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

[LeaveMeHangin]

I know this topic has been discussed many times, but I'm still not convinced.

I have tested many different grades of optics (binoculars, spotting scopes, rifle scopes, rangefinders, etc.). I honestly don't see a big difference between most of them. 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...

Price is not really the issue to me. I can afford high grade stuff, but rarely choose to spend my money that way, because I can't justify it. If I could see a truly valid reason to do it then I would. But as long as I avoid the really low end junk, I find the decent quality mid-grade optics to be completely acceptable and usable. What more do I need?

I understand the "buy once, cry once" mentality. But I would rather buy once and not have to cry at all. I do not understand the "spend as much as you can afford" mentality because I feel it's more of a lame excuse to just spend way more than is necessary, and convince yourself that it must somehow be worth it. I have never regretted spending WAY less to get something ALMOST as good.

Feel free to try convincing me otherwise...

 

[ericacymcdonald]

Since getting into the spot and stalk game I've really seen where they help. For me it's not as much about being able to see the animal you can do that with cheaper optics but more about being comfortable for hours behind them. More Time behind the glass means seeing more animals. You can't catch a fish if your line isn't in the water. However, This might get me ran out of here but i still haven't seen the benefits of high end rifle scopes, I don't dial so as long as it holds zero and is durable I'd call that a good scope (I use a meopro), same with rangefinders I have a leica I bought used cheap but I don't really see the benefits over my friends vortex or leopold offerings, sure it's clearer but I'm not looking through it for hours on end and theirs are just as accurate.

 

[Hatchet Jack]

On a hunt I sit behind a tripod for 8 hrs a day looking for tiny grey critters that live in big grey rocks. You couldn't pry my Swaro ELs out of my hands unless you were handing me NLs. All i know is that if i ever decide to upgrade, i'll lose alot less $, if anything, when i sell mine vs Joe Vortex upgrading his. Guys bitch about $2500 optics, the single most important hunting gear you have, then think nothing of losing their ass $ wise on a new truck with all the bells and whistles. Different strokes i guess.

If you don't like to glass a lot just get a $300 pair and be done with it. More deer for me

 

[CorbLand]

Feels like you are making a statement more than asking a question. No body cares what binocular, spotting scope or rangefinder you use. You seem to care more about what you use than most people care about what you use. If what you have works for you, then great, go hunt.

Now to try and answer your "question." High quality optics offer a lot of little things that add up.

I am color blind so having a pair of binos that has true colors is a major difference for me. I cant really tell the difference between shades of color (there's no such thing as dark blue to me, its black). When I can tell the difference between the yellow grass and the slightly different yellow of elk, that's major for me.

Depth is a major benefit for me as well. The ability to tell that the tree is 3D has allowed me to find more animals. It makes it easier to find things when they are sticking out, not sitting 2D with everything else.

Distinct, crisp lines allows me to distinguish different colors and see lines. Animals have evolved to blend in and the ability to find a straight line on a hillside allows me to find more animals.

I can sit all day behind my Swarovski spotting scope or EDG binos with little eye fatigue. 4 hour glassing sessions picking apart a hillside is way easier when I have binos that are an extension of my eyes.

An example of what high quality optics have done for me. I was cow hunting with some friends. We were glassing from the road one morning trying to locate some elk we had seen in an area. I was a little ways down the road from my friends and hadnt seen anything so I decided to link up with them and see what they had seen. I come around the corner and they are all out of the vehicle pointing and one guy is getting his pack on and getting ready to take off. I pull up and ask what is going on, and they say there is a cow bedded on that hill about 1000 yards off. I hop out and look through their Vortex Diamondback spotter and sure enough there is a cow bedded down. By this point, two people that still have tags are headed for the draw to the south to start getting closer. I pulled out my Swarovski and find the cow. Turns out that the cow is a yellow bush with a brown bush next to it. In the cheaper optics, the yellow bush looked like the body and the dark bush looked like the neck. I wish I would have taken pictures of it because to this day, if I would have just looked at in the Diamondback, I would be convinced it was an elk.

If your cheaper binos work for you. That is great, keep using them. You have to determine what works for you and where to allocate funds. The way you hunt, where you hunt, and what you hunt are all determining factors to what you should use. High quality optics are a prime example of diminishing rate of return. As you go up, the return on investment is not 1 to 1. Only you can determine if that ROI is worth it for what you need/want.

 

[Laramie]

If I win the power ball tonight I won't buy new optics... I will go on more hunts.

No reason to spend money on something if you are satisfied with what you have.

 

[JGRaider]

I own a couple of high end "alphas", the most used being a Swaro 10x50SV. It is phenomenal. However, I also own an older Leupy Gold Ring HD, SLC HD and a Meopta Meostar HD, and they all allow me to see anything with them that my SV;s show.. Having the SV's doesn't make me a better hunter, and are not necessary for success as long as I have the others available. Anyone that thinks otherwise is fooling themselves IMO.

 

[ramsdude47]

Status is important to a lot of people.

 

[SecretSpot]

Mid grade to highest grade is not 10x more money, it's about 2x the money and I'd say about a 15% better glassing experience. If your eyes cant tell a enough of a difference than I think you have answered your own question

 

[handwerk]

Simply put, I'd rather drive an old truck and enjoy a more pleasant view through my optics.

 

[Hoodie]

There is a "best bang for buck" price point. I like to be there. Birdforum is a good resource for finding options that outperform their price class. Allbinos is a good site for more objective bino testing. Do some research and pick a standout product.

I just got a $400 pair of binos that performs every bit as well as a MIJ Razor. Probably better. I'd have a damn hard time telling a difference between it and a Meostar or Monarch HG. It controls CA better than the Nikon.

I picked up an 8x32 Sightron Blue Sky last week to use as a truck bino. It is phenomenal for what it costs. I paid $167 and it's every bit the equal of a Vortex Viper to my eyes.

Optics are important. One of the most important things to spend money on. But you don't need to spend $3k on binos. A good rule of thumb is the higher the magnification, the more you should spend.

Look for objective things like dielectric coatings, ED glass, and transmission values. Those are more important than brand recognition. The top offerings will obviously have all of those, but the gap between lower and mid range stuff is getting slimmer all the time.

 

[tam9492]

I think your scale of value is off. It’s not linear - $3000 binos are not 10x better than $300 binos. Rather, it’s more quadratic, where returns diminish as you spend more and more. Same with ultralight products.

If you’re talking ‘worth’, then that’s subjective, and the returns, however minimal, given by $3000 binos may absolutely be ‘worth’ 10x more than $300 binos.

It sounds like you have your worth system established, and you already know the answer according to your scale.

 

[Fatcamp]

You shouldn't. You're not worthy.

 

[Bkdc]

I don’t understand the original poster. If he’s looked through premium level glass and it doesn’t seem worth the price, then it’s not worth the price to him and he should buy something that satisfies him at a lower price level. You already have your answer.

There are a lot of people who are critical of their optics and things like coma (comatic aberration), glare, distortion, astigmatism are very bothersome. Or they demand durability and high levels of reliability.

It’s not just optical performance. The little things like ergonomics including reliability under abusive conditions that also matter. Dry storing your mid-class binocular in the freezer for weeks at a time and take them out for daily use after it has thawed and won’t attract condensation. Repeat 20 times. See if it’s still working flawlessly.

 

[Beendare]

You arent going to get a rise out of me....buy the cheapies....


.......they cost you more in the long run.

——-

 

[Aaron Warpony]

If you're lucky enough to have eyes that do well with lesser cost glass, then you're set, go hunt with them. My reasons for expensive glass came down to low light, judging dall sheep, and glassing long hours. I couldn't find cheaper glass that did those things well paired with my eyes

 

[scott_co]

I started off using Nikon Monarch binos, then I upgraded to Vortex Razor HD's.

The Razor HD's are great during the day, but are lacking during low light conditions.

If I would have just purchased some Swaro's, I would probably have saved myself some money, had better glass from the get go, and experienced less I strain using lesser quality glass.

I am buying some Swaro NL Pure 12x42 binos this year and calling it good.

 

[LeaveMeHangin]

...I am color blind so having a pair of binos that has true colors is a major difference for me. I cant really tell the difference between shades of color (there's no such thing as dark blue to me, its black). When I can tell the difference between the yellow grass and the slightly different yellow of elk, that's major for me...

If your eyes can't tell the difference between color shades (like grass yellow and elk yellow), then how do your binos help that? Won't your eyes still have the same issue, even through the optics? If mid-grade glass changes the colors such that they appear even closer to each other then I guess I could understand that.

I'm mainly just wondering if others have had the same experience as me, not being able to justify the difference. I'm talking like spending $300 vs $3000. The $3k glass is better, no doubt; but not that much. All the sales folks sure do want to convince me it is, and that I need it! If it really made a MAJOR difference in my success, comfort, and enjoyment then I would pony up and pay it. But I'm still not convinced it would. The differences are noticeable, but subtle and minor. Doesn't that equate to just a minor difference in my overall experience?

I confess that deep down I want to do it, and am hoping someone here can talk me into it. Thanks for the responses. Still waiting to hear a really compelling argument. I wish I wasn't so practical...

 

[pk_]

I believe it comes down to detail work (aging/scoring animals at great distance, low light etc...) and hours behind them that make them worth the investment to some.

Remember the price is not relative to the increase in viewing experience experienced by the user, it is relative to the cost involved for a company to provide that improvement for those who require it.

I use cheap optics ($200-$300 scopes, Bino’s etc...)They are more than adequate for my personal use, hunting deer in wooded environments.

 

[Kenn]

If you spend 4X more on binoculars you will NOT get 4X better performance. You will not get 4X more animals either. I have Zeiss SF’s that cost me $2k, and I love them but I doubt they will get me a single animal that I wouldn’t have gotten with $500 bins. If you go to cabelas and compare them you might not see why good bins are are worth the money, but when you use them in the field and see the difference in field of view, glare, 3D effect, contrast and lack of chromatic distortion you may change your mind.

 

[TTT]

@LeaveMeHangin, you are blessed to see no difference between a set of $300 va $3000 binos. I wistfully remember a time when I could clealy see a flicker of an ear a mile away through a cheap Bushnell spotting scope & so much game with an old 60s era Nikon porro prism bino even at half-past dark. I never felt the need to buy anything “better.” Enjoy your gift.