What makes high end optics so expensive?

rp672

FNG
Joined
Oct 19, 2024
Messages
12
I'm relatively new to high end optics. I recently picked up a pair of Vortex Razor UHD 10x50 binoculars at a bargain price and absolutely love them. I can definitely see the quality difference between these and the cheaper binoculars I've used, but I'm curious what makes high end binos like the Razor UHD so much more expensive? Vortex sells the Diamondback 10x50s for less than $300 and the Razor UHD 10x50s for $1500 more. Where's all of the increased cost coming from?

Probably should have done more research before investing in nice binos, but so far I'm not regretting it :)
 
Precision machinery, optical science R&D, highly skilled and specialized labor, the need for things like positive-pressure clean rooms for some things, etc. More than anything, you're paying for premium tech executed with elite competence.
 
What @RockAndSage said is spot on. Higher quality components and practices lead to a higher purchase price. The only thing those 2 binos share is the configuration. And in the case of the UHD’s, they have a different prism system inside than most binoculars, which leads to brighter images and better performance. Kinda like comparing a Honda civic coupe to a Porsche 911. Both cars, both with 2 doors and 4 wheels, and both get you down the road. But the Porsche does so at a higher level with better performance due to the engineering and what’s under the hood.

Check these videos out. Some of his terminology is blatantly wrong, but the videos share good info and help you see what more dollars spent gets you:


 
Once you hit a certain point, improvements take exponentially more effort/investment in relation to the amount of improvement.

Just in a lense you have the perfection of the grind to shape it and the quality of the material used with more exotic glass being harder to make and work with. Then you have the coatings.

Material used in the body (plastic, aluminum, or magnesium for example) and how that body is made (cast, forged, milled). Then coatings inside the body.

And it goes on with other components. All this is before we get into the labor cost to assemble which skilled labor costs more and frequently more time is also needed.

Then, you have to add in the cost of warranty service and factor in an acceptable profit margin.
 
Vortex sells the Diamondback 10x50s for less than $300 and the Razor UHD 10x50s for $1500 more.

And if you are not glassing for extended periods of time, you likely won't notice a tremendous difference between the two. The UHD should perform noticeably better in low light.
 
I believe one driver is the scrap rate. If companies are smelting large batches of glass in a giant crucible, generally the material in the very middle is the best quality/lowest impurities. The further out you go, the cheaper the glass gets. Sort of like tenderloins in a cow. You sell the whole cow, but certain cuts are worth much more $$/pound.

At least that's my experience in the inorganic crystal production world...
 
Yup you are paying for R&D, Quality control rejects and after care.

SBRC are just stealing homework. Its what a lot of chinese companies do. The product is hit or miss, I have noticed v pronounced rolling ball and a halo effect glare in the 10x50 banner cloud. Cant speak for any other models. NLs different class but you do pay a lot.

SBRC have changed their warranty terms recently so be careful where you buy them
 
And if you are not glassing for extended periods of time, you likely won't notice a tremendous difference between the two. The UHD should perform noticeably better in low light.
You can easily see the difference in glass between them immediately. Brighter, clearer, clearer edge to edge, and less CA. Its quite dramatic actually.
 
Besides the reject rate for components or relative scarcity of top end glass the economy of scale is not in favor of top end optics. They likely sell a fraction of the cheaper options. Additionally the countries assembling these optics have high labor cost (Austria, Japan, Germany) beyond a 3rd world sweatshop.
 
Vortex anything is going to fade over time. Wether it's a year or 3 years. They going to fade, get blurry on edges and break on some form or fashion.
Swaro and zeiss never will.
Warranties are all the same. Vortex is most highly used warranty for a reason.

Recon if the optic sits in closet 10 or 11 months a year it would be ok. Otherwise it's poo poo caca...
 
Vortex anything is going to fade over time. Wether it's a year or 3 years. They going to fade, get blurry on edges and break on some form or fashion.
Swaro and zeiss never will.
Warranties are all the same. Vortex is most highly used warranty for a reason.

Recon if the optic sits in closet 10 or 11 months a year it would be ok. Otherwise it's poo poo caca...
I have a Swarovski PH scope that my dad bought 20+ years ago that is as optically wonderful now as the day it was bought.

I have a $140 Vortex bino I bought for my daughter that is about 2 years old and the focus wheel is wearing out. It's difficult to turn as if it was on a burned-out bearing, which is bizarre to me because I cannot imagine what you'd have to make a bearing or bushing out of to wear it out that fast. I'm guessing it's made from injection-molded bat droppings or something. Even plastic on plastic with a couple drops of grease during assembly should have lasted longer.
 
Low light, but also, deep into shadows, esp when it's bright out.
That's a hard one to get until you've seen it. Most binos look great in a well lit store, but it's totally different in bad lighting conditions. Deep shadows on a bright day are probably the worst.

I was looking for something on a backlit hillside and I literally couldn't see it with cheaper Nikons, despite knowing it was there. Looked through a pair of Swaros and it's plain as day.
 
That's a hard one to get until you've seen it. Most binos look great in a well lit store, but it's totally different in bad lighting conditions. Deep shadows on a bright day are probably the worst.

I was looking for something on a backlit hillside and I literally couldn't see it with cheaper Nikons, despite knowing it was there. Looked through a pair of Swaros and it's plain as day.

That's a really good way to put it.

It's definitely not just an issue about having "nice" things, even though that is a bonus. It's about performance and getting the job done well.
 
Vortex anything is going to fade over time. Wether it's a year or 3 years. They going to fade, get blurry on edges and break on some form or fashion.

This is super interesting to me - wondering if it's an issue of the chemical makeup/application of the lens coatings, or something else...

Anyone else have experience with optics fading or getting blurry as they get older?
 
In addition to everything stated about R&D, manufacturing costs etc, you are also paying for the classic delineation upgrade model: "If you are already spending $500, why not spend $650 for the next tier up?"
Offering a tier of models simply allows the customer to spend more money so you create a tiered product line to offer incremental price points.

In short, a certain segment of the customer base will always pay more to get more up until you reach a tipping point and then those purchases drop off. Know what that tipping point is for each of your tiers and develop products at each price point. This is how you maximize profits selling precision gear to outdoor enthusiasts.
 
Yes an expensive scope can make a difference depending on what you’re doing. Differences can range from glass clarity, image distortion, adjustment accuracy, light transmission, range of adjustment, etc...
 
Back
Top