Anyone who wears corrective lenses of any sort probably wastes money buying
top-of-the-line binoculars, and definitely so if those corrective lenses are in
the form of eyeglasses. After getting by with the Jason 7x35 binoculars, two
pairs of which my father and I bought for football watching and deer hunting
back about 1960, three years ago I decided I might be able to afford something
a little more better.
I examined closely all of the following marques of the 7 or 8x40+ sort:
Swarovski, Zeiss, Leupold, Leica, Nikon, and Steiner. Oh, almost forgot:
Olympus. Ended up buying the Olympus 8x42 Magellans. Just couldn't see much
difference between them and the high-priced ones, and sure as shootin' not
hundreds of dollars' worth. And they're waterproof, just like the E-1.
Walt
--
"Anything more than 500 yards from
the car just isn't photogenic." --
Edward Weston
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: ScottGee1 <scottgee1@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> Here's a list:
>
> http://www.zeiss.com/
>
> FWIW, after trying Leica, Zeiss and Swarovski binocs, I chose Swarovski.
>
> Gee, I ain't helpin' Zeiss much, am I . . . ?
>
> ScottGee1
>
>
> On 10/2/06, Winsor Crosby <wincros@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Camera lenses. I doubt their binocs are in trouble. Do they still
> > make telescopes?
> >
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|