Minox Glasses??

[cats935]

So I added this question to the bottom of my previous thread on glasses, but it either got buried in the shuffle or you guys are tired of my questions.

In hopes of it being the former and not the latter, I'm starting this new thread.

Just ran across a pair of very gently used Minox HG binos in 10x43. Don't know much about these guys. Thoughts? How do they measure up to their more well know cousins in the same price range ($800-$1K), like the Zeiss Conquest, Meopta, etc? Are the Minox worth the money?

See, C. Schutte: I continue to try to find the needle in the haystack.

Also, do you guys know what the story is with warranties on optics? Are they generally transferable? Couldn't get any info at all from Minox's site ... not to mention that the site reads like it was written in German and then translated into English.

[dubyam]

Here's a review on those. I don't think this link sells anything, so I'm posting it. Cabela's sells the Minox binos, I think, and of course you found a pair used. It sounds like they are really good glass, with some neat features. I may have to stare through a pair at some point in the future.

http://optics4birding.com/minox-hg-binoculars-review.aspx

[cats935]

thanks for the link ... that pretty much qualifies as a rave review in my book.

Anybody out there have any field experience with these binos that, on paper anyway, look really good?

[cats935]

update to those, if any, that care. I just spoke to Minox directly and their warranties are absolutely non-transferable. So there goes the idea on the gently used pair, but the more I read about this model, the more there is to like ...

[tddeangelo]

You might also try taking a look at Brunton optics, too. They were nice when I looked at them a few years ago.

[cats935]

FYI, to anyone that cares:

I finally had a chance to check out the Minox HGs (8.5x43) - made sure to go to the store right before sundown. Bottom line: they are a great pair of glasses. Very sharp, very clear and light gathering is great.

I put them up against the Vortex Razors, and to my eyes anyway, the HGs were better. The one I will say for the Razors is that its ergonomics seem to be better. Then again they are also heavier and clunkier than the HGs (which in a way is a knock against the Razors, to me anyway).

I also put them up against the Nikon Monarchs and a few others in the $300 and under category. The difference (to me anyway) was so great in clarity and light gathering that the Monarchs and the rest were removed from contention within 15 seconds.

Also with a price tag of $540 (demos from a gun show, but still have the full Minox warranty), these particular HGs are a ridiculous deal to pass up.

[tddeangelo]

If you're gonna spend $500.......and you know what's coming.....look at a pair of Zeiss Conquests.

I had mine in mature oaks on a cloudy day 30 min after sunset....heavy canopy and POOR light. I could see quite well for as far as the brush would let me. I would think "gee it's too dark to see a deer if it was on that trial there." Then I'd put the glasses on it and realize that I would indeed be able to see a deer quite well on that trail.

If you like the Minox, that's what you buy. I will say that I thought about the Monarchs too until I compared them to the Zeiss in dim light, much like you mentioned. It was an EASY choice then.

I would at least look at the Zeiss though. If you don't like them, well, I don't own stock, so no skin off my nose. I would look at bit though. I think you might find some Kahles getting down in that range, but I may be wrong.

[cats935]

TD, in the $500 range, you must be talking about the Zeiss Conquest 8x30, right? I don't think I've ever seen the 8 or 10 x 40 in that price range. I hear what you're saying and I know how good the Conquests are with gathering light. I'll take a look at them again side by side with the Minox HGs 8.5x43 at dusk, but I see them as such close competitors in quality that it's hard for me to think that Conquest's 30mm lens gathers as much light as the HG's 43mm lens, which to me is the most important deciding factor.

[C. Schutte]

TD, in the $500 range, you must be talking about the Zeiss Conquest 8x30, right? I don't think I've ever seen the 8 or 10 x 40 in that price range. I hear what you're saying and I know how good the Conquests are with gathering light. I'll take a look at them again side by side with the Minox HGs 8.5x43 at dusk, but I see them as such close competitors in quality that it's hard for me to think that Conquest's 30mm lens gathers as much light as the HG's 43mm lens, which to me is the most important deciding factor.





Cats,

You are correct sir! The Conquest 8x30 are the $500.00 pair. The Conquest 8x40 ABK are between 800 & 900 smackers. I owned a pair (8x30) until my brother bent my arm behind my back and I can tell you that the 8x30 Conquest are very good glasses and worth the money. They will beat the Nikon Monarch 8x40 but, they are not on par with a true pair of low light glasses such as the 10x40 ABK, Meopta 8x42 and the like. For true low light veiwing you must spend the extra $300 bucks.

Let me ramble just a bit. I've a hunting buddy who on my recommendation upgraded his rifle scope to a Conquest this summer. He has an old pair of Nikon binos which are good for what they are but, he is interested in upgrading them now that he has a great scope. Last weekend we hunted together and I played a little trick on him. While watching the 10PM news I grabbed my binos and headed outside. Knowing I was up to something he asked what the %#@* I was doing this late with my binos. I simply stated I wanted to see how many deer were up on Joe's hill around his stand. Like most he laughed.

Less than a minute later he had his old Nikon and tried to see the hill. I allowed this to go on for a little while so that his eyes could adjust then I handed him mine. I believe he muttered "oh my God" or something like that. There were two doe on the hill. The next morning I watched a shooter 1 1/2 hours before sun up walk from my area to within 40 yards of Richard who never saw the buck. Seeing is believing.

I know it is painful to part with that much money. It took me years to save for them but, when I got them I have never regretted it. They will last me the rest of my life and will end up belonging to one of my sons. Spend it once and enjoy the benifits forever. No, I don't work for Meopta or Zeiss. Good luck......chs

[tddeangelo]

Sunset here today was officially 6:23PM. At 7:05PM, with the full moon not up high enough to cast light yet, I was watching three doe against brush and standing corn with my 8x30 Zeiss Conquest glasses. The other night under mature oak canopy, where it was too dark to see the fiber optic sight on my bow at 6:45, I was watching an opening in the brush until 7PM with those glasses.

C. Schutte is correct.....kick in $300 more and you get a nice boost and can use that glass in even less light, but remember....they don't add any light to the equation, they simply transmit more of it than other glasses.

I would wager that the Conquests will serve you as well as you could want 99.99% of the time. If you want to have glass another notch up, C. Schutte gave you some solid recommendations.

I've actually considered putting the Conquests in my glove box in my truck as spares and getting a set of Meopta's/Cabela's Euro's. Or maybe a Conquest ABK or Kahles. I've seen Swarovski glass in the bargain cave comfortably under $1000 too, but those deals are few and far between.

FYI....Zeiss' warranty is lifetime, transferrable. It's similar for almost any of the other big boys, too.

[airborne]

I am glad I came across this post. I did some serious research a few weeks ago so I would know what to look for in Binos.

First there are coated. multi coated and full multi coated lenses. I'll talk about this first cause it is the most important and determines cost. Coated lenses means the outside ones are coated. A good pair of binos can have as many as 13 lenses. Multi-coated means that the outside lenses are coated multiple times and of course FMC means all 13 plus lenses have multiple coats. This reduces the amount of light the lense reflects back out and allows more of it to get to your eye.

Prisms. There are two types but research shows there is very little difference between the two. You need to decide if you want straight tubes or the offset style.

Nitrogen filled binos do not fog and are airtight eliminating dirt etc from getting inside.

The bigger the field of view the more light they allow in meaning the longer you can use them when light condition deminish.

The rest are bells and whistles as far as rubber coating, style of focus, camo etc.

Bottom line FMC lenses, Easy adjustable focus, Size and then whistles

Most of the top end scope makers produce quality lenses but look for the other options as well.

I hope this helps you as much as it did me. Now I know what to look for and how much I need to save.

[C. Schutte]

C. Schutte is correct.....kick in $300 more and you get a nice boost and can use that glass in even less light, but remember....they don't add any light to the equation, they simply transmit more of it than other glasses.

I would wager that the Conquests will serve you as well as you could want 99.99% of the time. If you want to have glass another notch up, C. Schutte gave you some solid recommendations.

FYI....Zeiss' warranty is lifetime, transferrable. It's similar for almost any of the other big boys, too.







Finally, Tdd and I do not agree on something! My difference with him on this is that the Conquest will serve you perhaps 90% of the time as opposed to the 99% reference. He did say that I gave some solid recommendations so I am agreeable to let the difference slide. c-man

[tddeangelo]

Aren't you the one who accused me of nitpicking once? ;)

I just looked....Meopta 8x42's are under $900. That's my pick of the litter for the <$1000 field. Hands down, no questions asked.

[cats935]

Thanks TD and C-man. Man oh man, the Minox HGs get no love on this forum at all!!

Anyway, maybe someone can shed some light on something Airborne said in this thread. Isn't light gathering (at the most basic level anyway, without getting into the high level physics) is determined mainly by the lens diameter, no? Does FOV really play into that equation? I thought I read somewhere that FOV is determined subjectively by each glass maker and doesn't really come into play as far as light gathering goes, but rather just what each glass maker is comfortable with the images getting a little whacked up at the outer edges. Am I way off on this one??

[C. Schutte]

Thanks TD and C-man. Man oh man, the Minox HGs get no love on this forum at all!!

Anyway, maybe someone can shed some light on something Airborne said in this thread. Isn't light gathering (at the most basic level anyway, without getting into the high level physics) is determined mainly by the lens diameter, no? Does FOV really play into that equation? I thought I read somewhere that FOV is determined subjectively by each glass maker and doesn't really come into play as far as light gathering goes, but rather just what each glass maker is comfortable with the images getting a little whacked up at the outer edges. Am I way off on this one??





Cats,

It is not that we don't like Minox, it is that most of us have no direct experience with them. Whenever I recommend something it is because I either own them, have used them or know someone whom I trust that does. They could be the cats meow (please pardon the shameful pun) for all I know.

The important thing here is that you have already noticed the difference between average and excellent as far as optics go. At this point you can really start to make an informed decision regarding which brand is right for you. If you like the Minox I would consider them as long as they have a good reputation for service and have been around long enough to prove it.

You mentioned that light gathering is determined by the size of the objective and that is not necessarily true. It is true when comparing lens/prisms of equal quality but, not all glass, coating and prisms are equal. The best glass comes from the center of the sheet and is expensive. The process of grinding, polishing and applying coatings is also expensive and not anywhere close to being equal. Anybody can say that their binos reflect 99%. What they will not say is what quality the light is after the reflection and what is the end result after it passes through the final lens. I learned this right after getting my 10x40 Zeiss Victory's by comparing them to a pair of Leupold 10x50 well after dark. I could see much more detail with the Zeiss (smaller objective size) and the image was brighter too. The good glass also stops light refraction and dispersion which also helps resolution and brightness. The high and low is that the better the overall product the better you can see irrespective of objective size and power.

Be sure to let us know what your final decision is. chs

[tddeangelo]

Yep....all else being equal, a bigger lens lets in more light. The thing is, "all else" is rarely equal.

And "multi-coated lenses" are not all the same. The process and coatings themselves are critical. The more expensive glasses are more expensive for a reason. People are paying those prices for those products. If people are paying the price, there is a reason. It's because the products really are better.

Take a pair of Swarovski 8x30's out in the dark and see how they do. Then take a pair of Tasco 8x40's. Guess which one will be brighter?

[C. Schutte]

Yep....all else being equal, a bigger lens lets in more light. The thing is, "all else" is rarely equal.

And "multi-coated lenses" are not all the same. The process and coatings themselves are critical. The more expensive glasses are more expensive for a reason. People are paying those prices for those products. If people are paying the price, there is a reason. It's because the products really are better.

Take a pair of Swarovski 8x30's out in the dark and see how they do. Then take a pair of Tasco 8x40's. Guess which one will be brighter?





Heck Tdd,

I have yet to look through a pair of Tasco that will have each barrel on the same power! When trying to look through a Tasco you must also view through the exact center as the edges are far too distorted to see any detail whatsoever. A friend of mine keeps a pair of Tasco's at his lake house and I once tried to use them to view the lake. Augh! It was more fun to stick my finger in my eye. Nit-picking c-man

[cats935]

OK, got it. And b4 I go any further, let me again just say thanks for continuing to indulge me with questions that probably seem waaaay too basic for you guys.

Can someone addres Airborne's comment about FOV being the determining factor in light gathering - ie, the bigger FOV, the better light gathering? I'm assuming he's assuming that (and get ready for this silly phrase) all other things (power, lens diameter, etc.) are equal. I've read enough to make me question that statement, but I'm not "glass smart" enough to say yes/no definitively ...

[tddeangelo]

FOV, or Field of View, has nothing to do with light gathering whatsoever. Field of View is a measurement (usually in feet at 100 yards) that tells you how wide an area the optics see at a given distance.

What can affect light gathering is the objective lens diameter. This is the second number in the description (i.e. 8x42 glasses have a 42mm objective lens). Divide the objective diameter by the magnification rating and you get the exit pupil diameter. THAT is important, but again superior quality optics beat raw EP diameter in most cases.

Ex: 8x40 glasses have a 5mm exit pupil. This is considered a good size. The human eye will dilate to a maximum amount, and that declines as we age. Very young people might get a 7mm dilation while much older folks might go as low as 3mm. That means that a huge exit pupil that is larger than your eye's pupil has passed the point where increasing the size is an improvement. Generally, you'll do fine with an exit pupil of about 4 or higher. My 8x30 Zeiss have a pretty small EP all things considered, but I can use them in pretty poor light, thanks to the good glass and construction.

You have seen yourself how optics look great under good light, but differences in quality become apparent when the light is not so good. Those Nikon Monarchs are great in strong daylight and ok in dim light, but compared side-by-side with some of the higher end glasses in poor lighting, there's just simply no comparison at all.

[cats935]

Excellent. Thanks for the confirmation on the FOV thing. That's pretty much it on this topic. Thanks again and I'll let you guys know once I pick something up

[cats935]

Guys, do yourselves a favor if you can and check out the Promaster Infinity Elite ELX 8x42 ED. Wow! I had them stacked up at dusk the other day against the Conquests ABK, Vortex Razors, Minox HGs, Meostars and even the venerable ELs.

Let me tell you something (at least for my eyes anyway), the Promasters were only outdone by the ELs, and even then by only a slight margin (and I mean a darn small razor-thin margin) in terms of clarity and brightness. And with a difference in price of almost 4x (the Promasters retail for around $500), you can pretty much throw out that margin with the bathwater.

Yes, they are made in China and though Promaster has been around for a while, yes, this model is new; neither of which points lend themselves to the Alpha glasses purists out there. Then again, they seem to have a no fault lifetime warranty.

But if you can get over those two things, you'll be where I am right now: wondering if this glass is just too good to be true.

BTW, I'm in no way connected with Promaster; just simply tickled pink if these guys found a way to put that much bang into a $500 glass.

[airborne]

OK, got it. And b4 I go any further, let me again just say thanks for continuing to indulge me with questions that probably seem waaaay too basic for you guys.

Can someone addres Airborne's comment about FOV being the determining factor in light gathering - ie, the bigger FOV, the better light gathering? I'm assuming he's assuming that (and get ready for this silly phrase) all other things (power, lens diameter, etc.) are equal. I've read enough to make me question that statement, but I'm not "glass smart" enough to say yes/no definitively ...

I was incorrect when I said FOV has to do with the amount of light let into the bino. I should have said the objective size ie. an 8x50 will let more light in than an 8x42. Star gazers say that 50 is the largest size recommended for viewing at night. Not that that matters here.

Sorry for giving the wrong info. I should have read what I typed better.

FOV is determined by the way a company makes the lense.