I don’t think this is a good example of rent seeking, this seems like an entirely positive sum interaction with no attempts to restrict the supply.
There is a cost to installing the binoculars. That cost can be recouped by people paying a small fee to use the binoculars. The binoculars are in no way impeding your view of the scenery, so no one is being coerced into making the purchase. You aren’t prevented from bringing your own pair of binoculars.
So you're only going to be spending your spare change on the enhanced zoom if you believe it’s worth more than your unimpeded view. You get a view you wouldn’t have had otherwise, whoever installed the binoculars earns a small profit. Win-win.
how do they obtain the prime real estate at a scenic overlook?
Presumably they pay the local govt.
Note that said "prime real estate" is not exclusive; it doesn't reduce your ability to enjoy said scenic overlook for free.
The same real estate should've been used by the respective local government to offer viewing sites for everyone to benefit.
Also, sometimes the device doesn't work right, effectively stealing money or pointlessly taking up space.
Are you just looking for something to be mad at?
In this case, the grievance feels legitimate. Nature is an opportunity for people to feel more connected to the planet, to feel more at peace, and we're ruining it with pointless capitalism. Kids love to see through binoculars and often they don't have the money to pay for a viewing. Imagine a world where the usage was free, making people happier.
That's not what rent seeking means.