High end, high cost optics... Why should I buy?

[MtnW]

One thing I didn’t read in most posts is the ability of the glass you are using to remain fog free. I’ve owned spotters from Zeiss, Swarovski, and Leica and never had a fogging problem . Looking through spotters all day can be tiring, here is where I feel you get the most benefit from the expensive glass. Next would be Binos , I have been happy with the mid line Leica Trinovids 10X40’s three sets in 15 years, they are rugged, pretty clear and they don’t fog up. Probably my next upgrade in Bino’s will be to range finders. Rifle scopes are only used when it is time for the shot, not fogging , being rugged and reliable is the most important for me. I don’t spin dials. I have new model S&B’s in 3-12X50, 1.5-6X42 , 1.1-4 ,and older Leica & SB that has been all over , they have been well worth the extra money. I have purchased duplicates of my favorite Leica and S&B scopes .I have used Leupold Vari X3 on many important hunts and find them rugged, reliable and fog free. I live on a mountain with lots of various lighting conditions, I compare glass frequently . I am really surprised how well Leupold Vari X3 scopes compare to the European scopes. For me the Leupold Vari-3 line is base line for a quality scope . A lot of people (birders, sporting enthusiasts, hunters) are always changing gear and upgrading. There is a pretty good market of lightly used high end glass That offer some great deals. Usually you can tell what kind of use and care a optic has had by simply looking at its cosmetic condition .

 

[AndyB]

I went Diamondback, Vipers, SLC's in 8x42.....and vipers, slc's in 15's
(Still got the Diamondbacks for my boys, great glass for the buck.)

Any way with both I was initially a little shall we say surprised at what I considered not a lot of gain for the dosh.

But then you start to notice things like depth of field, CA, FOV etc, the fact I can focus them at 200yards and its clear out to 15 miles, the fact I can look around inside the image without having to shift position or re focus.........Low light, when the others became next to useless.

You pay for small increases which add up to a heck of a lot as time goes by and you actually notice the differences. Every time I put my 15s on a tripod I am blown away with what I can see.

I could have saved quite a bit of dosh just saving a bit longer and just getting the slc's. Its a rabbit hole once you start.

I didn't know what I didn't know.
Does it make me a better hunter?...probably not, but it sure adds a whole new element to what you can get out of your time behind your glass.

Take that for what its worth.

 

[roosiebull]

I spend enough time behind glass to justify it, like others said, if you can’t see the worth, don’t spend the money. To me there is a vast difference between 300 dollar glass and 3000.
I spend a lot of time and effort hunting, it’s what I do for recreation, so that’s what I choose to spend extra money on.

I live and hunt on the coast, it’s thick country so the details are very important, glassing through brush or picking out movement in the brush, or a little patch of hair or an ear, etc. I couldn’t go back, I’m a bit of a glass snob these days.

that being said, I like good deals, and don’t spend money just to spend it. My most recent glass purchase was not as much as I planned on spending, and I’m happy with my purchase so far. Was going to end up with swaros and got kowa genesis.
For folks that don’t see the value in high end glass, don’t buy it... folks saying it has to do with status are ignorant, see the same stuff with high end camo.

I would way rather have good glass than a new bow every year, lots of guys get new bows every year and scoff at high end glass prices... to each their own, seems backwards to me

 

[JGRaider]

Lots of folks got sidetracked from the origianl OP. He said nothing about $300 vs $3000 glass. He made specific reference to mid grade glass which is also far superior to $300 Chicom optics.

 

[SomeJackassOnAForum]

I fully admit that a $3000 piece of glass is nice to look through, and they do excel somewhat in certain circumstances, like when glassing for extended periods of time and in the lowest light conditions. But compared to the much more affordable mid-grade average consumer glass, I'm hard pressed to understand why I should spend 10 times more! Expensive glass is nice, but not 10 times nicer (at least not to my eye), and I honestly don't think it would help me spot 10 times more game in the field, or be 10 times more successful, or shoot 10 times more accurately, or help me get 10 times more enjoyment from my hunts. Maybe it makes people feel 10 times better about themselves, proud that they never settle for anything less than the best. I don't know...

Lots of folks got sidetracked from the origianl OP. He said nothing about $300 vs $3000 glass. He made specific reference to mid grade glass which is also far superior to $300 Chicom optics.

What number multiplied by 10 is $3000?

 

[Hatchet Jack]

I’ve spent the last few hours this morning comparing maven b2 and swaro EL, looking at elk and deer at various distances.

Are the mavens awesome glass? You bet, I’d be fine using them on any hunt. Are they swaro ELs? Absolutely not. Nor are they supposed to be. Are the ELs worth $1600 more? To me yes, to others probably not. If I was a run and gun hand held glasser I’d take the mavens and run. The swaros are better for long sits picking apart big canyons which suits me better. Those mavens are bad ass though for <$1000 used

 

[Kenn]

Some wisdom from Birdforum;

To get a 10% improvement in optics you have to spend 90% more, but 90% of users won't see that 10% improvement.

Maybe an exaggeration, but a lot of truth there.

 

[hereinaz]

I see the guys who talk down expensive glass the same as the ones talking it up. They are just sharing their opinions based on their experiences, and biases.

The difference between quality is most apparent in the type of use and the comfort you want to enjoy.

There is at least one way to separate the differences objectively. The Diamondback, Viper, Kaibab and Razor HD do not have the resolution to see all the coues deer bedded in the shade of an ocotillo or mesquite that Leica ultravid or Swaro RL can see. That's a fact.

Can you hunt and kill coues with Diamondback? Yes. But, you will only have a chance to kill what you can see.

I have glassed with a Razor next to a Swaro EL. There was enough of a difference I sold my Razor and bought a Leica ultravid, which is on par with the EL but a little less expensive.

Can you hunt and kill elk with Diamondback or Viper? Absolutely, and it probably won't make as big a difference in how many elk you see. But, clarity makes a difference on the margins, like one guy mentioned in a comment above, a Diamondback changed a bush into an elk, but a Swaro saw it was bushes.

I know guys that prize clarity over magnification, so they switch to 12x EL from 15x SLC. Clarity costs money. I would love the NL pures, but that money it won't happen soon, if ever, for me.

Objectively, there is a difference in what you can see through the spectrum of all conditions.

Serious coues hunters carry the best, and some linked up two kowa or swaro spotters to make their own big eyes.

Additionally, as a long range shooter, glass matters. You really can't see the fine details of mirage, bullet trace, and wind indicators with muddy glass. It wasn't until I spent the money on top tier glass that I was able to understand the language shooters used to describe mirage.

Make your own judgment. It isn't just about status or justification after the fact for spending the money. Differences are real.

 

[Bkdc]

Some wisdom from Birdforum;

To get a 10% improvement in optics you have to spend 90% more, but 90% of users won't see that 10% improvement.

Maybe an exaggeration, but a lot of truth there.

Virtually everyone will see the improvement if left to spend time with the instrument (days, weeks) instead of a brief view at the store. Someone mentioned fogging. Whether you toss a binocular in the freezer for weeks or leave it submerged with a rope at your dock for a week, high end optics are not just about optics. I see a LOT of 25 year old Swarovski binoculars in tip top form and still under heavy and regular use. How many cheapos do I see still around with heavy regular use?

Everyone makes a value based judgement on his own needs.

 

[Hoodie]

I think this depends on which price range you´re comparing to the alphas, and varies even more depending on the specific binoculars in question. Different binos have different strong points and different weaknesses. There is no ¨Brand X¨ that does everything 10% better.

Allbinos.com comes the closest to objective reviewing I´ve seen. It´s a solid resource.

The Monarch HG they tested had an 88.3% transmission score. The SLC HD they tested had an 85.6% transmission rate, which incidentally was about 1% less than the Razor they tested.

That´s not to dog on the SLC at all. It scored just a little better than the Nikon on CA control, and just a little worse than the Razor. It marginally beat both on edge to edge clarity.

The SLC came away with the lowest overall score of the 3. It scored just a little lower on coma and astigmatism than both the Nikon and the Vortex.

Anyone could dispute the overall score thing but I think it´s completely reasonable, given those sort of results, to wonder at least a little if the Swaro is worth 90% more. I think you could make a strong argument it should be priced comparably to the other two based on its performance. A used one close to $1K would be a good deal.

Again, The Monarch HG and Razor are $1k, not $300, and the SLC isn´t $3k. FWIW the EL outperformed the SLC marginally, but still came away with an overall score lower than the Monarch HG. The NL Pure beat the Nikon by 6% overall but IS $3k. Someone could get a fantastic bino AND a decent spotter for that.

I live on the wet side of Oregon and have used maybe 8-9 different roof prism binos costing between $167 on the low end and $1300 on the high end. So far I haven´t had issues with any of them fogging internally. I might just be lucky though. I definitely think spending more gets you better QC and better build quality without a doubt. It´s probably the most valid reason to spend more.

Though I´m not sure anything can do much better on build quality than, say, a meostar. Those things are tanks.

 

[Bkdc]

Albinos is a bunch of random numbers. Just put the glass to your eyes. Every pair of eyes is different. But premium optics to me starts at Kowa Genesis or meostar. The razor HD is clearly inferior. The razor UHD is premium level optics in a large package. You know it when you look through it. They do not get the nod from me due to ergonomics or eye relief or ease of view or obvious inferiority in field of field of view especially on 8x versions but optically do not leave me wanting. The Ultravid 8x32 is premium optically but not ergonomically. Same with the Meostar 8x32 which is just as good but is unforgiving in eye placement. Same with the highly touted Zeiss FL 8x32 which requires precise eye placement and is unforgiving. Allbinos needs to be taken with a lot of salt. It treats features of copy variation as if it is a standard part of every binocular.

 

[Beendare]

Some good commentary.

Good to see some common sense come out of this thread


....

 

[Hoodie]

I’ve spent the last few hours this morning comparing maven b2 and swaro EL, looking at elk and deer at various distances.

Are the mavens awesome glass? You bet, I’d be fine using them on any hunt. Are they swaro ELs? Absolutely not. Nor are they supposed to be. Are the ELs worth $1600 more? To me yes, to others probably not. If I was a run and gun hand held glasser I’d take the mavens and run. The swaros are better for long sits picking apart big canyons which suits me better. Those mavens are bad ass though for <$1000 used

I´ve heard nothing but fantastic things about both of those binos, and I haven´t looked through either of them. So take this with a grain of salt.

It wouldn´t surprise me if the ELs out-resolved the B2s. If you´re talking about the 12x50 EL and the 11x45 B2, the EL´s extra 1x and 5mm of objective lens diameter would make it tough to call that a true apples to apples comparison. That´s about a 10% difference.

Now that doesn´t mean the ELs aren´t actually better. Just that it´s not a totally fair match-up for the Maven.

 

[Bkdc]

With a Swarovski, you not only get a premium brand (not that the label matters), but you get a long documented history of premium customer service, and you are paying for multiple refurbishments and services for a lifelong enjoyment. No offense to the guys at Maven, but I do not know whether Maven will be around in 10 years to make good on the lifetime warranty. And if you don’t care about that, then you go for the best glass for the best price. You can guy quality Kamakura Kokis or Kenkos from multiple other companies but you can’t get cross-branded warranty service. Kamakura Koki or Kenko or the other huge OEM binocular makers clearly have the technology and expertise to make a binocular that can rival the best, but they would also cost as much as the best. And who wants to pay 2500 for a Vortex or a Bushnell when he might as well buy a Swarovski binocular.

Once you design your binocular, have to pay Kamakura to disrupt its current factory production line to make your binocular to your specs to mass-produce your alpha-competitor binocular. Really? It is much more cost-effective to use what Kamakura is already producing in large volumes (mid-class excellent optics) and repackage it a different color or shaped outer chassis and rebrand it as XXX-alpha-killer. This is the only way you can get your binocular priced aggressively. But it will still be a mid-tier binocular at the level of the Zeiss Conquest (not a Swarovski killer). Look through a Zeiss Conquest, and you’d be pleasantly surprised how good the optics are. And if you’ve never looked through something better you’d probably be very happy with its optical performance.

 

[Hoodie]

Albinos is a bunch of random numbers. Just put the glass to your eyes. Every pair of eyes is different. But premium optics to me starts at Kowa Genesis or meostar. The razor HD is clearly inferior. The razor UHD is premium level optics in a large package. You know it when you look through it. They do not get the nod from me due to ergonomics or eye relief or ease of view or obvious inferiority in field of field of view especially on 8x versions but optically do not leave me wanting. The Ultravid 8x32 is premium optically but not ergonomically. Same with the Meostar 8x32 which is just as good but is unforgiving in eye placement. Same with the highly touted Zeiss FL 8x32 which requires precise eye placement and is unforgiving. Allbinos needs to be taken with a lot of salt. It treats features of copy variation as if it is a standard part of every binocular.

I generally agree. Especially regarding sample variation, but that´s a factor with anything.

I do think the transmission tests are worth paying attention to.

All the time you´ll hear guys tell people to pass up the $1k range stuff and save until they can afford Swaro. I don´t think it´s always the right call, depending on someone´s overall gear budget. Especially with stuff like the Meostar, Monarch HG, and Genesis out there.

Just knowing the price of something has an impact on the objectivity with which you can evaluate it. I´d like to see some sort of single blind test between different price ranges. That would be interesting.

Totally agree with you on the Razor HD not being up to par with the Meostar. I don´t think it´s as good as the Nikon either. The Vortex stuff I´ve tried has never been the best in its given price range. Haven´t looked through the UHD though.

 

[Brooks]

I’ve been guiding for an outfitter in NM for a long time and when a guide doesn’t have a client here we are paid to be on top of a mountain before day light to glass. Years ago I had inexpensive glass but found out a long time ago quality alpha glass is well worth the money.. A weekend or just a few days to hunt probably not worth the big bucks. I bought 8.5x42 EL’s in 2004 for $1425 and sold them 6 months ago for $1300.
In 2020 I spent over $5000 on alpha glass.. binos and Spotter. IMO it was worth every dollar.

 

[krhuntin]

I was searching for a new spotting scope this go round. Looked through probably 30 different brands/models (which was hard to do as a lot of them were out of stock). Was really impressed with the Nightforce, then i called up Doug from NYcameraland.com. He told me about Athlon Cronus. He said they were better than a vortex razor spotter. Then went and found somewhere that had them. Unreal quality of optics for the price. Cameraland had them almost 50% off. So of course i told doug to send me a pair. You can find good deals etc, if you are looking for them. In my instant buy once, cry once. But i could tell the difference between mid grade to high grade. Especially with clarity around the edges.

 

[JohnJohnson]

The Monarch HG they tested had an 88.3% transmission score. The SLC HD they tested had an 85.6% transmission rate, which incidentally was about 1% less than the Razor they tested.

That´s not to dog on the SLC at all. It scored just a little better than the Nikon on CA control, and just a little worse than the Razor. It marginally beat both on edge to edge clarity.

The SLC came away with the lowest overall score of the 3. It scored just a little lower on coma and astigmatism than both the Nikon and the Vortex.

Again, The Monarch HG and Razor are $1k, not $300, and the SLC isn´t $3k. FWIW the EL outperformed the SLC marginally, but still came away with an overall score lower than the Monarch HG. The NL Pure beat the Nikon by 6% overall but IS $3k. Someone could get a fantastic bino AND a decent spotter for that.

Not to be a jerk but these results completely undermine the testing for me. So the Razor outperformed the SLC, and the EL only marginally outperformed the SLC. So it would appear from those two points that the Razor and EL are at least generally comparable.

I spent a week straight this past year glassing 6-10 hours a day off tripods with my father. The distances were out to about 1-2 miles depending on our specific glassing location that day. I was using EL 10x50s and he was using his Razor 10x50s. There was no comparison between the two, as he told me himself. It would have been readily apparent to anyone who looked through the two, and it only got more pronounced as we were glassing in the direction of the sunset into a shaded mountainside. He still brings it up to me. I don't believe these numbers are made up, I just question the actual value we can derive from them and how useful the information is.

 

[Hatchet Jack]

I´ve heard nothing but fantastic things about both of those binos, and I haven´t looked through either of them. So take this with a grain of salt.

It wouldn´t surprise me if the ELs out-resolved the B2s. If you´re talking about the 12x50 EL and the 11x45 B2, the EL´s extra 1x and 5mm of objective lens diameter would make it tough to call that a true apples to apples comparison. That´s about a 10% difference.

Now that doesn´t mean the ELs aren´t actually better. Just that it´s not a totally fair match-up for the Maven.

You're right, not a fair matchup. And it was the 9x45, so even less comparable, but it's all i had. I grabbed a pair from the local classifieds and had heard how great the Mavens were and figured it'd be fun to see how they stacked up vs the big boys. Of course I didn't expect them to out resolve something with 33% more magnification. I was looking purely at the view: colors, apparent FOV, edge clarity, ease of viewing, etc. I don't get too hung up on resolution charts and fact sheets. And some of the "brighter" optics on paper produce simply a whitewashed image to me, not necessarily more detail.

The center portion of the image in the mavens was amazing, razor sharp and the colors popped. Hand held there was not much difference between the two. Put them on a tripod for 30-45 minutes and that's where the ELs make their money. The best way i can put it is this: looking through the Mavens is like looking through a really great pair of binos. Looking through the ELs is like being there in real life, just 12x closer. But you have to be a glasser to really notice and appreciate the differences.

 

[Hoodie]

Not to be a jerk but these results completely undermine the testing for me. So the Razor outperformed the SLC, and the EL only marginally outperformed the SLC. So it would appear from those two points that the Razor and EL are at least generally comparable.

I spent a week straight this past year glassing 6-10 hours a day off tripods with my father. The distances were out to about 1-2 miles depending on our specific glassing location that day. I was using EL 10x50s and he was using his Razor 10x50s. There was no comparison between the two, as he told me himself. It would have been readily apparent to anyone who looked through the two, and it only got more pronounced as we were glassing in the direction of the sunset into a shaded mountainside. He still brings it up to me. I don't believe these numbers are made up, I just question the actual value we can derive from them and how useful the information is.

Itś always possible the guy just got a bad sample of the SLC. Or a standout Razor. Based on the transmission test I´d guess the former was more likely. The non-HD SLC came in at like 93% and the coatings are supposed to be identical, so that´s more evidence that his SLC wasn´t representative of the average.

I wasn´t too impressed with the Razor myself. I think both the Nikon and Meopta are noticeably better.