premium vs. new optics- how do you judge ROI and relative quality

[nagibson1]

There are four schools of optics thought on here.
1. what you have is fine. Don't overthink it. Get some Vortex Vipers.
2. You get a lot of glass for $1000 Get some Nikons, conquests, Razor UHD's and so on.
3. Buy the best you can afford. You'll never regret it
4. Buy premium optics used. You get a lot of value.

Can you share your thought on #2 vs #4 relative to the age of the premium bino? For example, how old would a Swaro SLC or EL need to be before you're better off with a new set of Maven's or Conquests? For example, there are EL's that are on Facebook here that are 2008 and 2011's. Should I think the glass on 2008 EL's is better than 2025 Maven B.2's or something in that 1000-1200 range?

Or what about the Conquest HD's vs HDX's? How mush do you think glass quality improves year over year, if at all? IT seems like that would be a significant factor in sustained value of binos.

 

[WRO]

The els were upgraded in 2011 or 12 and are relatively un changed since then, buy them. They’re better than everything you have listed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[hereinaz]

3/4 buy a used pair of the best optics you can afford. The newer UHD glass is keeping up and almost indistinguishable from alpha glass for all intents and purposes. But, any alpha glass the last 5-10 years will exceed it on the edges and colors. So, the difference between Razor UHD and Maven and old Alpha glass is much less.

 

[Wrench]

There's more to it than just what you see through the lenses. The build quality of a 1998 leica trinovid and a 2024 Chinese bino are not the same. I still judge everything against the original trinovid.

I sold a pair of 8x42ba's looking for better quality based on what I was hearing on the internet. I bought tract toric uhd, nikon edg, meopta and eventually new leica noctovids.

What I found is that either I had a very special pair of ba's or there was a lot of internet hype. I miss the ba enough that I still remember it's serial number by heart and all those others are just binos. To me the noctovid is a stand out compared to the rest.

I've run the 12x50 vortex hd against my noctovid 8x42 and the noctovid is so much better that its not a question. It doesn't matter if it's at 400 or 3000 yards the image is usable and distinguishable in the leica and the vortex not as much.

I never had a chance to run the ba against the noctovid but if I did I'd bet that I'd still have ol' 1075733's in my life.

I did sell the ba's for more than I paid for them after using them for 20 years. Every other bino I sold was for a loss. I am all for a quality used optic.

One thing I'd pick apart is bulking nikon with conquests and razors. If you're talking monarchs perhaps, but the hg is a next level top quality contender.

 

[jfk69]

There's more to it than just what you see through the lenses. The build quality of a 1998 leica trinovid and a 2024 Chinese bino are not the same. I still judge everything against the original trinovid.

I sold a pair of 8x42ba's looking for better quality based on what I was hearing on the internet. I bought tract toric uhd, nikon edg, meopta and eventually new leica noctovids.

What I found is that either I had a very special pair of ba's or there was a lot of internet hype. I miss the ba enough that I still remember it's serial number by heart and all those others are just binos. To me the noctovid is a stand out compared to the rest.

I've run the 12x50 vortex hd against my noctovid 8x42 and the noctovid is so much better that its not a question. It doesn't matter if it's at 400 or 3000 yards the image is usable and distinguishable in the leica and the vortex not as much.

I never had a chance to run the ba against the noctovid but if I did I'd bet that I'd still have ol' 1075733's in my life.

I did sell the ba's for more than I paid for them after using them for 20 years. Every other bino I sold was for a loss. I am all for a quality used optic.

One thing I'd pick apart is bulking nikon with conquests and razors. If you're talking monarchs perhaps, but the hg is a next level top quality contender.

I’m still using the 8x42 BA’s I bought in October of 2001 and I still love them. Never found the need to upgrade.

 

[Wrench]

I bought my ba's new in about 1994. Dan Evans of trophy taker sold them to me when he was working at outdoor sportsman in spokane. My serial number was 1075733....if you're curious about the age.

 

[jfk69]

I bought my ba's new in about 1994. Dan Evans of trophy taker sold them to me when he was working at outdoor sportsman in spokane. My serial number was 1075733....if you're curious about the age.

Bought mine new from SWFA. It was the time when the BA’s were being phased out and the BN’s were replacing them.

 

[270quest]

My Vortex UHD 10X42 are very very good glass and I have spotted a lot of animals with them the last year and half. Not saying they are as good as an alpha euro, but I am 100% confident in saying I haven't missed out on any animals by using them and not using a Swaro or a Leica. For $1000-$1200 they are very good binos.

 

[fuzzymarindave]

ROI - ? I think I know what UHD stands for.

 

[Marshfly]

The only way to know this 100% is to find someone near you that is really good at picking country apart with alpha glass and sit next to them for a few hours. Can you see why they see in their alpha glass? Your eyes are the determining factor. What other people see when they look through binos makes no difference unfortunately.

For me, my Swaro ELs are 100% worth the money. They were a lifetime purchase.

 

[WRO]

Also, the coatings on the Chinese and Japanese glass do not compare with the coatings the Germans use. The image degrades over time in the Asian glass vs the European glass.

 

[RockAndSage]

A lot of what you're looking for in finding insight and answers does depend on what you expect to do with your optics. The greater the functional demands, the more the ROI on expensive, high-quality optics.

Out west, mostly in vast sage country and some juniper, I might spend 10 hours or more a day looking through optics for mule deer. Piecing apart entire hillsides, shadow by shadow, looking for antler tines, hooves, ears, or the slightest flicker of movement. I can tell you, with low-quality optics that might just very well be unhealthy for the eyes, physically. The better the quality, the longer you can go before eyestrain and even headaches start setting in.

But if I was in big timber, or in a tree stand? Different ballgame, with what may be lower or different demands on the optics. Lightweight may be more important depending on the hunt terrain, or extreme low-light capability, or especially with bowhunting, something that will work well one-handed and unsupported at closer distances on a stalk.

It starts with being as honest with yourself as possible - through experience to the greatest degree possible - in what you actually need that glass to do for you.

 

[wind gypsy]

There are the original ELs and then the ELs with Swarovision, commonly abbreviated as EL SV. If buying used, it pays to know which they are.

I bought a well used pair of EL SV 12x50s off the classifieds here 5+ years ago and I have been very happy with them. They are better than the $1k level 10x42s (nikon monarch HG, Zeiss conquest HD) and gen 2 Sig 10ks and leica Geovid HD-b 2200 when it comes to glassing open country.

 

[TaperPin]

I must have really low standards, like a modern hippy from a rich family eating out of the trash at the mall food court, except my family wasn’t rich.

There is definitely a difference between cheap an expensive glass, but it has diminishing returns. It used to be Zeiss - Zeiss in this magazine, Zeiss in that, Zeiss here, Zeiss there, Zeiss everywhere. I could tell a tiny difference from my Leica’s, but I never understood why Zeiss was so well thought of, but the moment I learned how advertising and marketing work, it made sense.

I don’t know how marketing plays a part today, but I do know every person sees differently - our eyes and all the goggly bits that make them work are physically different in how sight is processed. Over the years I’ve worked with eagle eyed dudes that could see things across the room that my pretty good vision could barely see at half the distance. Some can look through the same two binoculars that I do and they see better out of one and I see better out of the other. I have a relatively inexpensive Sightron fixed power scope that to my eye is brighter and sharper than any other scope I’ve ever looked through. Weird.

If budget is no object, get the highest dollar/best reviewed glass from the optic tests, but if you’re looking for value I don’t believe it can be determined without actually looking at the options side by side, because we all see a little differently.

Like new cars, new optics have a horrible ROI because they depreciate as soon as the box is opened up. Buy used every time for the best value.

If you have an interest in legacy/vintage glass, there are some dividing points where lenses were upgraded, or at least the coatings were upgraded (or downgraded to suck profit out of the brand). Never underestimate how quickly a good product can be downgraded when a product manager has the opportunity to increase his bonuses at the expense of the product quality. Luckily lens coatings are better and cheaper, and the glass itself is more exact and has better formulations. At one time I was friends with an optical engineer and just never stayed in touch, but wish I had. He could probably tell the history of each company and when their processes were upgraded, legacy factories closed or sold off.

$1,200 (in today’s dollars) Leica’s from 1990 still aren’t horrible. In 35 years the incremental improvement has been very slow. For that reason I’d rarely if ever buy a pair that’s less than 5 years old, unless there was a big jump in quality for some reason (and not just marketing hype).

Smaller lenses are cheaper - some of the best bang for the buck optics are compacts. If they give up too much low light performance, only you can decide.

 

[TaperPin]

Forgot to add: avoid trash at the bottom - they all use the worst glass and the worst coatings and are aimed at guys who don’t know any better, or have limited budgets (not that there’s anything wrong with that). Where the trash ends and the next tier of quality starts is different for each company, but there are no hidden gems in the trash - if something was halfway decent it would be in at least a middle tier.

Buying middle tier and above used, means you can use them, compare with other models, sell when something better comes along, and get all your original money out. Free optics. Who can’t afford free? Who doesn’t want to test drive good stuff for free?