Hey /out/. I'm getting into hunting and I'm looking

>>1084732
For what kind of hunting?
I only hunt small game so I don't use spotting optics but from what I've seen most big game hunters tend to use spotting scopes over binocs.

That's a lot of cash for nocs, if you're in Ontario I'd urge you to wait and see if a cheaper pair wouldn't work fine in the brush, I barely get a chance to see over 100 yards where I hunt. If you're in a real province I would at least consider a spotting scope.

What's your spot, and what game?

I have these 10x42 and have been pleased. They are as clear as ones costing 3x as much and the weight isn't bad. Many sites rate them highly.

https://www.amazon.com/Celestron-71333-Nature-10x42-Binocular/dp/B00B73JP0K/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1503183892&sr=8-3&keywords=nature+dx

>>1084732
When you read reviews keep in mind that people watching celestial phenomena have different requirements than someone scoping out deer for example.

The former want optical perfection whereas the latter don't probably mind if the lens distorts the color red barely imperceptibly.

The point being, if you belong to the latter group, cheaper binoculars will work just fine.

>>1084733
I live in bc and I'll be hunting anything from ducks to moose. I'm a little skeptical about buying online because i want to know how they feel and see the quality, the frustration is that all the stores around here carry increments of 40...120...280....500+$, and they never carry much middleground

bump for interest

Is 8x42 the best general use range?

>>1085303

I would say yes. Over 10x magnification most people will find it difficult to hold a steady picture, and the larger the objective lens the more light you pick up, but generally the heavier they are.

I'm a big guy so don't mind carrying my old brass 10x50's, but my girlfriend finds them too much even with a wide strap.

I gotcha, I think I will go for 8x42. Top /out/ brands for under 400?

Celestron like the guy linked above always seem to hit above their weight, but Nikon vortex and leupold are all in that bracket and you can try them out at your local spot before buying online for cheaper.

But for real, like everyone says once you get above 200$ I doubt you'll notice the difference. I've borrowed leicas and a Swarovski while birding with groups and been let down by how unspecial they are. 2000$ gets you maybe 3% lighter and 5% better low light than a 200$ pair. Not great value imho.

>>1084732
Just quick advice, but spend around $150-$200 MAX, invest the rest in ammo and range time to git gud at making a clean humane kill. Believe me few things make you feel as bad as being sure you're going to get a clean shot only to find your dumb ass forgot to zero your scope properly so you end up blowing Bambis legs to hamburger instead of just dropping the poor sucker

>>1085507
I have been spot and stalk hunting my entire adult life and have had loads of different bins. A few years ago you were either getting shit or spending $2k+ on Zeiss.

These days there are a lot of good ones in your price range. My most used bins are Zen Ray 7x33 ED3s, though my brother has the ED2 version and they were just as good.

Can be had refurb from Zen Ray for $300: http://www.zen-ray.com/shop/demo/zened2-7x36.html

Fucking A good glass, better than anything until you spend to get ED glass.

>>1085507
>I think I will go for 8x42. Top /out/ brands for under 400?
Second hand Leitz (Leica) Trinovid if you can find one.

Are the prices on opticsplanet.com realistic? How are they able to cut the costs in half...nikon monarch 5 for 249?

I have a Nikon p900 I use as my binoculars, 83x optical 166x dynamic and 322x digital it outperforms any binoculars you can find

I have a Vortex Diamondback 8x42 that I'm very happy with. Sturdy, grippy, great optics, not too huge or heavy, water tight,, and they won't break the bank. I've used them for about a year now, in all kinds of conditions, hot and dusty, damp and rainy, misty, cold and windy. No problems whatsoever.

I read a lot of reviews before buying and these come up top quite a lot. As good as binos that cost into the thousands, as reviewed by hardcore birders and safari types.

I'd stay away from 10x binos because the optics tend to suffer for the slightly higher magnification. That said, if you're not trying to spot a a particular red shifted star or nebula, maybe it doesn't matter. Astro binos are usually huge though.

>>1084732
>some decent binoculars

Why you want more than one binocular?

>>1087854
So he can compare various models, dipshit.

Do you have anything oto contribute or are you go to masturbate to minor and inane linguistic points?

>>1087854

Because he can fit them in his pair of pant.

>>1084732
Vortex. dat lifetime warranty.

>>1087853
>>1088128

This

OP here. So, isn't this interesting. After not coming back to my post for a couple days I decided to purchase the vortex diamondback 8x42.....The exact pair that I just read some people here glorifying. I'm waiting for them to ship and really looking forward to using them :D

Thanks for all the suggestions

>>1088908
Nice, I hope you can go fudding

>>1086842
Nigga, are you autistic?

>>1085303
I'd say 7x42 but those are getting harder to find. 8x42 is a close second.

>>1084732
Celestron is well-loved for its optical clarity but aren't "hunting" binoculars. I like Vortex's binos, they come with a good harness (plain old neck straps suck) and good lens covers and have very good glass for their price. $350 CAD would get you their 8x42 Diamondbacks, which are excellent, with money left over for a good chest pack (even better than a harness) or to spend on something else

>>1089987
I actually bought mine from the states, to the tune of 200CAD, literally 200 dollars cheaper than at stores here. Any suggestions on good chest hosters for them? Vortex brand or off brand??

bump for interest

>>1085303
I'd say so.
What you really want in hunting binocs are a bright picture for low light conditions and a wider field of view. That translates into less extreme magnification, and 8x really is plenty for 90+% of hunting situations east of the Great Plains.

>bright picture
This is caused by having a large light diameter at the small lens, which is called the "exit pupil". Below a 3.5mm exit pupil, anybody is going to have trouble in low light conditions, and if you're older than 25, you really want an exit pupil at or above 4.5mm.
Calculating exit pupil is easy. Just divide the size of the big ("objective") lens by the magnification factor and you have your number.
For cheap 8x40mm binocs, it's:
40mm/8=5mm exit pupil.
This is plenty and will give good performance in low light, if not super high magnification.
Generally, the higher the magnification is, the less "bright" they will be, and the larger the big lenses have to be to get more light to your eye. That's why all of the hunting shows set in the mountains have guides with gigantic binoculars. If you want to both see a long way AND have good low light performance, you need big objective lenses; big, precision-ground objective lenses are expensive.

>field of view
This is the width of your viewing area, and higher magnification lenses will naturally have less.
It's a tradeoff: the further you can see OUT, the less you'll be able to see AROUND where you're looking. This makes it harder to find game in your binocs. Again, lower magnification is your friend here. 8x or even 6x may not be ideal for long distance birdwatching, but it's plenty for big game identification out to 200 yards.

The good news is that these kinds of binoculars have been everywhere for decades and can be had for comparatively cheap. Budget brands costing as little as $30 can be had, and once you get into the $100-200 range, you can really get a lot of value for your money.