The 'BEST' Binoculars

[Tesoro]

That light transmission number doesn’t really tell you exactly the brightness of a binocular. The exit pupil which is the objective divided by the power, will tell you on paper which bino will gather more light. Keep in mind there are many factors that are gonna make one binoculars or another seem more or less bright. When comparing equal models like the EL‘s. The higher exit pupil will be the brighter binoculars. In that grouping the 10 x 50 then the 8.5 x 42 and so on.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I thought that as long as your pupil is smaller than the exit pupil then your eye cant notice any diff in brightness if the exit pupil is larger.

 

[Ronb]

I thought that as long as your pupil is smaller than the exit pupil then your eye cant notice any diff in brightness if the exit pupil is larger.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[timberbuck]

I have owned and reviewed more binoculars in the last several years than any normal hunter.

I have owned and compared the following:

Swarovski EL 10x42
Swarovski el 8.5X42
Swarovski early swarovision 8.5x42
Swarovski 2015 Swarovision 10x42
Swarovski 2014 SLC 10x42
Zeiss HT 10x42
Zeiss HT 8x42
Zeiss Conquest HD 10x42
Stryka S9 10x42
Zeiss Conquest HD 15x56
Zeiss FL 10x42

I have reviewed others.

Here is my list not only catagorised by price but also application/size/power.

15x56-Swarovski SLC HD #1
15x56 Zeiss Conquest HD #2

12x50-Swarovski SV

10x50-Swarovski SV

10x42-Swarovski SLC (yes I place it above the 10x42 SV, its just as sharp and has a better depth of field, my example is the best 10x42 I have seen and this is comparing to Zeiss SF also). Leica Noctivid 10x42 a possible tie (I have yet to review one but I hear they are magnificent).

8x42-Zeiss HT, this version really delivers, brightest 42mm glass out there and in 8x as sharp as any other glass, I can't say the same for the 10x42 versions.

$1000 or so-Zeiss Conquest HD 10x42, I have yet to see any other glass in its price range equal or surpass it and that includes Meopta HD,Styrka S9,Nikon HG and Maven B1 and Vortex Razor.

I have not looked through a Maven B2 in 9x or 11x or the same in Sig Sauer S9

 

[brocksw]

I thought that as long as your pupil is smaller than the exit pupil then your eye cant notice any diff in brightness if the exit pupil is larger.

I believe your talking about something called "Micro-twitch eye movements". I may be wrong on what it's called, but it's something to that effect. Essentially, its saying that if the exit pupil is larger than your pupil can dilate to, then your eye can subconsciously take advantage of the bigger image. This larger image allows your eye to move and observe the whole picture without you even knowing that your eyes are moving at all... Hence micro twitch/movements. When your eye can do this, you get better apparent resolution and apparent brightness.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[brocksw]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Twilight factor is another significant measurable quality of a binocular in terms of performance at low light. This factors in your magnification to the equation of useful twilight performance.

Much of it is a matter of perception, but I would disagree with the exit pupil being the end all in terms of brightness.

While on paper the exit pupil is better on a 10x50 EL at 5 mm, I don't think you'll find anyone here that would argue a 15x SLC is even better... I would agree with them as I've compared them directly. But the exit pupil on a pair of 15s is 3.7 mm. That's a good bit smaller than the 10x50 and even a 10x42. So how can than this be? Partly because the SLCs carry a higher light transmission rating (I think 93 vs 90 in the ELs) and partly because they have a much better twilight factor because of the 5 extra power.




Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[Ronb]

Twilight factor is another significant measurable quality of a binocular in terms of performance at low light. This factors in your magnification to the equation of useful twilight performance.

Much of it is a matter of perception, but I would disagree with the exit pupil being the end all in terms of brightness.

While on paper the exit pupil is better on a 10x50 EL at 5 mm, I don't think you'll find anyone here that would argue a 15x SLC is even better... I would agree with them as I've compared them directly. But the exit pupil on a pair of 15s is 3.7 mm. That's a good bit smaller than the 10x50 and even a 10x42. So how can than this be? Partly because the SLCs carry a higher light transmission rating (I think 93 vs 90 in the ELs) and partly because they have a much better twilight factor because of the 5 extra power.




Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

I made it clear in my post, there are many different variables to consider in different binos. I stated when comparing binos in the same family. Such as the slc’s or the el’s.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[brocksw]

I made it clear in my post, there are many different variables to consider in different binos. I stated when comparing binos in the same family. Such as the slc’s or the el’s.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Correct, but my example holds true when comparing the 10x42 SLCs (4.2mm) to the 15x56 SLC(3.7mm)as well.

My point was simply that exit pupil isn't the end all in measuring a binos performance in low light. Looking solely at that can mislead someone. One must consider resolution, twilight factor, light transmission, your own pupil size...

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[Ronb]

Correct, but my example holds true when comparing the 10x42 SLCs (4.2mm) to the 15x56 SLC(3.7mm)as well.

My point was simply that exit pupil isn't the end all in measuring a binos performance in low light. Looking solely at that can mislead someone. One must consider resolution, twilight factor, light transmission, your own pupil size...

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

I’m confused, are you telling me the slc 15’s are brighter than the 10’s. Because I think the slc 10x42’s are some of the brightest I’ve ever used.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[brocksw]

I’m confused, are you telling me the slc 15’s are brighter than the 10’s. Because I think the slc 10x42’s are some of the brightest I’ve ever used.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Correct, their low light performance is superior.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[Ronb]

Anyone else with slc 15’s feel they are brighter than slc 10x50’s or 10x42’s. I’m very skeptical from my experiences with optics.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[timberbuck]

A 15x56 binocular would not be brighter in low light than a 8x42,10x50 or even a 10x42. Technically of these three the 8x42 is capable of more brightness by way of delivering a larger circle of light to the eye because of their larger exit pupil.

However the 15x56 would have more resolution in low light because of its higher twilight factor. Its ability to resolve small details would be better but it would not be brighter.

The same can be said of a comparison between the 8x42 and a 10x42 in low light. The 10x42 will show more detail (not brightness). This is why the 10x42 is superior for hunters that are not only trying to find things in low light but to also critique antler quality for example.

I would gladly give up a little brightness for increased resolution in low light, most seem to agree and that is why the 10-15x binoculars are king.

 

[timberbuck]

I must put my two cents in some comments on the Swarovski SLC.

The current SLC does not have "yellowish transmission that helps one to see game more easily'

Both the current Swarovision and SLC models have very neutral color transmission with the SLC having slightly higher transmission values.

 

[Ryan Avery]

I must put my two cents in some comments on the Swarovski SLC.

The current SLC does not have "yellowish transmission that helps one to see game more easily'

Both the current Swarovision and SLC models have very neutral color transmission with the SLC having slightly higher transmission values.

I see a yellowish tint(warm) in mine and animals do have a pop when I see them compared to other binoculars. Zeiss seems bright and bluish to my eyes. They should have stopped with the Victory FL series. The SF was a downgrade IMO. Leica is somewhat in between those two. I like the Ultravids, but I see a little bit of blueish in those too. I really want to look through a pair of Novtavids.

I'm not saying I'm right and anyone is wrong. I hunted with two very seasoned hunters last year. We all looked through a new set of high-end binoculars. All three of us described the tint/color differently. None of us are experts when it comes to your eyes. That is the whole point of this post. And remember if you look through a toilet paper roll, thats 100% light transmission

 

[sneaky]

I see a yellowish tint(warm) in mine and animals do have a pop when I see them compared to other binoculars. Zeiss seems bright and bluish to my eyes. They should have stopped with the Victory FL series. The SF was a downgrade IMO. Leica is somewhat in between those two. I like the Ultravids, but I see a little bit of blueish in those too. I really want to look through a pair of Novtavids.

I'm not saying I'm right and anyone is wrong. I hunted with two very seasoned hunters last year. We all looked through a new set of high-end binoculars. All three of us described the tint/color differently. None of us are experts when it comes to your eyes. That is the whole point of this post. And remember if you look through a toilet paper roll, that 100% light transmission

If that toilet paper roll still has tp on it then it will be far more useful after dark than any high end binos.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[Ronb]

A 15x56 binocular would not be brighter in low light than a 8x42,10x50 or even a 10x42. Technically of these three the 8x42 is capable of more brightness by way of delivering a larger circle of light to the eye because of their larger exit pupil.

However the 15x56 would have more resolution in low light because of its higher twilight factor. Its ability to resolve small details would be better but it would not be brighter.

The same can be said of a comparison between the 8x42 and a 10x42 in low light. The 10x42 will show more detail (not brightness). This is why the 10x42 is superior for hunters that are not only trying to find things in low light but to also critique antler quality for example.

I would gladly give up a little brightness for increased resolution in low light, most seem to agree and that is why the 10-15x binoculars are king.

Great explanation. Much better than I could give. I think when you start getting to this level of glass we all kinda settle into the binos that just hits the sweet spot for each individual. What creates that wow factor for one, might cause another to yawn. Great dialog everybody, I’m learning more all the time. I’m sure those who have yet to purchase top end glass, will have a leg up because of it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Steve C]

A couple of comments. I've been on that birder site for over a decade with several thousand posts there. I go there for the optics knowledge and the fact it is a place where discussion is both knowledgeable and civil(for the most part). Rokslide is a lot better for decent discussion than a lot of sites as well. To be clear I am mostly a hunter and general observer of the natural world. Go to the bird site and spend much time there, you will find that they are generally pissed because they think hunters are the ones driving development, and sales of high end binoculars, and some get really cranky that their favourite binocular actually comes from a company that would dare promote hunting. That attitude is hard to put up with at times, let me tell you.

Somebody made the comment about maybe 1% of hunters come to sites like this. That observation is smack on the money. Same thing with birders. Most hunters or birders just go to some place easy to buy a binocular, get a cheap one and go forth.

After years of reviewing binoculars I am of the unshakable opinion that the single most important facet of user satisfaction with a binocular comes from the ability of the user to just shut the hell up and use their binocular, provided it in fact meets some basic optical quality levels. There are always the little voices telling us we can do better than what we have, when the truth is the improvement in terms of measurable optical impact will likely be minimal, although in some cases an upgrade is deadly essential. It is human nature for some to need to spend as much as they can on their gear. That knowledge tells them there is not an improvement available, and they shut up and use their glass, and the binocular gets the credit. Some can shut off those voices with a lot less capital outlay. Neither side is good or bad, right or wrong, it is just human nature. For those in the former a Swarovski or Zeiss makes sense, If you are one of the latter, then there is no better two binocular combo to be had than the Maven B2 9x45 and the Maven B3 8x30.

 

[Ronb]

A couple of comments. I've been on that birder site for over a decade with several thousand posts there. I go there for the optics knowledge and the fact it is a place where discussion is both knowledgeable and civil(for the most part). Rokslide is a lot better for decent discussion than a lot of sites as well. To be clear I am mostly a hunter and general observer of the natural world. Go to the bird site and spend much time there, you will find that they are generally pissed because they think hunters are the ones driving development, and sales of high end binoculars, and some get really cranky that their favourite binocular actually comes from a company that would dare promote hunting. That attitude is hard to put up with at times, let me tell you.

Somebody made the comment about maybe 1% of hunters come to sites like this. That observation is smack on the money. Same thing with birders. Most hunters or birders just go to some place easy to buy a binocular, get a cheap one and go forth.

After years of reviewing binoculars I am of the unshakable opinion that user satisfaction with a binocular comes from the ability of the user to just shut the hell up and use their binocular, provided it in fact meets some basic optical quality levels. There are always the little voices telling us we can do better than what we have, when the truth is the improvement in terms of measurable optical impact will likely be minimal, although in some cases an upgrade is deadly essential. It is human nature for some to need to spend as much as they can on their gear. That knowledge tells them there is not an improvement available, and they shut up and use their glass, and the binocular gets the credit. Some can shut off those voices with a lot less capital outlay. Neither side is good or bad, right or wrong, it is just human nature. For those in the former a Swarovski or Zeiss makes sense, If you are one of the latter, then there is no better two binocular combo to be had than the Maven B2 9x45 and the Maven B3 8x30.

Thank God someone from the bird site has come over to Rokslide to tell us all how stupid we all are for buying anything but a Maven. I can’t wait for you to educate us in packs and clothing, so we can all just shut up and hunt!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[307]

Thank God someone from the bird site has come over to Rokslide to tell us all how stupid we all are for buying anything but a Maven. I can’t wait for you to educate us in packs and clothing, so we can all just shut up and hunt!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You are way out of line with this comment.

Steve C is not one of "them", he is definitely one of "us" and an extremely valuable one of us in terms of optics review and performance. He offers this site a great deal of experience and actual expertise, rather than personal opinions which may or may not be of much value.

 

[307]

A couple of comments. I've been on that birder site for over a decade with several thousand posts there. I go there for the optics knowledge and the fact it is a place where discussion is both knowledgeable and civil(for the most part). Rokslide is a lot better for decent discussion than a lot of sites as well. To be clear I am mostly a hunter and general observer of the natural world. Go to the bird site and spend much time there, you will find that they are generally pissed because they think hunters are the ones driving development, and sales of high end binoculars, and some get really cranky that their favourite binocular actually comes from a company that would dare promote hunting. That attitude is hard to put up with at times, let me tell you.

Somebody made the comment about maybe 1% of hunters come to sites like this. That observation is smack on the money. Same thing with birders. Most hunters or birders just go to some place easy to buy a binocular, get a cheap one and go forth.

After years of reviewing binoculars I am of the unshakable opinion that the single most important facet of user satisfaction with a binocular comes from the ability of the user to just shut the hell up and use their binocular, provided it in fact meets some basic optical quality levels. There are always the little voices telling us we can do better than what we have, when the truth is the improvement in terms of measurable optical impact will likely be minimal, although in some cases an upgrade is deadly essential. It is human nature for some to need to spend as much as they can on their gear. That knowledge tells them there is not an improvement available, and they shut up and use their glass, and the binocular gets the credit. Some can shut off those voices with a lot less capital outlay. Neither side is good or bad, right or wrong, it is just human nature. For those in the former a Swarovski or Zeiss makes sense, If you are one of the latter, then there is no better two binocular combo to be had than the Maven B2 9x45 and the Maven B3 8x30.

Fully agree with the idea that we spend WAY too much time searching out "the best" when in reality the actual difference is incredibly small and spending time using, and learning how to use the optics more effectively, has a far greater return on the time invested.

 

[Ryan Avery]

307 is right. Keep this civil. But this is a site about gear and this is what we do.

Steve C, I can agree with you on the Maven B2s. I have a pair of 11s, the glass is exceptional. But they have to fix the depth of field. Having to refocus constantly drives me nuts. Oh, and I will shut the hell up in about 15 days once the bear season opens.