*Free shipping on web orders $75.00 & over. See Restrictions

2.5X Near Vision Binoculars

Based on 2 review(s) |  Write your own review


Product Description

These 2.5X near vision binoculars are great for close up tasks like reading and writing. The lenses focus independently and pupillary distance and nose pads are adjustable, offering the most comfort for low vision users. Spectacle binoculars are for a variety of tasks and greatly improve independent living situations regarding near sightedness.


  • Focal range: 15-17"
  • Field of View: 3 inches
  • Great for near vision viewing
  • Includes: Neck strap, carrying case, and side eye shields
  • One year warranty

Product Specs

Sku: 301011
Weight: 0.481 each

Product Reviews


  • While these binoculars work quite well, they are too fragile. I have owned three of them; and n two, them the right temple has come adrift, either at the hinge or at the jointure of hinge and temple. When I returned the first one for replacement within the warranty, I was informed that they couldn't be replaces, since they were not in salable condition.(!) For $83, Ls&s should either provide a better product or a better warranty. RJR

  • Posted by ROBERT J ROEMER on Oct 14, 2014
  • Pretty good

  • I've had these for about two years. Optics are excellent quality, but heavy (glass with metal housing). The nose saddle that came on them tore and I replaced with nose pads from old pair of glasses. Because of the weight, the saddle was more comfortable. I have found an online source for every kind of nose pad and saddle made. I have close set eyes and had to file the slots in the aluminum frame so could move optics closer together, but very few people should have this problem. I hoped to wear for computer use, but working distance is really a bit close for that. Really need something with focus range of from 18 to 30 inches so can sit normally in my chair. They work fine for other uses. Only problem I have now is I need to replace one of the temples (hinge broke) and I'm having trouble finding a source. If not for this I would give them a 4.

  • Posted by D Zabel on Jul 4, 2014