eagle Optics[/link] Rangers, the [link=http://www.opticsplanet.com/nikon-brand.html]Nikon[/link] Monarch and (spending a little) the [link=http://www.opticsplanet.com/swift-brand.html]Swift[/link] Eaglet. Also, about sizes, in general would there be a significant difference between a 32 and a 36mm [link=http://www.opticsplanet.com/binoculars.html]binocular[/link]?

Thanks for any comments.
librarian[/quote]

I've had recent purchases of [link=http://www.opticsplanet.com/pentax-brand.html]Pentax[/link] 10x36 DCF Nv, [link=http://www.opticsplanet.com/nikon-brand.html]Nikon[/link] 8x36 Buckmaster (Sporter), [link=http://www.opticsplanet.com/weaver-brand.html]Weaver[/link] 8x42 Classic, Redhead 10x42 Outlook, & [link=http://www.opticsplanet.com/celestron-brand.html]Celestron[/link] 8x42 Outland. The [link=http://www.opticsplanet.com/weaver-brand.html]Weaver[/link] & [link=http://www.opticsplanet.com/nikon-brand.html]Nikon[/link] disappointedly focused only to 12 feet, & the [link=http://www.opticsplanet.com/pentax-brand.html]Pentax[/link] & Redhead to 9 feet. The Buckmaster, with its large eyepieces, gives the most pleasant & crisp 55 degree views, altho the Redhead 10 power, understandably shows more central detail. However, the 10 power [link=http://www.opticsplanet.com/pentax-brand.html]Pentax[/link] & [link=http://www.opticsplanet.com/weaver-brand.html]Weaver[/link] show more detail in the center & edge views & have more pleasant views than the Redhead. Tho the [link=http://www.opticsplanet.com/celestron-brand.html]Celestron[/link] focuses to 6 feet , many [link=http://www.opticsplanet.com/binoculars.html]binoculars[/link] focus much closer. [link=http://www.opticsplanet.com/celestron-brand.html]Celestron[/link]'s contrast is not good & has little FOV. In order with respect to brightness........ the [link=http://www.opticsplanet.com/weaver-brand.html]Weaver[/link], [link=http://www.opticsplanet.com/nikon-brand.html]Nikon[/link], Redhead, [link=http://www.opticsplanet.com/pentax-brand.html]Pentax[/link]...... & in last place by a lot, the [link=http://www.opticsplanet.com/celestron-brand.html]Celestron[/link]. In order of 'pleasurable viewing'........ [link=http://www.opticsplanet.com/nikon-brand.html]Nikon[/link], [link=http://www.opticsplanet.com/pentax-brand.html]Pentax[/link] or [link=http://www.opticsplanet.com/weaver-brand.html]Weaver[/link], Redhead...... & in last place by a lot, the [link=http://www.opticsplanet.com/celestron-brand.html]Celestron[/link]. Tho the [link=http://www.opticsplanet.com/pentax-brand.html]Pentax[/link] is the only phase coated [link=http://www.OpticsPlanet.Com]optic[/link] of the bunch, it has some chromatic aberration, that the long barreled [link=http://www.opticsplanet.com/weaver-brand.html]Weaver[/link] controls very well. Despite the better chromatic aberration control by the [link=http://www.opticsplanet.com/weaver-brand.html]Weaver[/link], the [link=http://www.opticsplanet.com/weaver-brand.html]Weaver[/link] & [link=http://www.opticsplanet.com/pentax-brand.html]Pentax[/link] seem to have similar quality of image, if strong contrasts are avoided that cause strong chromatic aberration to be at its worst. In order of appearance sake, the Buckmaster leads, followed by the [link=http://www.opticsplanet.com/pentax-brand.html]Pentax[/link] or Redhead, [link=http://www.opticsplanet.com/weaver-brand.html]Weaver[/link]....... & in last place by a lot, again, the [link=http://www.opticsplanet.com/celestron-brand.html]Celestron[/link].

Hi

I agree, given my experience with 28mm [link=http://www.opticsplanet.com/pentax-brand.html]Pentax[/link] compacts, all the way back to the S series.

Hi,although I have not any chance to see the nv, but I owend [link=http://www.opticsplanet.com/pentax-brand.html]pentax[/link] lv 9x28,they are awesome in that size,so I think the [link=http://www.opticsplanet.com/pentax-brand.html]pentax[/link] nv should be excellent, also according to many reviews.

Hi

Assuming you have the same exit pupil (magnification, objective size) it will be pretty much a wash.

Hi Joanie,

Thanks. Would you expect one of them (Ranger or Eaglet) to be better than the other for astronomy?

librarian

Hi

Yes, the more objective the better for astronomy. Not that you can't do some astronomy with a 32 or 36, but most of us [link=http://www.opticsplanet.com/binoculars.html]binocular[/link] astronomers would consider a 42 as a starting point.

Hi Joanie,
Thanks. Here's an additional consideration. Would either the Ranger or Eaglet 8 x 42 be better for casual astronomy? That's a likely secondary use.

Thanks again,
librarian

Hi Librarian

Okay, the easy one first. No, no significant [link=http://www.OpticsPlanet.Com]optical[/link] difference between a 32mm and 36mm objective, all else equal, though I prefer the smaller size and, sometimes, weight of the 32 mm. When I don't want the size and weight of a 40mm or 42mm, I'd just as soon go to a 32.

One of the things tat you will get with the SP and the Eaglet that you won't get with any of those on your list is "made in Japan". That's one reason they cost more, but they are also superb binos for the price in their own right. Now, I'm not saying that automatically makes a [link=http://www.opticsplanet.com/binoculars.html]binocular[/link] better than the "made in China" you get on the others, but it may be something that is important to you, so I'll mention it. Manufacturers in this mid-priced range often choose not to mention country of origin.

My standard answer is that price is still your best indicator of [link=http://www.OpticsPlanet.Com]optical[/link] and mechanical quality, not brand or model. Of these, however, I can personally attest to the excellence of the Ranger and the Eaglet. The Monarch is always a solid choice and has always tested out well in my reviews. [link=http://www.opticsplanet.com/pentax-brand.html]Pentax[/link] has changed series quite a bit - I haven't tested the CS and NV series - but, according to their price, I would rate in the Monarch class.

Hello,
I'm interested in something in roughly the $200 to $500 price range. Use would not be extremely heavy but I do like to have them for day hiking. I know people think very well of the [link=http://www.opticsplanet.com/pentax-brand.html]Pentax[/link] SPs, but I think they're a bit outside my budget. I have not seen much comment on the [link=http://www.opticsplanet.com/pentax-brand.html]Pentax[/link] NV (36 mm) and CS (42 mm)series and I'm curious about comparisons with the [link=http://www.opticsplanet.com/eagle-optics-brand.html]Eagle Optics[/link] Rangers, the [link=http://www.opticsplanet.com/nikon-brand.html]Nikon[/link] Monarch and (spending a little) the [link=http://www.opticsplanet.com/swift-brand.html]Swift[/link] Eaglet. Also, about sizes, in general would there be a significant difference between a 32 and a 36mm [link=http://www.opticsplanet.com/binoculars.html]binocular[/link]?

Thanks for any comments.
librarian