www.ukbutterflies.co.uk

3 years ago thanks to a tip on UKB of reduced price on amzn I purchased a pair of Pentax Papilio 6.5 x 21 binos. They are brilliant, I use them for everything on basis if I cannot see a good bird image with those, I cannot get a good bird/insect/butterfly picture with my camera. On average they spend around 40 hours per week hanging round my neck & are now becoming a little worn. I started searching for close focus binos & it seems they are still the best although I gather the Pentax name is now owned by Ricoh, naturally price is higher. However information came up that a new Papilio II will be introduced @ end of February with focus range down to just 50mm but at a cost of twice the price. Not sure they would be of any interest to me & more suitable for the specialist insect hunter.
The only alternative I could find are Barr & Stroud 8 x 32 that focus down to 1.01 mtrs but they weigh twice as much as the Papilio's. Reviews seem good on the web but they are cheaper & double the weight @596grms. Has anyone any experience of these? From my point of view the weight would be no problem with my basic fz150 round my neck as well, but for birding I use a fz150 with a TC permanently attached & I think that is just too much for my old neck! Would have been no problem if any of the new 1200mm zoom bridge cams could produce images @ the speed & quality of the fz150+TC but it seems all of them have disadvantages, if the IQ is ok the speed is rubbish & vice versa. The B&S 8x32 would produce a larger image & are cheaper than the Papilios. Any thoughts from the optical experts on here. Eric

Don't rule out a monocular. Quite a good range available and of course only a little more than half the weight.

Why not visit Cley Spy? (I have no connection): https://www.cleyspy.co.uk/

I got a little Viking 8 x 42 monocular (not necessarily the best choice – I don’t know) a few years ago and it is really proving useful now that I have sight problem in one eye. It focusses down to about 1.5 metres - other brands might offer closer focus - but if you add a simple close-up filter (a tenner or bodge your own from cheap reading specs) then you can get much closer. But of course at very close distances, depth of field is small.

Advice Eric. Don't take you wife with you to Cley Spy. They also do some expensive outdoor clothes. My wife went with me to get my monocular and I was "pressurised" into getting her a jacket that was about the same price as my monocular

Jack

Hi Eric,

See http://www.microglobe.co.uk/pentax-65x2 ... -2650.html for Pentax Papilio

At £74.00 incl. £8.00 P&P I think you are probably going to have to pay upwards of £300 to buy an inferior product for your purposes! Still the best ... forget the rest.

BWs, Neil

That Papilio pair are undoubtedly good but I notice that the eye relief (the distance the eye has to be from the lens you look through) is a mere 15 millimetres. That would be probably be too short for use with spectacles. Unless Neil (and of course you were specs) you don't find it a problem with Papilios. I have a very old pair of small binoculars with short eye relief and they were fine when I didn't need specs are but useless these days. Some people remove specs when using binoculars but I can't understand how that works. If you need specs for normal use then surely when you remove to use binoculars, then the butterfly (or whatever) would be out of focus until you got it through the binoculars?

Jack

I'm fiddling with my pair of Pentax 8.5x21 and can't see any eye relief problem. Pentax don't use the old "fold over the rubber eyepiece" but have a hard adjustable eyepiece for those of us who can remember when wire framed specs on the National Health cost 10/6. I've had mine for four years and wouldn't change them. I use a Barr & Stroud 10x50 for bird watching.

The Papilios are just brilliant and I could never replace mine with anything better. I used them to good effect when surveying Chequered Skipper larvae and, I'm sure, saved me from a very painful back; they allowed me to remain upright while scouring the undergrowth!

Cheers,

- Pete

I wrote about Neil

you were specs

Sounds s bit rude. Typo and I didn't notice the silly correction.

Jack

Hi Jack,

I've found that I can use my Papilios with or without my specs on, and do so depending on what the butterfly is doing. If it's stationary and I want a really good gawp, I tend to take them off. The short period when a butterfly is out of focus, while putting them on or taking them off, has never really registered as being problematic. Also, there is usually a short period when the butterfly is out of focus through the binoculars, for all users, until they are manually focused. After years of happy usage I still can't fault this model, which for the price tag is ridiculously good!

Papilios are a little under-gunned for serious birding, so I have a second pair (which I will also now use for Purple Emperor). The Nikon Monarch 5 8x42 binoculars I purchased last year (for under £200) are seriously good, and you need to spend four or five times as much on one of the premium brands to achieve a modest improvement in optical performance. Again, highly recommended!

BWs, Neil

I concur too - brilliant Papilios which I find very handy for distinguishing the golden skippers (Small and Essex) without having to be down on all fours (well usually anyway )

Peter

Eric.

I really reckon that you need to follow the old advice - try them out. Don't take you wife with you though to Cley Spy.

Also In Focus at Titchwell: http://www.at-infocus.co.uk/

and

One Stop Nature at Burnham Deepdale: http://www.onestopnature.co.uk/

All these places relatively near to where you live.

Jack

thankyou all for the reply's
Jack I took your monocular suggestion seriously & found the power/weight ratio to be encouraging & will investigate further for a possible larger size to use in winter for birding. Like Neil say's the papilio's are under powered for serious birding although I am not one of those. As already explained, in the main the Papilio's give me an image for distant subjects that I know I can replicate with my camera set up
However Neil's link was really good price, I never found that price on a google search. So I have ordered the Papilio's again as my current ones are getting a bit worn & will keep those as a spare. The bonus was the website in Neil's link allowed payment with one touch ordering from my account with amz! Many thanks Neil you turned up trumps again. Eric

A really interesting thread. I am seriously thinking of getting a pair. I have decent birding bins so these would be just for butterflies, dragonflies and hovers.
Some reviews suggest that 6.5 are best for this purpose - what do others think? Also any other comments would be most welcome.

Thanks

Hugh

Hi Hugh,
The 6.5's have a very slightly wider field of view (7.5 degrees compared to the 8.5's 6 degrees) and together with the lower magnification this should in theory be better for tracking insects which are flying about. That may be particularly useful for your dragonflies and erratically moving butterflies, but if the insects have landed, the 8.5's would give you a more magnified final view (both have the same "closest focus" distance I believe - a mere 0.5m). The higher magnification version would potentially be very useful for fine detail on stationary Hoverflies and for viewing the intricate details of the wings of butterflies. I have the 8.5 version and enjoy the high magnification they provide, but most people seem to go for the 6.5's. I haven't got the steadiest of hands, but have never had a problem with shake when using them. What really makes both pairs so good is the fact that the outer lenses move towards each other as you focus closer, allowing a stereo view to be maintained - they are almost like a microscope! Whichever version you choose, you won't regret buying them - As Tony the Tiger would say: "Theyrrre Grrreat!"

Trev

I have the 8.5s and love them for the magnification, mainly because I am old and senile; the only drawback I have is in finding the leaf that I saw some damn insect land on and a wider field of view would probably help. I think I would stick with the pair that I have because decent magnification is more important to me than finding the target.

Having tried both before purchase, I still rate the 6.5x as very slightly superior, although it's neck-and-neck, but a country mile before the next competitor comes in. You just can't go wrong with these!
BWs, Neil

I have Opticron 6x which give perfectly adequate magnification. So I too would recommend the lower magnification and thus wider field.

However, even the most basic camera these days shows just as much detail as do small binoculars. My bins these days are seldom used for butterflies.
So controversial question: do you really need binoculars? (Stir )

Jack

Jack,
You little devil - you just couldn't resist the temptation could you
The gorgeous 3D close-up view would be my reason to get these bins.
PS: ... and before you say it, I know you can get twin-lens cameras Jack - you naughty boy!
Hope your butterfly season is a good one mate.

Trev

Jack Harrison wrote:So controversial question: do you really need binoculars?

I sometimes have to be reminded to look at the real scene when I get too 'glued' to my camera

A camera might capture the technical details but the images are always pale shadows of the reality, rendered down to 2D and missing the subtleties of light and shade, as well as the 'selective vision' that our brains do so well!

I'll add a vote for the lower power Papilios (X6.5), as they are brighter and the wider field helps to give that overall visual perspective. I admit, though, that I have other binoculars for birding so, if you are looking for multi-purpose bins, then some compromise may be necessary.

Mike

Many thanks for the replies and suggestions. They are most helpful. I do a lot of photography. My birding bins focusto under 5 ft. I use a loupe sometimes for hoverfly ID.
These bins seem a good addition to my armoury not only in ID but also just to sit and enjoy watching.
As always I will try and compare before buying but your welcome comments have give some good guidelines.

Thanks again

Hugh

Trev

You little devil - you just couldn't resist the temptation could you The gorgeous 3D close-up view would be my reason to get these bins.

But sadly - and I'm not looking for sympathy here - I have one eye that is much better than the other (AMD) so my own 3D vision isn't what it used to be.
The "A" in AMD stands for Age-related.
Still, I notice that Terry Pratchett, born ten years later than me, has just curled up his toes so I should be grateful for what I do have.

PS. I am pleased to think that I have been butterflying long enough to have witnessed the colonisation of a new species - the Scarce Tort. (Hopefully).

Jack