[Tweeters] Small & Lightweight binoc recommendations please

Jim Danzenbaker jdanzenbaker at gmail.com
Mon Feb 9 07:06:47 PST 2015

Hi Matt,

Some binocular information for you:

The first number (7 for your current binocular) is the magnification - how
much closer the viewed object is compared to the unaided eye)
The second number (35 for your current binocular) is the objective lens
size in millimeters. The objective lens is your light gathering lens. All
things being equal, the larger the second number, the more light your
binocular is gathering so the more light it has to work with.

It is important to remember that just because your binocular GATHERS more
light, this says nothing about what the binocular does with the light as
far as DELIVERING it to your eyes. Bad glass with bad quality = a bad
image even if the objective lens size is big. Conversely, a smaller
objective lens size, while not gathering as much light as a larger
binocular, may be better at delivering the light to your eyes if the lenses
and coatings on those lenses are of high quality. Of course, that coms
with a price.

A question you have to ask yourself when thinking of the purchase of
binoculars is......when and how long will you be using them? If you are
using them early in the morning, under a thick canopy, or, yes, using them
in Washington with our wonderful overcast climate, you may opt for a
binocular that gathers more of the sometimes small amount of light that
there is and is good at delivering that gathered light. If you only go out
on bright days and don't do a lot of in the forest observation, then light
gathering isn't as much of an issue.

Just my two cents.


Jim Danzenbaker
Battle Ground, WA

On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 1:58 AM, Matt Schwartz <drmlnd89 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> I currently own Nikon 7x35 Action Extreme ATB Binocular


> I am looking for some smaller and lighter binocs. I'm not super familiar

> with the various numerical ratings (7x35 etc) other than I recall reading

> that the lower numbers are smaller binocs..can I go small than what I have

> now, and still have decent visibility in less than ideal light? If possible

> I'd like to not sacrifice quality and clarity in this "downgrade" but I

> really would like to go smaller and lighter.


> Any recommendations appreciated greatly. Thanks!


> Matthew Schwartz

> drmlnd89 at yahoo.com



> _______________________________________________

> Tweeters mailing list

> Tweeters at u.washington.edu

> http://mailman1.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/tweeters



Jim Danzenbaker
Battle Ground, WA
jdanzenbaker at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman11.u.washington.edu/pipermail/tweeters/attachments/20150209/7cd38e98/attachment.html>

More information about the Tweeters mailing list