Maven B1 vs B2

[Sled]

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.

Would you say the b1 can resolve in low light similar to the b2? I'm trying to get hands on to compare them and currently have an slc and toric that I'd like to compare with.

 

[sndmn11]

Would you say the b1 can resolve in low light similar to the b2? I'm trying to get hands on to compare them and currently have an slc and toric that I'd like to compare with.

In the woods yes, I don't know what the result would be on a flat range looking at a gridded resolution chart.

 

[Sled]

In the woods yes, I don't know what the result would be on a flat range looking at a gridded resolution chart.

That's good to hear. I don't use charts but rather real world conditions side by side. Cows at dusk, trees during a snowstorm at distance, shadows under trees, etc. So far, the slc has bested everything I've put it up against. Oddly enough it's just as everyone says. You only notice the advantages under adverse conditions. The b2s came close and I assumed the b1s would be slightly less capable with the smaller prism that has 1 more reflection and smaller objective.

 

[68Plexi]

Would you say the b1 can resolve in low light similar to the b2? I'm trying to get hands on to compare them and currently have an slc and toric that I'd like to compare with.

I own a pair of B1 8x42’s and I recently demoed a pair of B2 9x45’s to see if they were noticeably “brighter” at dawn/dusk. I understand it isn’t apples to apples being 8’s vs 9’s, but I was not able to discern a noticeable difference in light between the two. This was looking through the pine trees and mtns, not a resolution chart.

I sent the B2’s back.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[PAhntr91]

Considering the b2 9x45. My only concern is size. Is jumping up to the bigger body worth it in getting the b2? Or is it not even noticeable. I would be coming from vortex diamondbacks. I’m sure either one is a great choice.

 

[68Plexi]

Considering the b2 9x45. My only concern is size. Is jumping up to the bigger body worth it in getting the b2? Or is it not even noticeable. I would be coming from vortex diamondbacks. I’m sure either one is a great choice.

The B2 9x45 are a very good binocular. They will be a major improvement from your diamondbacks. They did not feel “too big” to me and balance very well when you hold them. They are going to be heavier than your DB’s at 33 oz, but if you have a decent bino harness you should be fine.

If you’re on the fence and have the means, just demo them and you’ll know for yourself.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[PAhntr91]

The B2 9x45 are a very good binocular. They will be a major improvement from your diamondbacks. They did not feel “too big” to me and balance very well when you hold them. They are going to be heavier than your DB’s at 33 oz, but if you have a decent bino harness you should be fine.

If you’re on the fence and have the means, just demo them and you’ll know for yourself.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah I have heard that they free hand nice because of the weight. I have a marsupial harness. I think I’ll have to jump to the medium size though. From what I’ve read I would think they will be a good work horse Bino?

 

[NeHunter13]

Following (need to get my count up!) Also, good info for someone considering the Mavens.

 

[TexaninSconny]

Considering the b2 9x45. My only concern is size. Is jumping up to the bigger body worth it in getting the b2? Or is it not even noticeable. I would be coming from vortex diamondbacks. I’m sure either one is a great choice.

Where are you hunting? If you are primarily in the eastern woods for whitetail I would recommend the B3 8x30 or try new/old B1.

But if you are heading out west or overlooking big fields for gun season perhaps the B2 would be better suited.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BrianTom]

I recently purchased both the B1.2 10x42 and the B2 9x45 from Maven. After comparing the models for a few days the B2's are getting returned. The glass was much clearer and brighter on the B1.2. The FOV "might" be slightly better in the B2 but not nearly enough to compensate for the increased size, weight, and cost. I may have been able to hold steady the B2 better than the B1.2, but again not significant enough for the obvious difference in image quality. I had my father in law and brother have a look at both as well to tell me which they liked better. They both picked the B1.2. I will also say I was biased towards the 9x45 after reading reviews and forum posts. I wanted to like the B2 better but that was not the case after side by side comparison.

 

[Buckmaster]

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.

A bit of a thread resurrection, but curious and I'm hoping for some clarification.
I spoke with one of the main office girls at maven, she said the b2's do have field flattening optics and maven website also lists them as having field flattening..
However you are stating they don't, I've read some saying they do and some saying they don't.. I know you have a ton of experience with these, plus as you've stated both the owner said they don't.. Has there been a new revision to the b2's? Or am I missing something here?
Any thoughts on this Steve? (Or anyone else)
Thanks in advance and BTW I've gained a ton of info off of your various threads around the intrawebs, appreciate it.

 

[Spiral Horn]

I spoke with one of the main office girls at maven, she said the b2's do have field flattening optics and maven website also lists them as having field flattening..
However you are stating they don't, I've read some saying they do and some saying they don't.. I know you have a ton of experience with these, plus as you've stated both the owner said they don't.. Has there been a new revision to the b2's? Or am I missing something here?

Why is whether or not the B2s have specific field flattening technology so important? To me, this the least important and most overrated specification in today's optics industry.

What we are really talking about are the effects of off-axis aberrations, curvature and pincushion distortion. Yes, years ago designs like my old Leica Trinovid BA had some very noticeable softness after about 60% of the way to the edge of the image. However, most modern designs have dealt with this rather well to the point where most of today's premium designs have very large "sweet spots" and edge softness isn't all that noticeable unless folks are really looking for it. But there are still a few exceptions.

The Swarovski EL introduced the hunting world to flat field technology and if one truly wants the absolute flattest that is still the way to go. However, it also created the issue of globe effect as the human eye naturally incorporates some level of field curvature in an image. In other words, most people are slightly more comfortable panning with an optical device that introduces at least some level of edge distortion. To follow, many modern designs like the Zeiss SF (it has field flatteners) purposefully left in some mild edge distortion -- others have followed suit. Another example is the well-heralded SLC, it does not have field flatteners, yet one will have to search fairly wide to find someone raining on the sharpness of the image.

Getting back to Maven - I've personally own(ed) the B1.2 8x42, B2 9x45, and B6 10x50 (as well as far too many other binoculars). I really do not know which of those models does or does not have field flatteners, but can say that after considerable use and comparison with many other brands/models I never noticed edge sharpness as a negative issue impacting Maven. BTW - of those Maven models the B6 is my pick for the best image.