Are Alpha Binoculars worth it?

[Pocoloco]

Save yourself some money, go big…the first time. Started w Leupold binos, went to 10 Leica Trinovids and they made the old binos look like trash, this year went with 12 NL, amazing. The Trinovids look horrible now. Ran them back to back multiple times on tripod in the mountains we hunt and I had a hard time believing I liked the Leicas the previous season. My son now runs the Trinovids, mom didn’t join us one day so he ran the 8x32 NLs, he was 13 and he knew right away it was a different level and he did not want to give moms binos back the next day.

 

[Hoodie]

People mention edge clarity a lot as a difference between the $1k class and the alphas.

This is just the result of something called a field flattener. It's an extra element in the ocular lens. There are $500 binos that have field flatteners that work very well, and are sharp all the way to the edge. These binoculars will have better edge clarity than any "alpha" that doesn't have field flatteners, like the SLC, or Zeiss HT.

Some people can't tolerate panning with a field flattened binocular, ie. the "rolling ball" effect. A classical edge with field curvature also can give an image a little more of a 3-D effect.

I've seen multiple people on here compare the Maven B series to the SLC and say they're effectively equal. The SLC is obviously not in the NL class, but if a person can't do field flatteners it's about the best option.

Another thing that people often overstate is the low-light difference between $1k binos and the best of the best. People say that you can get 15 more minutes of glassing at last light. If you watch any of the twilight tests Robby Denning has done between less expensive models and Swaro stuff, it's usually more like 60-90 seconds. Sometimes it's equal. This is in line with what I've experienced.

(Twilight test where SLC 15x56 beats Athlon Cronus 15x56 by less than a minute. Athlon is $700, SLC is $2400)

There's a real advantage. But it is slight. And the cost for the newest class of top tier binoculars is 3x what a Meopta Meostar, Maven B series, Nikon Monarch HG, etc. cost.

I'd spend the extra $2K on tags.

 

[StopMakingSense]

@Hoodie no disrespect at all to you. I know you've found what you enjoy and at the price point you're happy with. Plenty of my friends are happy with their binoculars in the use cases they have them for.

My posts prior went over the two points you brought up. Folks look at the twilight tests and optical clarity, namely at the center of the image, to say yes, they're 2-5% better. Are they then worth it to me? These are two easily tangible items of assessment for a binocular to anyone.

The worth of the big three goes way beyond this. As I suggested in my prior posts a good listen is the podcast from the JOMH with Omer. It perfectly dissects the optical instruments that binoculars have become for the modern-day hunter.

Field flatteners are an interesting point and are done in different ways across all of the top-tier binoculars. No system is the same and I suggest anyone that has the rolling ball problem with say an EL give others a shot. They will probably not have this with a Swarovski NL, Leica Noctivid, or Zeiss SF. These instruments are manufactured to deliver an image that they believe is close to a perfect way of viewing the world. Some have more 'flattening' while others have less.

I'm interested to know what $500 binocular has field flatteners and better edge-to-edge clarity. The field flattener creates an image that doesn't appear convex in its shape. It definitely helps as a part of edge clarity but doesn't truly define it. What we're talking about here is the useable FOV. The SLC's useable FOV for me is almost at 100% but with slight convex edges. My eyes can move around the image while glassing. Other binoculars I have to stay true to center leading to eye strain.

We haven't even gotten into ergonomics, eye relief, depth of field, coatings, color fidelity, sharpness, contrast, IP distance, and many others I'm missing. This all adds up to something bigger. Without constant field use of owning one, most, in my opinion, can't respect them. You can look at the specification all day with binoculars in regards to their stated eye relief or twilight factor/light transmission but until you use them, these are statements. There isn't a true standard ISO test for any of these that defines yes, this measurement is actually correct. I only find the big 3 three top-tier glass to be true in their statements.

The defining moment for me when I was using alpha glass was the first time I was legitimately behind my binoculars for over 12 hours. Eye strain is real and it takes all of those factors into play to allow you to stay behind glass for immense periods of time.

 

[Hoodie]

Most of the $500 binoculars with field flatteners are Chinese clones of the same model. The Zen Ray Prime, Theron Questa, Leupold BX-4 Mckinley, Athlon Cronus all had or have field flatteners.

I have not owned an SLC. And all the alphas I've looked through have had field flatteners. From what I've heard the SLC's level of field curvature is comparable to stuff in the Maven B series, The Meostar, or the Nikon Monarch HG (which purports to use a field flattener, but has field curvature in the last 10% or so). Those $500 models have better edges than the $1k binoculars I mentioned, so I assume it's the same for the SLC.

Ergonomics are highly personal. I've heard multiple people complain about the SLC focuser. That said, alphas do have a very appreciable build quality advantage. No doubt about that. And better quality control.

Eye relief really isn't an alpha advantage. SLC HD 10x42 has 16mm. Althon Cronus has 22mm. Monarch HG has 17. Leica is well known for having short eye relief (and small FOV). For some users that's not a problem and the amazing color saturation is worth the trade-off.

Alpha binoculars are amazing instruments, and I'm not knocking anyone for buying them. Especially if you spend a ton of time behind your glass.

But these days you can get a hell of a lot for $1k. Even $500 can get you a very solid binocular. Based on what I've seen (which is not a lot), I don't think anyone with a Meopta Meostar or Nikon Monarch HG is missing animals they'd have seen with an SLC. Just my opinion.

 

[twall13]

The defining moment for me when I was using alpha glass was the first time I was legitimately behind my binoculars for over 12 hours. Eye strain is real and it takes all of those factors into play to allow you to stay behind glass for immense periods of time.[/QUOTE]

Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk

I feel like what you said here makes the biggest difference in whether it's worth it to upgrade or not. I know plenty of guys that only pull out their binoculars occasionally for a quick scan or better view, never using them from a tripod. If that's the style of hunting you do, $200-500 binoculars are probably good enough for your use.

If you truly spend hours at a time behind binoculars on a tripod, that's when the price of Alpha glass begins to be worth it. Everyone hunts differently so you have to decide for yourself if your hunting style justifies the higher price. I feel like I'm more effective hunting mule deer specifically when I can get a good glassing vantage and spend hours picking over several miles of country. Elk hunting, I'm typically in thick timber and don't spend as much time behind binoculars. Different hunts, different requirements from my glass.

I still don't have Alpha glass in my binoculars, but I spend enough time behind my Maven B.2's during a mule deer hunt to know that I'll eventually upgrade. I have to adjust the focus more than I'd like but they do work well. I think the Mavens are a great value, but after a few hours my eyes are wanting a rest. I couldn't even make it a half hour behind my old $200 Nikon Monarchs before my eyes would be bloodshot. Yet the center of those Nikon's is still pretty sharp.

 

[Banded_spooney]

Huge thread and lots of opinions but I’ll add mine.

For me, the biggest thing when I upgraded to SLC 10s from Viper HD’s was the depth of field. The clarity in good light at the center was almost unoticible and edge to edge there was a difference but I was disappointed at how slight. This did change at low light. Sure fully losing sight wasn’t that far off but clarity at the edges in low light became very noticeable.

However, the constant refocusing as you scan with the Vipers is unbearable after using the Swaros. It’s not something I ever noticed before but I couldn’t ever go back.

More often than not I use Meopta 15s and my best friend has the SLC HD 15s. Center, and low light I don’t see a difference. But the SLCs are noticeably clearer edge to edge but for me it’s not worth the price difference. I’ve spent time behind the Kaibabs and the vortex Talons in 15. The Meoptas are such a step up it’s not even a conversation. At least to me and my friends we can’t stay behind the higher magnification vortex’s. Eye strain and head aches cut glassing sessions short or send us back to our Alpha 10s.

Get the Alphas. It’s only money

 

[100%DIYazCOUES]

I’m a huge fan of swarovski slc and meopta meostars. To me the slc are just slightly better in a few areas.
I’ve seen good to great performers in binoculars thatre much less expensive, but theyve all lacked at least one or two essential things
The one thing that really sets the best “alphas” apart to my eyes, is the ability to really see into shadows.no lower end binos I’ve used can really see the detail in what’s in shadows, I’d just see varying degrees of loss of detail or just simply a black area. I don’t know how to explain it other then with mavens for example, at 700 yards, I can see the bush with the shadow behind it. With slc I can see through the bush and see the buck bedded in the shade.
And for coues hunting, that’s what makes high end binos worth it

 

[dreamingWest]

Are Alpha Binoculars worth it?​

Yes

 

[Gone4Days]

Yes.

 

[MTNHUNTER76]

Are they worth it? You know what they say about opinions...They are worth every penny and then some in my opinion. You can't shoot what you can't find/see.

 

[DangerRanger]

I’m a fan of that tiger just under the best personally.

I sold my slc hd and bought a set of trinovids, a kestrel and 3/4 of a rangefinder and love the choice.

Not sure if slc counts as alpha though, but I’m very happy with my trinovids and find them easier to use up close

 

[kaboku68]

The ELs and the NLs are very close. The ELs are easier to get collimated to your eyes but once you get the NLs set- Dyn-O-Mite. So here is what you have to ask yourself. Alphas can make you a better hunter. I remember one hunting trip where I encountered a group with Vortex Vipers and I had my Victory FL10X42s which were alpha at the time. Yes. They were happy with their binoculars and had other gear. The Vipers were not a complete handicap for them in hunting and they bagged a nice billy. However, while we were talking I asked them about the rams that were across the glacier especially the really big ram. They were in some almost impossible country and I had to get out because of my short time limitations. They said snow patches. The Zeiss could make them out at that distance and you could tell that they were rams. That is the deal. Mids will work great. But the alphas make you a better hunter. In optics they talk about the impossibility of a swaro virgin. This means that 99.9% of those people coming in to buy swarovski, zeiss or leica were not virgins to it but had a hunting buddy or somebody else who had a pair and loaned them the good glass just on a whim. People who borrow that good glass sometimes settle but they don't downgrade.

I have never been white tail deer hunting. I probably wouldn't notice a great difference in tight forested conditions. I sent my uncle in Eastern Sodak a pair of 8X30 Steiner Safaris and he loved them. That was all he ever needed. I get the best because it is a time question. My time hunting is so valuable that I do not want to be wishing for better binoculars and would rather just have the best.