Can $200 binoculars possibly be any good?

[87TT]

I always heard not to look through glass you can't afford. That said, I carry Vortex Diamondbacks. I also have a pair of Crossfires that I actually like a little better. I gave them to my wife when I got the Diamondbacks. I cant' tell the difference except the Crossfires seem to focus just a little easier. There's a link on here for some on eBay for $100 new. If I didn't have some as backups already(wife's) I would grab them. Vortex has an unconditional lifetime warranty too. I will admit I have peeked through some high end glass and there is a difference but a rough as I am on stuff and the fact that these are really working for me great, I'll stay with what I have.

 

[Savage99]

I picked up last year’s diamondback 10x42’s for like $120 new at the beginning of the year. So, I guess I’m carrying around $200 binos, but I didn’t pay that. I would have bought used anyway or spring for that Maven deal sometime back. I’m cheap and don’t have half the experience of the regular posters here. I will probably learn the hard way the lesson of “buy the best you can afford”. But then, I guess I did.

Optics don’t matter if your camo doesn’t match, wink wink...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Newtosavage]

I feel like I need to resurrect this thread after a few weeks in the mountains with that 2nd pair of Bushnell Engage 10x42's.

My initial enthusiasm began to wear off after a few days on the tripod, glassing hillsides all day. As inviting as the image is, I had to finally admit these were also not perfectly aligned and were giving me a headache after an hour or so of use. During the hunt, I went back to my trusty Outfitter HD's and never had a problem after that. That's a shame, since the Bushnells are so good for the money. I think for hand-held use for just a few minutes at a time, they are still great. But if you plan to mount them on a tripod for extended sessions, you may find that the alignment is lacking. At least, that's what I found in two consecutive pairs.

I returned them when I got home. Kinda hated to do that but it is what it is. Another victim of poor Chinese QC I'm afraid.

 

[corncob]

That's too bad, they are down to $149 on Amazon and $129 from Bushnell. Probably still a great score for a pair of extra or truck binos though, especially if you're not looking through them all day.

 

[Ndbowhunter]

I have a feeling that a lot of people’s golden calf gets gored when mounted on tripod and you stare at grey rocks looking for grey animals for hours and hours a week on end.

 

[Newtosavage]

I have a feeling that a lot of people’s golden calf gets gored when mounted on tripod and you stare at grey rocks looking for grey animals for hours and hours a week on end.

I doubt anyone sees a $200 pair of bins as their "golden calf" but I am sure there is some acceptance that sets in after a while. And remember, not everyone (not many, in fact) needs to stare at gray rocks looking for gray animals for hours on end. If you do, then it's probably wise to spend a little more on your optics.

I'd venture to guess that 90% of binocular use (or more) is hand-held for periods of less than 30-40 seconds at a time, in which case you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference between something like a Bushnell Engage, and a Zeiss Conquest or Vortex Razor. And that really was my whole point anyway. And I still stand by that sentiment.

If your plans for your binocuars involve a sturdy tripod and hours of glassing, well, be prepared to spend more.

 

[Trial153]

Can 200 binoculars possibly be any good?


No

 

[Ndbowhunter]

I doubt anyone sees a $200 pair of bins as their "golden calf" but I am sure there is some acceptance that sets in after a while. And remember, not everyone (not many, in fact) needs to stare at gray rocks looking for gray animals for hours on end. If you do, then it's probably wise to spend a little more on your optics.

I'd venture to guess that 90% of binocular use (or more) is hand-held for periods of less than 30-40 seconds at a time, in which case you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference between something like a Bushnell Engage, and a Zeiss Conquest or Vortex Razor. And that really was my whole point anyway. And I still stand by that sentiment.

If your plans for your binocuars involve a sturdy tripod and hours of glassing, well, be prepared to spend more.

I don’t think I was referring to any particular subset of “value” or pricepoints.

I’m not sure what “most people” want to accomplish with bino’s. But I will say that looking for bedded Tahr in cliffs, or chamois in the scrub, or bedded mule deer in the sage... the ability to resolve is highly important and subsequent attributes like FOV, CA control, flare/ceiling glare control, color rendition, fit and finish, pincushion distortion, field flattening, edge distortion, ergonomics l, brightness etc etc are ancillary for a western hunter application

most bino’s that are “cheap” just won’t resolve well enough to actually see the bull bedded on the rocks at 1000 yards on the tripod. but some do. My list isn’t exhaustive but off hand bushnell legend ultra HD while crap in some forms can resolve nanny ibex are 900 yards on a tripod.

so can some of the older 10x50 jti badged stuff you’ll find at junk stores for 5$.

that’s good value.

my point about the golden calf is more in line wi Th somehow ticking off a bunch of boxes on the ledger of positive attributes and somehow coming to the conclusion that a particular binocular is somehow a great value to a western style hunter.. vague statements for sure but for instance from experience bushnell legend ultra HD outclass vortex diamondbacks by a wide margin in ability to resolve detail.. that’s important for what we are trying to accomplish.

All that said nothing can beat going out and actually testing out a hypothesis for yourself. You may come to a different set of conclusions.

 

[Newtosavage]

sigh...

I’m not sure what “most people” want to accomplish with bino’s. But I will say that looking for bedded Tahr in cliffs, or chamois in the scrub, or bedded mule deer in the sage... the ability to resolve is highly important and subsequent attributes like FOV, CA control, flare/ceiling glare control, color rendition, fit and finish, pincushion distortion, field flattening, edge distortion, ergonomics l, brightness etc etc are ancillary for a western hunter application

Okay, use the example of 0.001% of hunters as our standard if you wish.

 

[OXN939]

I just bought my 2nd pair of Bushnell Engage 10x42's. I bought a pair about a year ago and was immediately impressed. The image quality was so close to my $1K Zeiss Conquest HD's that I could hardly believe it. The compact size and ergonomics were just superb too. Unfortunately that particular pair had a very subtle collimation issue that I only discovered after hours on a tripod adapter out west. So when i got home, I returned them. But my plan was always to get another pair eventually. Today my 2nd pair of Engage 10x42's arrived, and once again, I am thoroughly impressed. $207 shipped from Amazon. What an incredible deal. I will spend a good amount of time glassing with them on tripod to determine if they are properly aligned. So far, they seem to be.

The size, weight, shape, eyecups and even the focus wheel are just a delight to use. And the locking diopter adjustment is brilliant.

Other than my wife's Legend M's (another Bushnell sleeper) I just don't know of anything in the $200 range that can come close to the Engage. I'd love to hear from other users to hear their thoughts.

Man I have perfect 20/20 vision and can tell almost no difference between my Vortex Daimondbacks and my buddy's Swaros.

 

[Newtosavage]

Man I have perfect 20/20 vision and can tell almost no difference between my Vortex Daimondbacks and my buddy's Swaros.

And there's not a damn thing wrong with that either.

There is a subset of enthusiasts in every hobby that are equipment snobs/gearheads/call them what you wish... Their identity is wrapped up in how much they paid for their gear, and what the brand name is. I sometimes wonder how or if they ever have any fun at all. They probably stay up at night wondering how anyone can claim to see anything through $200 binoculars, or kill anything with grandpa's '06.

Any time I'm tempted to be snobbish about my gear, I remind myself that more animals are taken by guys wearing blue jeans and flannel, and using $78 Tasco bins and scopes, than all the snobs combined, and that more often than not, those snobs are using $10K worth of gear to take a shot they could have made with an open sight 30-30.

 

[OXN939]

And there's not a damn thing wrong with that either.

There are definitely parts of my kit I'll throw down some coin on. The foremost of these are rifle and riflescope (or bows, sights and arrows), because these are physically involved with making an ethical kill on a game animal. I'll spend whatever is necessary to make sure that I eliminate as much chance as humanly possible of wounding the animals I'm pursuing.

Binos and spotters, I find myself in the "80% of the effectiveness for 20% of the cost" camp. My spotter and binos together cost about $450, and perform perfectly adequately.

 

[Newtosavage]

There are definitely parts of my kit I'll throw down some coin on. The foremost of these are rifle and riflescope (or bows, sights and arrows), because these are physically involved with making an ethical kill on a game animal. I'll spend whatever is necessary to make sure that I eliminate as much chance as humanly possible of wounding the animals I'm pursuing.

Binos and spotters, I find myself in the "80% of the effectiveness for 20% of the cost" camp. My spotter and binos together cost about $450, and perform perfectly adequately.

Nothing wrong with that logic.

 

[CamoPirate]

My Leupold Tioga Bx-2s, usually $380~...wait for Black Friday to roll around, snag em for $240ish. Glass through em for hours no issue.

Spotter? $100 one off Amazon that functions fine for finding animals while I save for that $1k spotter.

You can find stuff that isn't expensive that works well, that way you can spend more money on tags

 

[Broles32]

Depends on how much you use them. If you glass with a $200 pair of binos all day your eyes will hate you.

 

[Vaultman]

IT is crazy to think that $200 is cheep for binos. I bought my Nikon Monarchs at Sportsman's in Spokane in 2005, and I think they were $269. They were considered 'as good as you can get without paying $1500+ (for swaro or zeiss)". I still have that set, and use them. They are now mainly my kid's when we hunt together, and I still feel like I am letting him use expensive gear because well... they were back then.
Man do I feel like an Old Man.

 

[Skee7533]

I have hunted with a pair of BX-2 Acadia’s ($200 range) for the past ten to twelve years and never once felt handicapped with them. That being said I have had the pleasure of using some friends higher end stuff and there absolutely is a difference but you will pay for it. I have never felt like I missed an opportunity on an animal because of lesser quality binos so I never thought there was a need to upgrade. I just keep putting that $1000 or so towards my next hunt and keep putting critters on the ground with the $200 binos. Weather its houses, trucks, clothes, rifles or optics, they all have a point of diminishing return and incremental gain.

I also have a pair of BX-2's and I've been happy with them.