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

[Bkdc]

Transmission is only useful in marginal light and most situations, not significant as a differentiator. For example, the Vortex UHD has a mere 88ish percent transmission (which is sad for an abbe Koenig) but will outperform almost anything out there unless the primary criteria is marginal light performance. And it is so superior optically that it will probably still outperform cheaper binoculars with 92 percent transmission in low light. The eyes can’t tell the difference of a few percent. Don’t fixate on numbers. Look through the glass and judge for yourself. A premium binocular has the premium look. The more I read, the more I see that mid tier optics are adequate for most users. I’m confident that a Maven is in the same league as GPO Passion HD and Zeiss Conquest HD. They all have fantastic on-axis optical performance. And they are all made by Kamakura.

 

[Coryl]

I would agree with several that state that 'time' behind the glass has been where I have seen a difference in where the upper crust seem to excel, but again maybe not to the extent the pricing margin suggests.

 

[sektr]

I was in the same boat until I rigorously tested mid vs high end binos side by side. Yes, it was easier to glass for hours and had slightly better detail on the high end but that wasn’t the difference maker.

What really sold me was consistency across conditions. Every mid range bino I would try had weak spots that would pop up after extended use in specific conditions - glare, severe chromatic aberration, etc. When I got behind some high end glass these issues never seemed to pop up.

It’s minor and it’s definitely nit picking, but to me the consistent reliability is more than worth the price for something with a lifetime warranty. I have sensitive eyes so YMMV.

 

[Holocene]

There are diminishing marginal returns on so much.

How much do you shoot your rifle or bow in order to be accurate in the field? Are you the kind of person who is satisfied with minute of deer? Or the kind who obsesses and competes in local tournaments, works on their own gear, and ekes out every last ounce of accuracy?

Same with equipment -- optics and otherwise.

Top tier optics are fantastic for all the reasons people have stated above. One way to try them without breaking the bank is to save up over time and then buy used, ideally the alpha stuff from 5-10 years ago. Those guys who need the best of the best are always trading up.

I see the benefit of alpha glass for binoculars and spotting scopes. Using the low- and mid-tier stuff is intolerable (to me) because of the lower light transmission, fuzzy edges, and poor resale value. Now for scopes, I get by with mid-grade stuff because I don't shoot long distances.

 

[Altoonabcm157]

There are diminishing returns with high end optics. A quality 1500 dollar rifle scope is 90% of what a 3000 dollar scope is but a 300 dollar scope really is 10% of what the 3000 scope is. There is a point that what you gain might not be worth it or very obvious to most people but there is a very big difference between entry level and alpha. Try to borrow some gear and spend extended time behind it and you may find that you don’t want to invest in alpha glass but you will benefit greatly from attest being in the upper mid tiers of optics.

 

[wind gypsy]

I have buddies that find more critters with their diamondbacks than I do with ELs. They are just better glassers with infinitely more experience looking over terrain for animals than me.

At the end of the day i have gear i could afford and I like not wondering if I could resolve something better or if id be straining my eyes less with something higher on the glass food chain. That's with binos/spotters. With rifle scopes, I'm still in the "i'm not missing any shots because my scope didn't resolve the image 3% better" camp. There is something to be said for having a forgiving eyebox, depth of focus, and parallax forgiveness though!

 

[JohnJohnson]

At the end of the day i have gear i could afford and I like not wondering if I could resolve something better or if id be straining my eyes less with something higher on the glass food chain.

Basically this. My ELs give me the peace of mind that I'm the weakest link in the system, not my glass. I want to be the weak link, not be limited by my gear.

 

[LeaveMeHangin]

As the original poster on this thread, I really appreciate all the advice and opinions give here. They certainly vary a lot. I have an update to add.

I have since purchased two pairs of new-to-me binos, Swarovski SLC 10x42 and Nikon HG 10x42. I spent a lot of time testing and comparing these against my old standby Vortex Diamondback 10x42's. I know many of you will dislike and disagree with my results, and I'm ready to get blasted for it, again. But I must call it as I see it...

I tested in all conditions from first light to last, sunny/cloudy, hot/cold, wet/dry, windy/calm, and everything in between. I must admit that both the SLC's and the HG's were very nice, and marginally outperformed the DB's in certain conditions. I noticed slightly better edge to edge clarity and light gathering ability, and perhaps a small advantage in viewing comfort and eye strain over long glassing sessions. If you are willing to pay MUCH more for these slight advantages, then go for it. But I personally judged them to not be that big of a difference maker to me in my real life situations. I never once noticed I was spotting more game with the expensive optics, or was seeing things I couldn't see with the DB's. To sum it up, they were slightly brighter and clearer; but not way brighter and clearer. Would they make me a better and more successful hunter, or make my time in the field significantly more enjoyable? That's the question, and the answer will likely be different for everyone. For me, I'm going to say no.

Comparing the SLC's to the HG's, I honestly couldn't detect much difference between these two. They are both very good in all respects, and very comparable to each other. But the HG's are nearly half the cost. Again, both marginally better than the DB's. Just not $1000 better, in my opinion. Bear in mind that money is not a big issue with me. I can afford high-end and am willing to spend whatever I feel is truly justified. But I hate over spending when it isn't necessary.

As much as I liked the SLC's, I sold them. I kept the HG's for now and will hunt with them and the DB's this fall to see if I can detect any more valuable differences. If not then I will let the HG's go too. I think the DB's are a sensible value overall.

 

[307]

As the original poster on this thread, I really appreciate all the advice and opinions give here. They certainly vary a lot. I have an update to add.

I have since purchased two pairs of new-to-me binos, Swarovski SLC 10x42 and Nikon HG 10x42. I spent a lot of time testing and comparing these against my old standby Vortex Diamondback 10x42's. I know many of you will dislike and disagree with my results, and I'm ready to get blasted for it, again. But I must call it as I see it...

I tested in all conditions from first light to last, sunny/cloudy, hot/cold, wet/dry, windy/calm, and everything in between. I must admit that both the SLC's and the HG's were very nice, and marginally outperformed the DB's in certain conditions. I noticed slightly better edge to edge clarity and light gathering ability, and perhaps a small advantage in viewing comfort and eye strain over long glassing sessions. If you are willing to pay MUCH more for these slight advantages, then go for it. But I personally judged them to not be that big of a difference maker to me in my real life situations. I never once noticed I was spotting more game with the expensive optics, or was seeing things I couldn't see with the DB's. To sum it up, they were slightly brighter and clearer; but not way brighter and clearer. Would they make me a better and more successful hunter, or make my time in the field significantly more enjoyable? That's the question, and the answer will likely be different for everyone. For me, I'm going to say no.

Comparing the SLC's to the HG's, I honestly couldn't detect much difference between these two. They are both very good in all respects, and very comparable to each other. But the HG's are nearly half the cost. Again, both marginally better than the DB's. Just not $1000 better, in my opinion. Bear in mind that money is not a big issue with me. I can afford high-end and am willing to spend whatever I feel is truly justified. But I hate over spending when it isn't necessary.

As much as I liked the SLC's, I sold them. I kept the HG's for now and will hunt with them and the DB's this fall to see if I can detect any more valuable differences. If not then I will let the HG's go too. I think the DB's are a sensible value overall.

We don't tolerate your kind round these parts...

 

[grappling_hook]

^^ thanks for the follow-up, @LeaveMeHangin. It seems like what you are really looking into deeply is value, and how cost is related to value. What would be your interpretation of SLC vs HG if they were only $100 apart? I think that's usually about where they were in practical purchase terms, as both were in the ~$1,000 range when they were regularly available. I.e. $1000 (the MSRP for the Nikon Monarch HG) vs $1,100 (Swarovski SLC, which usually listed around $1,400-1,500 but often had online discounts/coupons bringing price down to $1,100). I think that's why both the Monarch and the Swarovski SLCs were often touted as great value mid-range binoculars, as opposed to the more expensive Leicas, Zeiss, Swarovski ELs, etc.

I think Matt Cashell had a good discussion of the cost-value curve on binoculars using the Nikon Monarch at https://www.rokslide.com/review-nikon-monarch-hg-10x42/.

 

[Marble]

I wonder how much someone's baseline vision plays into their review and perception of an optic. I know people do see colors slightly different in different optic manufacturers. Some say they can see deer/game better in one brand vs another.

I myself have had better than 20 20 my whole life and have been able to see things others could not without glass. It seems I can detect more differences in the various glass. My wife who has laser corrected vision can notice some difference, but it's not enough to help her. Dad is the same story.

For me, looking through SLCs vs several other binos in the $200-600 range, it seems like the lower priced stuff is dirty when I look through it.

Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk

 

[grappling_hook]

That and also what you would be using them for, frequency, etc. For example, mine are in year-round use watching birds, boats, and game and non-game critters, along with using them for photo zoom. Clear photos need clear glass, and so on, and living in Alaska I have a lot of space and opportunities to use them all the time. Spending that much more for a small gain, the value of mid-range binoculars like my SLCs add up due to the time use. If I were only using binoculars for 3-4 hunts per year with minimal alpine hunting and nothing else, I’d probably go with something like diamondbacks.

 

[idcuda]

I've been using vanguard endeavor 10x42s for 7 years now and I don't think I've given up much. I bought those like new on Amazon for $140. I just ordered kowa genesis 44s from camera land yesterday - the $870 price pulled me in. I'm very curious how much of a difference I'll see (it should be pretty obvious). Generally, I agree with the OP. High end binoculars, for most hunters, in most situations are not needed. If you're a trophy hunter and you spend countless hours looking for an ear flicker in the shadows, you probably want some NL pures.

I know high end glass is objectively better. I think it's particularly clear/noticeable with spotting scopes. But, when you input all the factors, for binoculars, I would bet sub-$500 is great for most of us.

 

[j33]

As the original poster on this thread, I really appreciate all the advice and opinions give here. They certainly vary a lot. I have an update to add.

I have since purchased two pairs of new-to-me binos, Swarovski SLC 10x42 and Nikon HG 10x42. I spent a lot of time testing and comparing these against my old standby Vortex Diamondback 10x42's. I know many of you will dislike and disagree with my results, and I'm ready to get blasted for it, again. But I must call it as I see it...

I tested in all conditions from first light to last, sunny/cloudy, hot/cold, wet/dry, windy/calm, and everything in between. I must admit that both the SLC's and the HG's were very nice, and marginally outperformed the DB's in certain conditions. I noticed slightly better edge to edge clarity and light gathering ability, and perhaps a small advantage in viewing comfort and eye strain over long glassing sessions. If you are willing to pay MUCH more for these slight advantages, then go for it. But I personally judged them to not be that big of a difference maker to me in my real life situations. I never once noticed I was spotting more game with the expensive optics, or was seeing things I couldn't see with the DB's. To sum it up, they were slightly brighter and clearer; but not way brighter and clearer. Would they make me a better and more successful hunter, or make my time in the field significantly more enjoyable? That's the question, and the answer will likely be different for everyone. For me, I'm going to say no.

Comparing the SLC's to the HG's, I honestly couldn't detect much difference between these two. They are both very good in all respects, and very comparable to each other. But the HG's are nearly half the cost. Again, both marginally better than the DB's. Just not $1000 better, in my opinion. Bear in mind that money is not a big issue with me. I can afford high-end and am willing to spend whatever I feel is truly justified. But I hate over spending when it isn't necessary.

As much as I liked the SLC's, I sold them. I kept the HG's for now and will hunt with them and the DB's this fall to see if I can detect any more valuable differences. If not then I will let the HG's go too. I think the DB's are a sensible value overall.

I bought HG’s to compare against my Monarch 5’s, I expected a huge difference but could hardly detect a difference. Definitely not worth the 4x cost difference. I’m gonna give it this fall to come to a conclusion. Glad I’m not the only one that found out the same thing.

 

[Tourguide]

First light, last light, and low light is when the good stuff really pays for itself in my opinion. Buy a used pair of good German glass and never look back, plus no headaches after all day glassing

 

[Spiral Horn]

I bought HG’s to compare against my Monarch 5’s, I expected a huge difference but could hardly detect a difference. Definitely not worth the 4x cost difference. I’m gonna give it this fall to come to a conclusion. Glad I’m not the only one that found out the same thing.

Don’t doubt this is what someone glancing might see. However, the HGs are a serious upgrade to the M5. If studying / picking apart an Image or glassing for hours the user’s eyes and brain will definitely notice a big difference. Sub-premium optics always have me trying to drag out more detail detail than the image is providing, which leads to eye-strain, headaches and worst of all - misidentification / mis-judgement of game at distance.

It‘s one thing to see a deer at hundreds of yards, but quite another to judge trophy quality or age at distance.

 

[j33]

Don’t doubt this is what someone glancing might see. However, the HGs are a serious upgrade to the M5. If studying / picking apart an Image or glassing for hours the user’s eyes and brain will definitely notice a big difference. Sub-premium optics always have me trying to drag out more detail detail than the image is providing, which leads to eye-strain, headaches and worst of all - misidentification / mis-judgement of game at distance.

It‘s one thing to see a deer at hundreds of yards, but quite another to judge trophy quality or age at distance.

I would agree on the eye strain part for sure. I’m lucky where I live I can glass Elk/Deer from my hot tub, which is a bonus as the HG’s handle fogging better…

 

[Gatorgrizz27]

The question seems to be “at what point do I begin to reach diminishing returns,” I had the same one. Unfortunately the only person who can answer that is you. For me, it was Zeiss Conquest’s as I could see a noticeable difference in clarity over anything cheaper, and I wasn’t willing to spend any more money.

There are people on both ends of the spectrum no matter the subject. Lawyers who buy a $500 Milwaukee drill to replace their doorknob because they “want the best”, and construction workers who use a $79 Ryobi drill 50 hours a week because “it works fine.”