Observation on the best binos conversations

[nastynick]

After owning Nikon HGs, Vortex Razors, older Swaro Habicht and looking through Leupolds, Zeiss and Sigs and reading countless posts something occurred to me.

We often debate the “best binocular/glass” but almost always “whichever your eye likes the best”. It turns subjective and personal. Which it should.

Maybe another way to look at the conversation is which binocular/glass suits the most people’s eyes?

Meaning, for each individual one will be the “best”. But as a whole, it would be interesting to understand which bino suits more eyes than the rest.
Curious what others think about this observation, ignoring price.

For me, my 25 year old restored Swaro Habicht are still easiest on my eyes

not trying to start an argument. Just curious to hear the results.

 

[ozyclint]

Amen on the Habicht. Just bought a new 7x42GA (GA= rubber amour).
Amazing bino. The resolution is outstanding as is the depth of field. The light transmission is 96%, the highest of any bino i know of. If the big 3 put effort into a modernized Porro prism it would simply blow away any roof prism bino. the 73 year old Habicht design is optically brilliant, but hey people line up in droves to pay $3000 for NL's so why offer something that could optically be better for a cheaper price, because Porro's are far simpler to make. Is it that people think porro's can't be good or the look? Fashion is for women and handbags.
Personally I love the look of the GA Habicht. They are light and compact too. I really like the 7x42 format for woods bow hunting.
I'd like to get a pair of the 10x40 for long range glassing on my NZ hunts. Lighter and smaller than my current Steiner nighthunter 10x50.

 

[ozyclint]

As for what bino suits my eyes. I like the depth of field and 3D sterotopic effect that Porro prisms offer.

 

[TheGDog]

Only contribution to this convo I can make is... Friday did a back-to-back comparison between the new-to-me ZEISS Conquest HD 10x42's I just bought from a gentleman on here... compared to my Vortex Vulture HD 15x56's.

I went over to the Bolsa Chica Wetlands Reserve because, as you might imagine, I wanted to do a little glassing with my new toy!

Mind you... before then... I was amazed with the Vultures! I was astounded at the difference they afforded me compared to my "decent" DiamondBack 10x42's. Major Wow factor improvement moment.

However... taking them both out Friday to the Wetlands reserve... and doing a back-and-forth swap to compare views? WOW.... at first I thought... "What the Heck? These ZEISS seem to be giving me the same amount of magnification as the Vultures! What's going on here?" So I double-checked... I had to do a double-take. So I focused my attention on some landmarks... paying specific attention to their perceived size within the optic. And then I swapped back over to the Vultures again. NO... Ok... the Vultures technically *are* giving me more magnification of the object.... BUT... what it was is... 1) the clarity/crispness of the image, together with 2) the SIGNIFICANTLY broader depth-of-field!

So it's like... my brain... when presented with these two visual scenarios initially... sorta had this perception that the ZEISS was offering me same as the Vultures. But it's just because the edge-to-edge... the crisp sharpness of the image... and the much broader depth of field to the focusing... just all of them together gave that much more info and detail to my brain to process within that FOV! So, my brain was like "YEah! Wow! I like this over here way better!"

The Vultures *do* technically get you in closer. The object *is* larger in FOV. But the crispness just isn't *quite* the same. It's not bad. Not at all. It just isn't at that same level though. And in it's FOV the amount of sharpness that it does provide... is not within the entire FOV. There's a thing ring around the outer edge of the FOV where it's not "edge-to-edge". But since the depth of field of the focus is noticably less deep... and it definitely doesn't have the same level of edge-to-edge clarity. I dunno... it's like your brain craves that higher and larger amount of detail present within so much more of the FOV within the image the ZEISS was presenting to my brain. The Vultures will still be useful for longer-range glassing, like in open-country Desert ridges. Like reaching out 1+ miles. But wow man... now with having experienced these ZEISS... it makes me mind reel wondering OMG... what must it be like looking thru some higher-end 15s!?

 

[JohnJohnson]

My Swarovski EL 10x50s are by far the best for my eyes that I've found. I've looked through SLCs, Razors, and I actually own Zeiss Victory SF 8x42s as well. Nothing comes close to the ELs for my eyes, though I wear glasses so I need different things out of binos such as large exit pupil.

 

[nastynick]

Amen on the Habicht. Just bought a new 7x42GA (GA= rubber amour).
Amazing bino. The resolution is outstanding as is the depth of field. The light transmission is 96%, the highest of any bino i know of. If the big 3 put effort into a modernized Porro prism it would simply blow away any roof prism bino. the 73 year old Habicht design is optically brilliant, but hey people line up in droves to pay $3000 for NL's so why offer something that could optically be better for a cheaper price, because Porro's are far simpler to make. Is it that people think porro's can't be good or the look? Fashion is for women and handbags.
Personally I love the look of the GA Habicht. They are light and compact too. I really like the 7x42 format for woods bow hunting.
I'd like to get a pair of the 10x40 for long range glassing on my NZ hunts. Lighter and smaller than my current Steiner nighthunter 10x50.

I actually picked up the Nikon HG because they felt so good in hand and they seemed so crisp and clear. I really liked them at first and wanted to like them long-term. But after spending a lot of time behind them and my Swaro Habicht that I sent back for a full rebuild, I was done. The Nikon HGs are currently looking for a new owner.

 

[Newtosavage]

Only contribution to this convo I can make is... Friday did a back-to-back comparison between the new-to-me ZEISS Conquest HD 10x42's I just bought from a gentleman on here... compared to my Vortex Vulture HD 15x56's.

I went over to the Bolsa Chica Wetlands Reserve because, as you might imagine, I wanted to do a little glassing with my new toy!

Mind you... before then... I was amazed with the Vultures! I was astounded at the difference they afforded me compared to my "decent" DiamondBack 10x42's. Major Wow factor improvement moment.

However... taking them both out Friday to the Wetlands reserve... and doing a back-and-forth swap to compare views? WOW.... at first I thought... "What the Heck? These ZEISS seem to be giving me the same amount of magnification as the Vultures! What's going on here?" So I double-checked... I had to do a double-take. So I focused my attention on some landmarks... paying specific attention to their perceived size within the optic. And then I swapped back over to the Vultures again. NO... Ok... the Vultures technically *are* giving me more magnification of the object.... BUT... what it was is... 1) the clarity/crispness of the image, together with 2) the SIGNIFICANTLY broader depth-of-field!

So it's like... my brain... when presented with these two visual scenarios initially... sorta had this perception that the ZEISS was offering me same as the Vultures. But it's just because the edge-to-edge... the crisp sharpness of the image... and the much broader depth of field to the focusing... just all of them together gave that much more info and detail to my brain to process within that FOV! So, my brain was like "YEah! Wow! I like this over here way better!"

The Vultures *do* technically get you in closer. The object *is* larger in FOV. But the crispness just isn't *quite* the same. It's not bad. Not at all. It just isn't at that same level though. And in it's FOV the amount of sharpness that it does provide... is not within the entire FOV. There's a thing ring around the outer edge of the FOV where it's not "edge-to-edge". But since the depth of field of the focus is noticably less deep... and it definitely doesn't have the same level of edge-to-edge clarity. I dunno... it's like your brain craves that higher and larger amount of detail present within so much more of the FOV within the image the ZEISS was presenting to my brain. The Vultures will still be useful for longer-range glassing, like in open-country Desert ridges. Like reaching out 1+ miles. But wow man... now with having experienced these ZEISS... it makes me mind reel wondering OMG... what must it be like looking thru some higher-end 15s!?

I've had similar experiences when comparing two quality bins side-by-side. Sometimes it's difficult to explain why, but I can just see more detail with one pair vs. the others. It's a combination of things, as you describe. Brightness, color, resolving power, magnification, ability to hold steady, etc.

 

[AZ_Hunter_2000]

I'm a big proponent of SLCs; ELs rock and I am looking forward to the NL reviews after the fall season. The fact is there is an awesome selection of fully functional optics available. Go with what works best for your hunting style and budget.

I have one friend who proclaims his Vortex Diamondbacks are just as good as my SLCs. He'll find his share of game with them. However, when it comes time to get a "good" look, he wants to take a look at the animal with my SLCs and it is a battle to get my SLCs back.

While you hear about folks preaching about the importance of shooting practice under field conditions, you rarely hear about folks discussing the importance of glassing practice. Time behind the glass training your eyes can do more for you than buying the best optics with no practice.

 

[Xlr8n]

Swaro, Meopta, Nikon...Your poll didn't allow for more than one, but my eyes like more than one....

 

[Kenn]

Amen on the Habicht. Just bought a new 7x42GA (GA= rubber amour).
Amazing bino. The resolution is outstanding as is the depth of field. The light transmission is 96%, the highest of any bino i know of. If the big 3 put effort into a modernized Porro prism it would simply blow away any roof prism bino. the 73 year old Habicht design is optically brilliant, but hey people line up in droves to pay $3000 for NL's so why offer something that could optically be better for a cheaper price, because Porro's are far simpler to make. Is it that people think porro's can't be good or the look? Fashion is for women and handbags.
Personally I love the look of the GA Habicht. They are light and compact too. I really like the 7x42 format for woods bow hunting.
I'd like to get a pair of the 10x40 for long range glassing on my NZ hunts. Lighter and smaller than my current Steiner nighthunter 10x50.

I have a pair of 8x32 and 10x42 Nikon SE's and I agree - the porros are wonderful and I wish you could still get a high end model. I have an 8x32 pair of Nikon HG's and I don't like them nearly as well as the SE.

 

[ZDR]

Are the Swaro Habicht line no longer in production? Or just not available in the US?

 

[ozyclint]

They are still in production. I believe they are the first bino Swarovski made way back in 1947.
The design is largely unchanged except for modern optical coatings as per all their other top of the line binos.
Goes to show how much of a handicap roof prisms are in terms of light transmission. You just can't beat less reflections and air gaps in the prism system and the complete lack of the need for phase correction in the Porro.

It does seem that Swaro America doesn't list them. I wonder if a dealer could order them or if they would have to be ordered direct from Europe?

They were available from a dealer here in Australia.

 

[ozyclint]

Should also mention that I like the large exit pupil of the 7x42 format. Combined with 96% light transmission they are fantastic in low light at dawn and dusk and heavily shaded woods.

 

[kcm2]

I hate these "Best" questions. How the hell would we know, we just know how what we bought works. Realistically, I can tell you about Swarovski, Kahles and Vortex Vipers.....not about the Maven or the higher end new Zeiss, for example. So, I typically will tell you if what I have works, and suggest a few in the high end world that other people tell me work. Good luck.

 

[nastynick]

I hate these "Best" questions. How the hell would we know, we just know how what we bought works. Realistically, I can tell you about Swarovski, Kahles and Vortex Vipers.....not about the Maven or the higher end new Zeiss, for example. So, I typically will tell you if what I have works, and suggest a few in the high end world that other people tell me work. Good luck.

This isn’t a best glass question. It’s what works best for you. I’ve given up debating what the “best glass” is since it’s totally subjective.

 

[tdot]

Swaro, Kowa and Leica have been very consistent for my eyes.

Zeiss has appeared consistently poor for my eyes, to the point that I don't even look at them anymore. I haven't looked at any of the top end Zeiss, maybe they range would change my mind.

Leupold and Vortex are about 50/50 for me.

 

[JakeSCH]

Only contribution to this convo I can make is... Friday did a back-to-back comparison between the new-to-me ZEISS Conquest HD 10x42's I just bought from a gentleman on here... compared to my Vortex Vulture HD 15x56's.

I went over to the Bolsa Chica Wetlands Reserve because, as you might imagine, I wanted to do a little glassing with my new toy!

Mind you... before then... I was amazed with the Vultures! I was astounded at the difference they afforded me compared to my "decent" DiamondBack 10x42's. Major Wow factor improvement moment.

However... taking them both out Friday to the Wetlands reserve... and doing a back-and-forth swap to compare views? WOW.... at first I thought... "What the Heck? These ZEISS seem to be giving me the same amount of magnification as the Vultures! What's going on here?" So I double-checked... I had to do a double-take. So I focused my attention on some landmarks... paying specific attention to their perceived size within the optic. And then I swapped back over to the Vultures again. NO... Ok... the Vultures technically *are* giving me more magnification of the object.... BUT... what it was is... 1) the clarity/crispness of the image, together with 2) the SIGNIFICANTLY broader depth-of-field!

So it's like... my brain... when presented with these two visual scenarios initially... sorta had this perception that the ZEISS was offering me same as the Vultures. But it's just because the edge-to-edge... the crisp sharpness of the image... and the much broader depth of field to the focusing... just all of them together gave that much more info and detail to my brain to process within that FOV! So, my brain was like "YEah! Wow! I like this over here way better!"

The Vultures *do* technically get you in closer. The object *is* larger in FOV. But the crispness just isn't *quite* the same. It's not bad. Not at all. It just isn't at that same level though. And in it's FOV the amount of sharpness that it does provide... is not within the entire FOV. There's a thing ring around the outer edge of the FOV where it's not "edge-to-edge". But since the depth of field of the focus is noticably less deep... and it definitely doesn't have the same level of edge-to-edge clarity. I dunno... it's like your brain craves that higher and larger amount of detail present within so much more of the FOV within the image the ZEISS was presenting to my brain. The Vultures will still be useful for longer-range glassing, like in open-country Desert ridges. Like reaching out 1+ miles. But wow man... now with having experienced these ZEISS... it makes me mind reel wondering OMG... what must it be like looking thru some higher-end 15s!?

Now you should take a look through a pair of Ziess Victory's. It's hard to imagine it can get that much better until it does.

 

[TheGDog]

Oh I don't doubt it. But I've got other tools I want to acquire first. Like a G29, then possibly a .243 Win.

Plus, I wear glasses now because ALL my Vision is blurry without them (the nosedive happened between 45-49yo, I'm 51 now), so I figure there's only soo much detail that can be of benefit to me anyway... since at the very end of it all... it has to go thru my eyeglasses, so they are likely the weakest link in that chain.

But knowing me... at some point I will take that last dive... figuring I can always hand-down the former to my boy.

 

[WestNE]

I've got a real affinity for overlooked quality in binos, mainly because I'm cheap and like to have something a little different. There are some real gems that seem to go unnoticed, not talking alpha level but honestly i have a hard time justifying the spend.

Though i have owned pre-hd SLC's, maybe HD makes all the difference honestly i didn't see them being much better than others I've owned and really liked. Namely non-E2 Bushnell Elites and the goofy but somehow handsome Weaver Super Slams. I also had the new MHG's and loved the ergos but moved them to try Euro HD 8x32's, my favorite optically for overall use but eyecups didn't fit.

Honestly i think that my knowledge in optics may be limited enough that i don't truly appreciate what $1000+ models have to offer. I really wish i did but so far I've settled at lower price points for "best for me", am i alone in this opinion?

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

 

[TheGDog]

Time behind the glass training your eyes can do more for you than buying the best optics with no practice.

YOu ain't lyin' there man! That's why I go over to that nearby wetlands reserve and try to just "see what I can see". By taking an approach similar to gridding-out a ridge. That practicing of totally scanning an entire land feature. Looking for any living thing. That's how I captured that coyote footage I posted over in the Varmint threads!