Best Binoculars for Wildlife viewing/Photography

[David Burns]

The problem with binoculars, as with so many other things in life, is that if you only ever use middling ones (I am not talking about bottle-glass level ones, I am talking about "good" binoculars) you are fine with them. But if you then get a chance to use premium binocs, you are spoiled forever and it's hard to go back. This actually is part of the overall psychology of rising wealth/rich people, that they get used to first class and then flying economy is "torture," then they get used to flying in private planes and then flying commercial seems like hardship. And with cars, and foods, and so many things. I suppose with cameras and lenses, too.

Quite right but there is a context and priority here as well.

Most of us probably have several thousands of dollars/pounds worth of cameras/lenses etc. I certainly do and would not class myself as a rich person. Comfortably retired but no more. I am a life-long photographer and have accumulated a lot of cameras, lenses, tripods, studio equipment etc. I use my camera gear fairly regularly and it is very important to me. It is also the best that I can afford and carefully considered.

However, I use my binoculars far more often and the ones that I now use, both the Nikons and Swarovskis, give me huge pleasure and genuine practical advantages when I do use them, so for me, they are worth the outlay and I feel that I can justify the purchase price- even to the missus! All this would especially apply to the Swarovskis! The telescope I use rarely and so I would not be prepared to invest large amounts of cash in a replacement for my Nikon 'scope, even though the Swarovski is significantly better. Other people undoubtedly have different priorities and quite right too!

 

[DougC]

For top quality at reasonable price, these simply cannot be beat: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=leica trinovid&N=0&InitialSearch=yes&sts=ps

 

[Jamie Baker]

I’m primarily a birder, bird photographer second. For me binoculars are the most important tool I carry. My advice is to get the absolute best pair as you can reasonably afford. If you are carrying a camera and fairly large lens, which I assume you are, I’d suggest 8x30s. It’s a nice compromise of size and weight. I use the Swarovski CL 8x30 and find them exceptional. Less expensive and very popular with birders are Vortex, definitely worth checking out.

 

[Ad Astra]

I recently added a pair of binoculars to my kit. The Swarovski brand was recommended by my bird watching contacts but price was too much for my need which is just spotting birds for taking photos. I looked at Olympus and Nikon as they are good optically and in the end I selected Nikon Monarch HG 10x30 Binoculars. The 8x30 would have been lighter in weight but I liked the fact that the 10x30 gave me a similar magnification to my 500PF lens so made sense from the spotting perspective.

 

[Calson]

Of the many binos I own the ones I use the most and always have with me are the Swarovski 10x25 Pocket Companion. They weigh only 12.4 ounces and the case is only 5.5 x 3.5 x 2.5 inches. The binos in their case take less room than a flash in my backpack and when hung off my neck they do not interfere with my shooting. They also easily fit in a coat pocket or in the water bottle pocket on the side of a backpack.

I am a big fan of 10x binos as they provide better low light viewing and I can still keep them steady enough for use hand held. I would not go smaller than 25mm for the objectives. The 25mm provide 56% more area than 20mm objectives and so 56% more light gathering capability. I do also have 10x32 binos that provide 63% more light transmission than the 25mm binos but they also weigh more than 21 ounces and take nearly twice as much space in my pack and definitely will not fit in a jacket pocket - even a game jacket.

 

[Joe Donahue]

As so many have stated, try them out at the store. I currently use the Cabela brand Euro made by Meopta in Czechoslovakia. I compared to the Vortex razor and the Swarovski's in the store. I could not tell them apart and they were on sale for a third off. A little heavier than the others. Vortex has a lifetime no questions asked warranty and I think Nike does also. 6 months before the wall came down in Berlin, my buddy and I made a trip into the East German sector and went to the Jena Zeiss store, I got a pair of 10x50 and 8x42. With the going exchange rate paid a whopping total of $25. 6 years later dropped the 10x50 and had two images but couldn't find a repair shop. I am still looking for a bargain like that. And to echo, get the best pair you can afford within reason

 

[Rodamu]

I have a pair of 15 power Swarowskis that are great for distance but won't focus at near distances. For close focusing, the Vortex are excellent even at 10 power and are great at distance too.

 

[tjphxaz]

I have Zeiss Victory 10x25 pocket bino. The Vortex brand rates very high on several reviews. I have the Viper 10x42 model.
Both of these get a lot of use depending on the shooting situation. Wouldn’t want to part with either.
This strap works really well. Highly recommend it.

 

[Calson]

An excellent smaller bino is the Nikon Monarch 7 10x30 that weights less than 16 ounces and sells for less than $400. I keep a pair of these in my car so it is always available.

 

[MYount]

I could have sworn I read an article from Steve making binocular recommendations to compliment wildlife photography, but searching the forums and website topics I'm running a blank...any ideas ?

I use Nikon 8x42. I got the 10x42 first but I'm not quite stable enough so the image jumped around. They do what I ask from them. They are not anything like the top of the line but if I can see it with my eyes to know it's there I can see what it is and a path to get close enough to photograph it. There are so many trees and so much underbrush around that I don't see opportunity from long distances so they work great.

 

[Calson]

I have found with my binos that the ones that allow me to press the eyepieces against my eye sockets make it a lot easier to keep them steady while viewing with them. Something to try if you are shopping for new ones. Most bino stores, including the online ones and places like B&H make it easy to return a pair if you find that you do not like them.

 

[joe43]

I use Nikon Monarch 8 x 42 with ED glass. I am not sure if they are class 5 or class 7. The extra light disperion elements makes a difference.

 

[Karl]

Does anyone have any experience with Image stabilized binoculars? I was looking at the Canon range at the weekend. They have a 18x50 set which look pretty awesome but you pay a price in weight.

I have the Canon 10X42 L IS and wouldn't trade them for bins that cost more than twice as much... I also have Zeiss Victory SF 10X42 that DO cost twice as much and I much prefer the Canons. When you press the IS button the "moving picture" locks to almost motionless. I mean, would you buy a camera lens without IS? The Zeiss might be a tiny tiny bit sharper, but if they are then all that disappears with the IS button. The Canons are heavier but I believe that is a plus. Just like heavier rifles and pistols that are used for target shooting, weight is a stabilizer. Or... if you want, you could go with the Zeiss 20X60 IS bins for 9 grand

 

[Hermann]

Nice thread. I've got quite a few binoculars, too many in fact, including several alphas. However, after finally trying a stabilized Canon last year I won't buy any conventional binocular in the future, no matter how good it is. Not oven a Zeiss SF or a Swarovski NL Pure. The stabilizer makes all the difference. Even the lowly Canon 10x30 IS with all its quirks kills the Zeiss and the Swarovski when it comes to seeing detail in the field. And yes, I've got steady hands.

So I'll get a Canon 10x42 IS. Despite it's weight and despite the fact it won't last as long as a conventional binocular. Why the 10x42? It's optically the best of the Canons (on the same level as the best premium roof prism binoculars) and it's waterproof. That's pretty important in my neck of the woods.

If someone wants a nice and small stabilized binocular I'd recommend the Canon 8x20 IS. Optically not as nearly good as its big brother, not sealed and "only" 8x. But: I get more detail with the 8x20 than with a Zeiss or a Nikon or a Swarovski 10x42.

 

[Hermann]

Or... if you want, you could go with the Zeiss 20X60 IS bins for 9 grand

Too much magnification to replace a binocular with lower magnification - and not enough to work as a substitute for a scope. They're pretty nice though. I've got a Zeiss 20x60S Mono, now long out of production, and I find I only use it rarely. I prefer 8x/10x + a scope on a tripod. Much more versatile.

 

[Ado Wolf]

Considering I am Nikon shooter, and I like their quality glass, I decided to stick to Nikon (they are also more budget friendly). I have the Nikon Prostaff 7s 8x42. They are very bright, so I can still see quite clearly in blue hour in heavy wooded forests. 8x magnification is enough for me, as I use them to sport animals (rather than look for details). They are sharp and comfortable to use. Their only downside is the weight: 22.9 oz / 650 g.

 

[eaj101]

You might want to be careful about testing the differences between high-end binoculars too closely At first look there appears to be not a lot of difference between brands like Vortex, Nikon, Zeiss, Swarovski, et al. And casually, I guess there's not. But if you look carefully at things like definition in shadow areas, overall color contrast levels, edge acutance in areas of low contrast, and the like... I spent a few hours in front of a great binocular store in Mendocino, trying maybe a dozen different binoculars back and forth on all sorts of subjects, and the difference is there and it's real. I described it as being like the difference between a great violin and a good one -- they both play the same notes with basically the same timbre, but the richness and depth of the great one is clear as you listen closely, and gets clearer over time.

Of course, the difference may not matter to you for your uses. I carry a small 8x20 Leica Trionovid pair when I'm carrying a lot of other things, and they're sharp and bright enough for most things. I carry a pair of 10x42 Zeiss Conquests when I can and I really want the quality, but I couldn't convince myself that the $3000 Swarovski's were enough better, to me, to justify the extra cost, though the quality improvement was real. My Nikon 8x42 Monarchs are smaller and lighter than the Zeiss' but not as high definition while not as light as the Leicas , so they don't get used much at all.

Try explaining to someone why a pre-war Martin guitar might be worth the cost. Same problem.

 

[jeffnles1]

Try explaining to someone why a pre-war Martin guitar might be worth the cost. Same problem.

I can totally relate to that. I have a 2000 vintage HD-28V. About as close to a pre-war as I'll ever own. I've played a few pre-war D28 and D18 Martins and totally get it.

 

[bsinc1962]

Maven Optics here. Local company here in Wyoming that makes some nice glass. Most of the tour groups in Jackson use them. Their spotting scopes are very popular with hunters.

I just read today that Maven was named the official optics of USA Archery at the Tokyo Olympics.

 

[Paul T]

Hmmm, I haven’t a clue re binoculars and the difference between the good the bad and the ugly. Many of the comments made by those far more knowledgeable than I in this area just pass over my head at stratospheric heights. My main interest is in photographing our feathered cousins. My thought process says I need a pair of binoculars that are capable of differentiating the bird from its surrounding environment from a maximum distance of around 100 metres or so, allow enough light through to identify the bird ( not really interested in being able to see fine feather detail etc just finding and identifying the bird so I can then work my way closer to photograph it). And the last would be relatively light weight. If anyone could give a recommendation or two I would be very thankful. I shoot Nikon so Nikon Binoculars would be fine but not averse to other brands that meet my needs. Cheers.

 

[Abinoone]

You might want to be careful about testing the differences between high-end binoculars too closely At first look there appears to be not a lot of difference between brands like Vortex, Nikon, Zeiss, Swarovski, et al. And casually, I guess there's not. But if you look carefully at things like definition in shadow areas, overall color contrast levels, edge acutance in areas of low contrast, and the like... I spent a few hours in front of a great binocular store in Mendocino, trying maybe a dozen different binoculars back and forth on all sorts of subjects, and the difference is there and it's real. I described it as being like the difference between a great violin and a good one -- they both play the same notes with basically the same timbre, but the richness and depth of the great one is clear as you listen closely, and gets clearer over time.

Of course, the difference may not matter to you for your uses. I carry a small 8x20 Leica Trionovid pair when I'm carrying a lot of other things, and they're sharp and bright enough for most things. I carry a pair of 10x42 Zeiss Conquests when I can and I really want the quality, but I couldn't convince myself that the $3000 Swarovski's were enough better, to me, to justify the extra cost, though the quality improvement was real. My Nikon 8x42 Monarchs are smaller and lighter than the Zeiss' but not as high definition while not as light as the Leicas , so they don't get used much at all.

Try explaining to someone why a pre-war Martin guitar might be worth the cost. Same problem.

Well said! Like the difference between a good Chianti and an Barolo - but one has to have enough appreciation to realize the difference.

 

[DRwyoming]

Hmmm, I haven’t a clue re binoculars and the difference between the good the bad and the ugly. Many of the comments made by those far more knowledgeable than I in this area just pass over my head at stratospheric heights. My main interest is in photographing our feathered cousins. My thought process says I need a pair of binoculars that are capable of differentiating the bird from its surrounding environment from a maximum distance of around 100 metres or so, allow enough light through to identify the bird ( not really interested in being able to see fine feather detail etc just finding and identifying the bird so I can then work my way closer to photograph it). And the last would be relatively light weight. If anyone could give a recommendation or two I would be very thankful. I shoot Nikon so Nikon Binoculars would be fine but not averse to other brands that meet my needs. Cheers.

A lot of excellent recommendations on this thread, but in the Nikon lineup I've been very happy with a pair of Nikon Monarch 10x42 binoculars. I've definitely read a lot of complaints about the mid priced Monarchs getting bumped out of optical alignment but I've had these for almost a decade and after a lot of field use they're still fine. I carry them when I'm scouting for wildlife and sometimes my wife carries them when I'm carrying camera gear. Though I really like the 10x42s for the bright and easy to view images I'd probably recommend either 8x42 or even 8x30 binoculars for general scouting around where the larger field of view is nice for initially spotting wildlife and of course the 8x30 version would be a lot lighter if you're already carrying camera gear.

 

[Abinoone]

Hmmm, I haven’t a clue re binoculars and the difference between the good the bad and the ugly. Many of the comments made by those far more knowledgeable than I in this area just pass over my head at stratospheric heights. My main interest is in photographing our feathered cousins. My thought process says I need a pair of binoculars that are capable of differentiating the bird from its surrounding environment from a maximum distance of around 100 metres or so, allow enough light through to identify the bird ( not really interested in being able to see fine feather detail etc just finding and identifying the bird so I can then work my way closer to photograph it). And the last would be relatively light weight. If anyone could give a recommendation or two I would be very thankful. I shoot Nikon so Nikon Binoculars would be fine but not averse to other brands that meet my needs. Cheers.

Like anything else, you can spend any amount of money on binoculars. Like you, I'm mostly interested in scanning the forest for wildlife, so that I can figure out a way to photograph them. I ended up buying Nikon Monarch 7s, and they've worked well for me. I'm sure they're not to best by a long shot, but they're good enough for what I use them for, and were reasonably priced.

 

[RichF]

The highend Vortex are very good, not Swaroski good, definitely worth a look. 1/3 the price, 80% the quality.

 

[Syllog]

Hmmm, I haven’t a clue re binoculars and the difference between the good the bad and the ugly. Many of the comments made by those far more knowledgeable than I in this area just pass over my head at stratospheric heights. My main interest is in photographing our feathered cousins. My thought process says I need a pair of binoculars that are capable of differentiating the bird from its surrounding environment from a maximum distance of around 100 metres or so, allow enough light through to identify the bird ( not really interested in being able to see fine feather detail etc just finding and identifying the bird so I can then work my way closer to photograph it). And the last would be relatively light weight. If anyone could give a recommendation or two I would be very thankful. I shoot Nikon so Nikon Binoculars would be fine but not averse to other brands that meet my needs. Cheers.

I replaced a pair of heavy vintage binoculars with the Nikon Monarch 5 10x42 for the same purpose you have outlined and have been very happy with them. From memory I paid around A$ 490 for them. Rubber coated, light weight, waterproof and work well with my multi-focal glasses. Not sure if these are the same as DRWyoming's as there are Monarch 5 and Monarch 7 series.