Classic binoculars

[marc_bergman1]

<p>Mike,</p>

<p>Thanks for doing this.</p>

<p>I found some interesting material in a 1926 Central Camera catalog. Here is page 1.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[marc_bergman1]

<p>Here is page 2.</p>

<div></div>

[marc_bergman1]

<p>Now the good stuff.</p>

<p>Here is page 3.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[marc_bergman1]

<p>Here is page 4.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[marc_bergman1]

<p>Here is page 5.</p>

<div></div>

[Mike Gammill]

<p>Thanks, Marc. Pretty advanced stuff for its day. Except for new kinds of glass and advanced coatings binoculars really haven't changed so much.</p>

[Mike Gammill]

<p>Great responses, everyone. Basically classic binoculars have porro prisms and the opera glass style (Galilean) binoculars have low power (2 to 4x). An interesting ad that I've seen over the years is one where Galilean binoculars are passed off as porro prism models. The glasses have fake bulges on the sides to make them appear to have prisms. Another clue is instead of true magnification these ads often quote "area magnification". Perhaps some of you have seen similar ads. I'm currently looking for an ad that I can scan that shows this type of glass.</p>

[Matthew Currie]

<p>I don't know about ads, but I've seen a fair number of very cheap "binoculars" with fake porro bulges, often sold very cheaply as kids' toys. Sort of the same idea as those cheap cameras with fake prism bulges but with real "optical glass" lenses.</p>

<p>When I was a kid, at least, the distinction was made between binoculars and field glasses, with the presumption that the first had prisms and the second did not. </p>

[Mike Gammill]

<p>So what's next: classic telescopes or maybe classic spotting scopes?<br>

When I think of classic telescopes I think of the long focus refracting scopes (60mm f11 to 15 or the 4" f15 (that's a five foot long tube) or the pedestal mounted Newtonian reflector (the 4 1/4 f8 or the 6" f8).<br>

Classic spotters include the old porro prism turret mounted eyepiece scopes, often with objectives as large as 80mm. Then there's the Swift Telemaster Zoom which use lenses rather than prisms and had a 15x to 60x range. You could get a photo adapter to make it a 1000 to 4000mm (f16 to f64) telephoto zoom. I think it's still available today as a Bausch & Lomb or Bushnell.<br>

I'll start a new thread for one of these topics soon.</p>

[eugen_mezei]

<p>I recently bought a WW I era binocular for artilery use. Would that qualify?</p>

 

[bradmustafa]

Good afternoon everyone,

 

I recently obtained these binoculars and was looking for some help on potentially identifying the age of them. They are labeled at “Ernst Abbe” with “Jena” underneath Ernst Abbe. On the other side shows the magnification “P8x30.” Also shows the serial number “2619695.” From the little research I did I was able to find that Ernst Abbe was born 23 January 1840 and was a physicist. Also Abbe was a professor at the University of Jena.

 

Any more information would be appreciated!

 

[Dustin McAmera]

I have a Goerz pair of Galilean binoculars engraved Dienstglas ('service glass', transliterated; and family legend is that they are war plunder from some relative). They are quite low magnification, but I declare them classic both because of their obscure origin and because my Dad would carry them in his rucksack when we were kids.

 

I bought a pair made for the British services by Kershaw, whose factory used to stand a couple of streets from my house. They have a graticule built in for estimating the size or height of what you're looking at. Sadly the prism on one side is quite badly desilvered. I can't tell if they were bought as surplus or stolen from the Army; but somebody has tried to erase some of the engravings.

[Fiddlefye]

My grandfather's field glasses; Lemaire Fabt, Paris. My grandfather was in the RFC and RAF in WWI (and RCAF for a time thereafter and again in WWII) and I presume he brought them home from Europe in 1919. There is a second pair hanging around at the family cottage that is slightly longer, but it has smaller front elements and in slightly less attractive condition, but equally good functional condition.

 

I've used these extensively over the years in spite of having a a couple of pair of decent prismatic binoculars. The spacing suits my eyes perfectly.

DSC_4970 by fiddlefye, on Flickr

DSC_4971 by fiddlefye, on Flickr

[JDMvW]

From 1941 to 1965, there were excise taxes in the US on cameras, binoculars, and some other optical items.

(a post on that at

Excise Taxes on optics and cameras 1941-1965 ).

You could buy either the mechanics or the lenses without the tax, but if you bought them together you had to pay the tax

Edmunds ad 1947-12 Popular Photography

Edited July 10, 2019 by JDMvW

[Mike Gammill]

Great ad, JDM. I believe Edmund Scientific might have still been going by the name Edmund Salvage Company. I remember reading that Norman Edmund started the business by offered slightly chipped lens sets to experimenters. Ordered from them a lot during college and my first few years of teaching. After the excise tax went away Edmund offered binoculars already assembled from war surplus parts.