School me one what quality is to you

[Sled]

there are many good optics out there these days. seeing how fast people turn over binos leads me to believe there's always room for improvement. so, what do you value above other characteristics or what makes the optic stand out above others?

 

[Camel titties]

I have had a hard time telling the difference between very expensive glass and the middle of the road glass until you get to low light situations and there is no comparison.

 

[sektr]

I have had a hard time telling the difference between very expensive glass and the middle of the road glass until you get to low light situations and there is no comparison.

Would agree with this. The difference with high end glass comes out in extreme situations.

Extreme brightness of sun directly on snow? The better protection against glare shines through. Low light? More detail later or earlier in the day.

 

[JakeSCH]

I think a big part of it is curiosity and a fear of missing out. That said, I have been testing side by side a pair of 2014 EL 10x42's compared to Maven B2 9x45's.

The B2's win low light but are just edged out on glass clarity. but both of them are exceptional. When focused on an object, there is nothing I would see with the EL's that I wouldn't see with the B2's.

However, the EL's have an incredible depth of field. I feel like you can set the focus and look at all different objects and distances. This in itself is a huge advantage imo because you may capture movement when you may be tweaking the focus knob on the mavens.

I may end up selling / trading my 10x42's to get a pair of 8.5x42's to make up for the low light and call it a day.

 

[S.Clancy]

An example. I got rid of some Vortex Kaibab 18x56 (themselves pretty dang good binos) when I got Meopta 10x42 HD because I could see more with the 10s vs 18s. This is entirely clarity and brightness.

I think individual preference has a lot to do with it. Vortex and other binos, I am always moving the diopter a little trying to get that super clear image. Meopta, set the diopter once, no messing, just clear, bright glass.

 

[Cameron.25]

Low light is definitely where the alpha glass shines and thats usually the most important time to be glassing anyway. Id save up and get the best you can afford, even if they're used. I have a pair of 8x50 swaro el's from the 90's i got a couple years ago used after the seller had them refurbished by swaro for free, and i just got the new el range ta's and i absolutely love them both. You think some cheap glass from the 90's would last over 20 years and still hold over half its value? Doubt it. I'll probably have mine forever

 

[Steve C]

We are at the point where we see people falling for a lot of marketing hype. On any optic forum you care to name one of the hot topics is "how does this binocular compare to that one?" The answer comes down to personal preferences mainly. The amount of light transmission and technical resolution capability (please note there is no such optical term as clarity) are at the point where a super majority of eyes can't tell the difference. I've mentioned a couple of times that I use what can be called a 5% rule. Nothing original to me about that rule, and it is far from a hard and fast rule. It comes from work detailing that light transmission needs to bump up from 3-5% for most people to see it. Seeing as how overall light transmission in binoculars just prior to phase correction , which was introduced by Leica and Zeiss in 1988, was in the range of 75%, the improvement seemed far greater than it does now. With phase correction, Leica and Zeiss added 10-15% light transmission in one fell swoop. That was a tremendous difference. By 2000 everybody has phase correction, ans the difference was again cut in half. The difference continues to be cut in half every 5 years or so. The alpha glass is still under benefit of the 1988 phase correction introduction.

So I don't think the difference is all that large anymore. Even a $700 glass like the Tract Toric is right at 90% light transmission. In contrast Swarovski claims 92% from the new NL, while Zeiss claims 93% for the SF and 95% for the HT. I would not hold my breath to see much eye popping improvement. Swaro going with a very wide field with long eye relief is more likely where we will see things go.

We will have always have human nature to contend with. That tells us there is always something better to be had. So we have these little voices whispering in our ears telling us this is so. Marketers live off that aspect of human nature. There is one compelling reason for spending money on the alpha. That is, once your little voices know you have spent all the money they can get you to spend, there is no more to spend it on. When we hit that level we tend to shut up and use the binocular as intended. If we imagine some imperfection we can ignore it because we have the most expensive we can buy. So the voices fade out and we just go use the binocular. So some need the knowledge they have the best, and some of us can shut off the voices with a Maven or a Zeiss Conquest.

There is no right or wrong answer to the question.

 

[Sled]

the reason i ask is because years ago i looked into a set of 10x42 slc's and was blown away by both how sharp the image was and how i was able to look into dark trees at 100 yards and see all my arrow impacts on a black moose. that was something my 10x32 vortex talons would not do. interestingly enough i thought those talons were pretty good before that. following that day i knew light transmission and contrast were something i needed in a bino as well as a sharp image across at least 75% of the field of view. now finding those qualities in a reasonably priced bino was getting easier but i always had swaro brain (as steve c implied in the previous post). so, circling back to the original question...if i'm hunting dark timber, contrast is something that really sets the bino apart from others. glassing long distances during the day in desert or on snow, sharp resolution and true or warm colors work best for my eyes.

are there any qualities in optics you'll compromise on to get 1 or 2 features/quality in glass that you can't live without? ie, FOV?

 

[Cameron.25]

the reason i ask is because years ago i looked into a set of 10x42 slc's and was blown away by both how sharp the image was and how i was able to look into dark trees at 100 yards and see all my arrow impacts on a black moose. that was something my 10x32 vortex talons would not do. interestingly enough i thought those talons were pretty good before that. following that day i knew light transmission and contrast were something i needed in a bino as well as a sharp image across at least 75% of the field of view. now finding those qualities in a reasonably priced bino was getting easier but i always had swaro brain (as steve c implied in the previous post). so, circling back to the original question...if i'm hunting dark timber, contrast is something that really sets the bino apart from others. glassing long distances during the day in desert or on snow, sharp resolution and true or warm colors work best for my eyes.

are there any qualities in optics you'll compromise on to get 1 or 2 features/quality in glass that you can't live without? ie, FOV?

Yeah exactly, what he said makes a lot of sense to me. I probably have swaro brain too and im a total gear nut in general, admittedly lol. I live in oregon so i hunt mixed terrain, and really like the FOV of swaros in 8x and performance in low light. You're gonna have to weigh the different costs against your main uses for it in the end i suppose. I will say i can spot stuff crazy far with those 8x50 swaros, especially on a tripod. I spotted a sow bear with cubs at least 1000 yards away in hells canyon freehand last year lol

 

[Steve C]

For me, I always hate having to overspend for anything. I tend to fall on the bang for the buck sort of any kind of gear. How much I use it and how much I need it will factor in here, but for me there is no way I'd spend over 2.5x the price of a Maven B2 vs a Swarovski. Had them both at the same time when I was looking for reasons to really hang onto the SV EL series.

So to answer the question of what will I sacrifice. I have no use at ALL for flat field designs. That is a topic I could use up a short novel on, so I won't go further for now. So that is something I would not make out for a deal/maker/breaker. I look for a glass that is well balanced, fits my hands, and has the proper amount of eye cup extension to use the listed eye relief. The focus has to feel right for me. A good binocular has a lot in common with a good rifle. Toss up the rifle and your buck should be right in the center of the field. A good rifle should fit you right, and should be easy to hold steady. Ditto a good binocular. I can give up a little on fov IF the contrast and resolution are top notch. After some time I have gotten to the point where I find more similarities than differences and there are not a lot of binoculars out there I can't use. Yeah there are some I like less than others, but overall there is sort of a holistic impression of the binocular that tells me right off whether it is something I would like to evaluate further. One problem is that a good evaluation of a binocular can take at least a whole year...maybe more.

Another thing is the size of the objective. In the example above the 32 mm objective will always loose out to the larger one. The size of the objective is what determines how much light energy the binocular design has to use. So by default a 32 mm starts out with a deficit. Glass, coatings and design can help a whole lot, but they can't create more light. Nor can a poor glass with a large objective create a better image because they collect more light energy.

 

[68Plexi]

I don’t know exactly what background you have in optics Steve, but your posts have been an education for me. Thank you.

And to the OP, listen to Steve lol.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Sled]

Another thing is the size of the objective. In the example above the 32 mm objective will always loose out to the larger one. The size of the objective is what determines how much light energy the binocular design has to use. So by default a 32 mm starts out with a deficit. Glass, coatings and design can help a whole lot, but they can't create more light. Nor can a poor glass with a large objective create a better image because they collect more light energy.

what is strange to me is that my maven b3 8x30 is distinctly brighter to me at dusk when compared to the b2 9x45. that should be a 3.75mm exit pupil vs a 5mm. ironically this produces a 95.2% w/ S-P prism vs 93.7% w/A-K prism. i'm not sure how it outperforms the larger exit pupil with 2 more reflective surfaces but it does. the 8x30 is an excellent archery bino for me but i do appreciate the extra magnification on the 10x for rifle and early season scouting. it would just be nice to have that 95% light transmission in a 10x42 and it seems the only way to get there is with glass in the caliber of the swaro slc or zeiss victory ht. but like you, i've always been a value to benefit type of person.

 

[Steve C]

Sled,

Here we may have some disagreement. I do think my 8x30 Maven B3 is very bright for a 30 mm glass, but I would not call it brighter than my 9x45 B2. Closer than I originally thought it would be, but I think the B2 has an advantage. An example of different eyes being different I guess. I'd also put the 8x B1 a little brighter than the B3 as well.

I always wondered a little about the Maven spec for light transmission in the B3 series. That always seemed to me to be high. But bright as the B3 is I never worried much about it. The AK prism of the B2 has an inherent transmission advantage over a SP prism system, but I think getting 95% transmission from an SP prism system is not going to happen. Zeiss and Swaro have tweaked the SP prism system about as much as it can be tweaked and still claim 93% in the SF and 92 in the NL.

Personally I have always been more of an 8x guy. If I can't get detail needed there, I have to bump to 15x or so.

 

[TexaninSconny]

That’s the exact setup I’m going to have. Do you both use B3 8x30 primarily for archery and B2 9x45 for rifle/western hunting?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Sled]

my b3 has been the primary optic for the last 4 years. it is excellent for the size and weight. for rifle i also have a 25oz vortex 11-33x50 spotter that fits in the pack. on the mid range over performers i'm torn on going back to a b2 or possibly a toric 10x42. i like compact glass so maybe i'll stick with the toric for rifle. my issue is that i have too many options but don't get to look through them before making a decision. in reality i can get by with just about anything and not miss much. it just may take a little more time, patience and advil.

 

[Steve C]

I'm not an archer. I use the 8x30 for occasions where I want a little smaller size. That is happening more often, as I've had right shoulder replacement and will eventually need the left done too. I can use either one, but the bigger B2 is far easier to hold for long glassing sessions, at least prior to shoulder surgery. I do wish the B3 was about a half inch longer. I am primarily an open country mule deer hunter. I am not worried enough with optical differences with any of the three Maven B series to wind up wishing for something else, whatever one I have with me.

 

[FullValue]

What makes a difference to me is what type of hunting I'm doing. Until you've sat and glassed all day or for extended periods of time middle or even low end glass might be OK. To me there is a huge difference with this type of use in comfort eye fatigue and the ability to glass effectively.