Maven B1 vs B2

[sektr]

I'm looking at getting a higher magnification bino to complement my 8x30 Maven B3, and I want to stay within the Maven lineup as I love their glass.

Eyeing both the B1 10x42 and the B2 9x45 and wanted to get some input from y'all. I mainly hunt Eastern whitetail in heavy timber, where I'll likely still lean towards the compact B3. These new binos will be for more casual wildlife viewing/birding at home and the occasional western hunt.

I know the B2 is no question the better quality glass, but I've got a few concerns:

- I've never used glass with a field flattening element, and have no clue if I'll be a rolling ball victim with the B2. How common is it?
- Would I ever feel like I'm missing out with 9x vs 10x magnification?
- I've heard depth of field on the B2 isn't great, any thoughts on this?
- I'm also concerned about the additional size and weight for Western hunting. Any western backpackers out there using these?

My gut is telling me to get the B1's. I like the form factor better and don't know that I'll be able to appreciate the B2 improvement in quality anyways. Am I foolish to think that?

 

[CApighunter]

Never looked through the B1s, but you’d have to pry my 9x B2s from my cold dead hands or beat me over the head with a pair of 8.5x42ELs to get me to switch. They are a little bulky/heavy, but the weight is well worth the quality of glass. I have zero complaints.

 

[SaltyUte]

I made the switch to Swaro but, B2s...

 

[sektr]

Never looked through the B1s, but you’d have to pry my 9x B2s from my cold dead hands or beat me over the head with a pair of 8.5x42ELs to get me to switch. They are a little bulky/heavy, but the weight is well worth the quality of glass. I have zero complaints.

This is what I keep hearing. My only major concern is rolling ball. I want to get customs so worried about finding out it's a major issue for me and being stuck with a paperweight.

 

[Steve C]

My main two binocular combo is the 8x30 B3 and the 9x45 B 2. I have a B1 in 8x42 as well. First thing is that there is no field flattening elements in the Maven glass. I see posted time to time there is, but in conversations, with two of the owners, they tell me there is not. The view indicates likewise. They have what I would say is a minimal distortion classical edge. The reason I have the Mavens and not the Swarovski (I had the 10x42 SLC, the 8.5x SV EL, the 10x42 SV EL, and the 10x50 SV EL) is that the rolling ball was so bad for me in the SV EL they were just expensive paperweights. The Mavens give me no hint at all of rolling ball. The SLC was no better optically, although one might logically assume they were maybe a bit better constructed, plus there is the brand panache associated with Swarovski that Maven will need some number of years to build towards. Keep in mind that due to the position of Maven's OEM contractor, the fov is understated. My 9x45 B 2 has an 8* fov not , the 7* as listed in the spec sheet. That puts the actual afov in the 70* range, very close to the fov of the new NL from Swarovski. The B 1 and B 3 are also wider than listed. The B2 has a sweet spot in its 9x configuration. I had a 7x B2 for a while and have a friend who has the 11x. In my mind the 9x is the best of the three, but my friend says different. Proving that we are all different.

The glass in either the B1 or the B2 is the same overall quality. There will be some differences dut to the B 1's use of the Schmidt -Pechan prism system and the B 2's use of the Abbe Koening prism system, The A-K binoculars do not require phase correction and the design allows for a 3-4% improvement in light transmission over the S-P system. The A-K design produces a longer binocular, hence the size difference in the B1 and B2. Image quality is so similar one would be hard pressed to tell the difference.

Even after spending a little time with the new Swarovski NL, I';m not looking to upgrade. The NL is a bit better, but not 3x better by a long shot. So I'll be keeping the Mavens for the foreseeable future.

No you will very likely not be able to tell a detail difference between the 9x45 B2. In addition to my 8x B 1 I have a friend with a 10x42 B1. I have a hard time telling, but magnification preferences are a very personal thing. Both 8x and 10x work, that is really why the afgrument over which is better will always be with us.

 

[sektr]

My main two binocular combo is the 8x30 B3 and the 9x45 B 2. I have a B1 in 8x42 as well. First thing is that there is no field flattening elements in the Maven glass. I see posted time to time there is, but in conversations, with two of the owners, they tell me there is not. The view indicates likewise. They have what I would say is a minimal distortion classical edge. The reason I have the Mavens and not the Swarovski (I had the 10x42 SLC, the 8.5x SV EL, the 10x42 SV EL, and the 10x50 SV EL) is that the rolling ball was so bad for me in the SV EL they were just expensive paperweights. The Mavens give me no hint at all of rolling ball. The SLC was no better optically, although one might logically assume they were maybe a bit better constructed, plus there is the brand panache associated with Swarovski that Maven will need some number of years to build towards. Keep in mind that due to the position of Maven's OEM contractor, the fov is understated. My 9x45 B 2 has an 8* fov not , the 7* as listed in the spec sheet. That puts the actual afov in the 70* range, very close to the fov of the new NL from Swarovski. The B 1 and B 3 are also wider than listed. The B2 has a sweet spot in its 9x configuration. I had a 7x B2 for a while and have a friend who has the 11x. In my mind the 9x is the best of the three, but my friend says different. Proving that we are all different.

The glass in either the B1 or the B2 is the same overall quality. There will be some differences dut to the B 1's use of the Schmidt -Pechan prism system and the B 2's use of the Abbe Koening prism system, The A-K binoculars do not require phase correction and the design allows for a 3-4% improvement in light transmission over the S-P system. The A-K design produces a longer binocular, hence the size difference in the B1 and B2. Image quality is so similar one would be hard pressed to tell the difference.

Even after spending a little time with the new Swarovski NL, I';m not looking to upgrade. The NL is a bit better, but not 3x better by a long shot. So I'll be keeping the Mavens for the foreseeable future.

No you will very likely not be able to tell a detail difference between the 9x45 B2. In addition to my 8x B 1 I have a friend with a 10x42 B1. I have a hard time telling, but magnification preferences are a very personal thing. Both 8x and 10x work, that is really why the afgrument over which is better will always be with us.

Thanks for the in-depth write up! Glad to hear rolling ball isn't an issue with the B2.

I'm surprised to hear you say you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference between the two in image quality - I feel like I've seen so many posts from people saying the B2 just blows the others out of the water, but I guess when we're talking high end optics "blown out of the water" really is a marginal difference when it comes down to it.

Guess I've got some thinking to do on whether or not I'm okay with the extra weight of the B2...

Out of curiosity, any noticeable difference in image quality from 8x B3 to 8x B1? From my understanding they're the same glass so I'm assuming in daylight conditions there's no real difference.

 

[Steve C]

I always get suspicious when I hear a comment about one good binocular blowing away another one. After we hit about the $700 mark with something like the Tract Toric, we get to the point where there is not a lot of latitude in optical improvements to make a big difference. There is a 5% rule of thumb I find helpful. That means that in any given optical category there needs to be about a 5% improvement for most eyes to be able to see it. That is not hard and fast by any means. Even at the Toric level we are hitting a total transmission very close to 90%. That means we need to see a 95% number to see real improvement. There are very few binoculars that hit that level. Even Swarovski admits to 92% transmission in the new NL, which is about as bright as I've seen. Keep in mind transmission is not the sole determinant of apparent brightness, image color balance has a lot to do with it, as Swarovski has shown with the NL. The 92% is probably close to the transmission limit with a S-P prism, likewise the A-K is likely constrained by a top end not over 95%. A lot of that is color balance and leveling out spots in the light curve. What becomes important at this point is finding a balance with what you can spend, what your perception of brand satisfaction is (it's just yours, not one is right or wrong), and how well the binocular fits your hands, face and eyes. That's really why you so so many recommendations to try before you buy.

Now the B2 does indeed present an impressive image. If the armor was black with a Zeiss label nobody would bat an eye at a $2,200 price tag. That thing is the real deal. Not everybody will prefer it over a more expensive glass, but what you see is damned impressive. Same can be said for the B1, what you see is damned impressive.. The biggest prctical difference is size, the B1 being smaller. I doubt I ever sell either the B1, B2, or the B3.

 

[307]

@sektr you already have THE answer from an actual optics guru, so I won't even try to comment at that level.

I have the 2's in 9x, had the 11's and would agree that the 9's are far better for general use. I also had the 8x B1's and sort of regret going away from them. I liked the 8 B1 as much or more than my current 9x b2's.

I've compared them against the Meopta line but little else, so I'm not much help there.

I don't think there is a wrong choice, nor do I think the 2's "blow the B1's out of the water" at all.

 

[sndmn11]

I have had all versions of B1 and B2, I have B5s as well as new version Swarovski SLC 10x. The Swarovski were at a ridiculously low price to the point I could sell them anytime and make a good profit. We have kept the B1s and I just ordered another pair from on here for a family member. So, I think that makes 6 B1 pairs by family. I think the 11x B2 has the most noticeable shallow depth of field, I never noticed such a thing with any others including my B5s. The B2 9x are nice, just not my style, and I think the B1 is outstanding. My wife and I work on an even score board spotting animals from tripods, and she sets up with the 8x B1s, she can out glass most folks we have been in the field with.

I am on the look out for 6x or 8x B3s for a give away price.

 

[JMG22]

My main two binocular combo is the 8x30 B3 and the 9x45 B 2. I have a B1 in 8x42 as well. First thing is that there is no field flattening elements in the Maven glass. I see posted time to time there is, but in conversations, with two of the owners, they tell me there is not. The view indicates likewise. They have what I would say is a minimal distortion classical edge. The reason I have the Mavens and not the Swarovski (I had the 10x42 SLC, the 8.5x SV EL, the 10x42 SV EL, and the 10x50 SV EL) is that the rolling ball was so bad for me in the SV EL they were just expensive paperweights. The Mavens give me no hint at all of rolling ball. The SLC was no better optically, although one might logically assume they were maybe a bit better constructed, plus there is the brand panache associated with Swarovski that Maven will need some number of years to build towards. Keep in mind that due to the position of Maven's OEM contractor, the fov is understated. My 9x45 B 2 has an 8* fov not , the 7* as listed in the spec sheet. That puts the actual afov in the 70* range, very close to the fov of the new NL from Swarovski. The B 1 and B 3 are also wider than listed. The B2 has a sweet spot in its 9x configuration. I had a 7x B2 for a while and have a friend who has the 11x. In my mind the 9x is the best of the three, but my friend says different. Proving that we are all different.

The glass in either the B1 or the B2 is the same overall quality. There will be some differences dut to the B 1's use of the Schmidt -Pechan prism system and the B 2's use of the Abbe Koening prism system, The A-K binoculars do not require phase correction and the design allows for a 3-4% improvement in light transmission over the S-P system. The A-K design produces a longer binocular, hence the size difference in the B1 and B2. Image quality is so similar one would be hard pressed to tell the difference.

Even after spending a little time with the new Swarovski NL, I';m not looking to upgrade. The NL is a bit better, but not 3x better by a long shot. So I'll be keeping the Mavens for the foreseeable future.

No you will very likely not be able to tell a detail difference between the 9x45 B2. In addition to my 8x B 1 I have a friend with a 10x42 B1. I have a hard time telling, but magnification preferences are a very personal thing. Both 8x and 10x work, that is really why the afgrument over which is better will always be with us.

Helpful! Thank you for sharing this.

 

[Agent82]

I just demoed the B1 and B2. I will give you my non-technical two cents. I will start by saying the in my opinion, optically, the B2 is superior.

1. The B2 is a very bright, crisp optic with a pretty good edge to edge clarity. The FOV is fantastic as well. I could not tell the difference from 9 to 10 power from anything around a 1000 yards and in. However, beyond that yardage, it becomes more noticeable the benefit of a 10 power.

2. The B1 did not give me the wow factor. I felt the overall image was just not as bright, and this was most noticeable at dusk. I will say that I did prefer the overall size of the B1 more than the B2, but everything else I would give the edge to the B2

If I could only choose one, B2 would be the winner.

 

[icampbell87]

Deciding between 8,9,10,11 is tough

 

[icampbell87]

Will the x45 binos fit in the normal bino harnesses?

 

[307]

My 9x fit well in a marsupial medium. Snug, not tight, nor floppy.

 

[icampbell87]

Excellent, thank you!

 

[xFREDx]

will the 9x45 b.2 fit in the adak harness?

 

[Firehawk]

My 9x fits in my XL Kuiu harness. DId NOT fit in the standard Kuiu harness. My buddy is using a Marsupial for his 11x which are very similar dimensionally.

 

[RDG_RNR]

I love my 9X45 B2s. I feel like I pick out game better with my B2s than my spotter. Focuses quick and great in the trees as well


Only complaint is the eye cups don’t stay put when I put them back in the harness

 

[cdowns]

My main two binocular combo is the 8x30 B3 and the 9x45 B 2. I have a B1 in 8x42 as well. First thing is that there is no field flattening elements in the Maven glass. I see posted time to time there is, but in conversations, with two of the owners, they tell me there is not. The view indicates likewise. They have what I would say is a minimal distortion classical edge. The reason I have the Mavens and not the Swarovski (I had the 10x42 SLC, the 8.5x SV EL, the 10x42 SV EL, and the 10x50 SV EL) is that the rolling ball was so bad for me in the SV EL they were just expensive paperweights. The Mavens give me no hint at all of rolling ball. The SLC was no better optically, although one might logically assume they were maybe a bit better constructed, plus there is the brand panache associated with Swarovski that Maven will need some number of years to build towards. Keep in mind that due to the position of Maven's OEM contractor, the fov is understated. My 9x45 B 2 has an 8* fov not , the 7* as listed in the spec sheet. That puts the actual afov in the 70* range, very close to the fov of the new NL from Swarovski. The B 1 and B 3 are also wider than listed. The B2 has a sweet spot in its 9x configuration. I had a 7x B2 for a while and have a friend who has the 11x. In my mind the 9x is the best of the three, but my friend says different. Proving that we are all different.

The glass in either the B1 or the B2 is the same overall quality. There will be some differences dut to the B 1's use of the Schmidt -Pechan prism system and the B 2's use of the Abbe Koening prism system, The A-K binoculars do not require phase correction and the design allows for a 3-4% improvement in light transmission over the S-P system. The A-K design produces a longer binocular, hence the size difference in the B1 and B2. Image quality is so similar one would be hard pressed to tell the difference.

Even after spending a little time with the new Swarovski NL, I';m not looking to upgrade. The NL is a bit better, but not 3x better by a long shot. So I'll be keeping the Mavens for the foreseeable future.

No you will very likely not be able to tell a detail difference between the 9x45 B2. In addition to my 8x B 1 I have a friend with a 10x42 B1. I have a hard time telling, but magnification preferences are a very personal thing. Both 8x and 10x work, that is really why the afgrument over which is better will always be with us.

I think I just learned more about Maven and got several of my questions answered just by reading this post. Thank You for your insight.

 

[68Plexi]

I always get suspicious when I hear a comment about one good binocular blowing away another one. After we hit about the $700 mark with something like the Tract Toric, we get to the point where there is not a lot of latitude in optical improvements to make a big difference. There is a 5% rule of thumb I find helpful. That means that in any given optical category there needs to be about a 5% improvement for most eyes to be able to see it. That is not hard and fast by any means. Even at the Toric level we are hitting a total transmission very close to 90%. That means we need to see a 95% number to see real improvement. There are very few binoculars that hit that level. Even Swarovski admits to 92% transmission in the new NL, which is about as bright as I've seen. Keep in mind transmission is not the sole determinant of apparent brightness, image color balance has a lot to do with it, as Swarovski has shown with the NL. The 92% is probably close to the transmission limit with a S-P prism, likewise the A-K is likely constrained by a top end not over 95%. A lot of that is color balance and leveling out spots in the light curve. What becomes important at this point is finding a balance with what you can spend, what your perception of brand satisfaction is (it's just yours, not one is right or wrong), and how well the binocular fits your hands, face and eyes. That's really why you so so many recommendations to try before you buy.

Now the B2 does indeed present an impressive image. If the armor was black with a Zeiss label nobody would bat an eye at a $2,200 price tag. That thing is the real deal. Not everybody will prefer it over a more expensive glass, but what you see is damned impressive. Same can be said for the B1, what you see is damned impressive.. The biggest prctical difference is size, the B1 being smaller. I doubt I ever sell either the B1, B2, or the B3.

I would also like to thank you Steve for sharing your thorough insights with the Maven line! I recently upgraded from some Leupold 10x42 BX4’s to the Maven B1’s 8x42. My eyes like 8’s more than 10’s (depth of field issues mostly), and I really like the B1’s. That decision was helped greatly by your posts!

I hunt thick timber and open country so I need binos that can do both decently. That has me considering the B2 9’s now.

I do have a pair of Vortex Vulture 15’s, but the B1’s make me not want to look through them for very long anymore because the glass isn’t nearly as good. I’m probably needlessly chasing a 1% improvement and should be happy where I’m at lol.

Wish I could just own both, but that’s not financially an option at this point. Probably just need to demo a pair of B2 9’s to see for myself how much, if any, they would better fit my needs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk