A Trip To the Bincoular Store (looked at Vortex and others)

[trashbird]

I took my Swift Ultra-Lites 8x42 roofs into the store where I bought them. One of the eyecups had gotten loose -- turns out a small set screw needed to be replaced. Instead of sending them to Swift, the owner found a screw that fit and fixed the problem. I spent more for my binocs at this stor than I would have at an online store or even a big sporting goods chain, but I know the owner would have shipped the binocs himself if they had needed to go to Swift.

The store is basically an Astronomy store, but Frank has a pretty good selection of birding binos. I tried out the new Vortex Diamonback and Viper 8x42s. The Diamondbacks are nice, especially for the price. Good optics and seem to be sturdy. I would recommend them for an entry-level binocular. It's amazing what can be manufactured for the price these days.

The Vipers are truly excellent. I was very impressed by the optics and mechanics. Very sharp "easy" view. You just look through them and go "ah". Basically my reaction reserved for Leicas and Swaros. In fact, Frank had a pair of Leica 8x42s there and I compared the two. (These Leicas are not the newest -- probably the model just before the newest). Basically, I think the Vipers are comparable optically -- which I'm sure will ruffle some feathers. The Leicas felt more solid, and I am sure that they are better constructed, but I really think that optically, the Vipers are just as good. Maybe the newest Leicas are better -- I can't say.

The Vipers go for $500 online.

Frank didn't have the new Vortex Furies though. I really want to check those out. I think their appeal will be to people who like odd size configurations with some slightly different specs from other mid-priced binos.

Oh yeah, the Celestron Ultima porro-prism 8x40s that Frank still has still blow me away. Sharp, bright -- quality feel -- the same bino as the old Swift Ultra-Lite (non-WP). I used to have a pair. Orion still sells a similar model. All alloy construction. Not rugged or waterproof, but it brings back good memories.

[J. Moore]

Thanks for the report. I have the Vipers, but have not tried other high end binoculars, so am interested in others' reactions. Almost all the reports and reviews I have seen agree that they represent one of the best price/performance bargains out there.

Jim

[NoSpringChicken]

Vortex binoculars, especially the Viper, seem to be getting some very good reviews in the USA. The specs sound good, apart from the field of view for the Viper which is rather unimpressive compared to the offerings from the 'big four'. The Razor and Fury appear to have much more competitive fields of view. The 8x32 Fury sounds a very interesting binocular to me, although I gather it doesn't have XD glass like the Viper?

Ron

[J. Moore]

The specs sound good, apart from the field of view for the Viper which is rather unimpressive compared to the offerings from the 'big four'.

I think the reason is simply that the Viper offers very generous (20 mm) eye relief (which is more than is listed for the Swaro ELs for example). This prevents offering an extra-wide field of view. I wear glasses and find that the eye relief of the Vipers is even more than I need. (Though of course the amount of eye relief needed varies from individual to individual). Ideally, I twist each eyecup up one notch for the best view.

In any event, when using in the field, I personally have found the field of view entirely adequate, and have never wanted more (and I have used some binoculars with very wide fields of view in the past).

Jim

[trashbird]

Jim, it seems to me that the Votex Vipers are lifetime binoculars. Unless you are an optics nut, you should be happy with them for a good long time.

The only drawback for me is their minimum IPD adjustment. I need binocs that get down to at least 55 or 56mm.

Honestly, after looking through all those binos, my Swift Ultra-Lite 8x42 roofs aren't too far off the best. And they are still some of the brightest binos I have looked through.

NoSpringChicken, according to the Vortex site, the Vortex Furies do not have XD glass. However, I noted that they have 5-element eyepiece lenses. The 5-elemet design may allow for a wider field of view and sharper-to-the-edge image. Most moderately priced binocs have 3-element eyepiece lenses.

With telescope eyepieces, 5-element lenses are usually Super-Plossl designs, and are premium gear.

[chartwell99]

The Vipers are truly excellent. I was very impressed by the optics and mechanics. Very sharp "easy" view. You just look through them and go "ah". Basically my reaction reserved for Leicas and Swaros. In fact, Frank had a pair of Leica 8x42s there and I compared the two. (These Leicas are not the newest -- probably the model just before the newest). Basically, I think the Vipers are comparable optically -- which I'm sure will ruffle some feathers. The Leicas felt more solid, and I am sure that they are better constructed, but I really think that optically, the Vipers are just as good. Maybe the newest Leicas are better -- I can't say.

.

I have not tried the 8 x 42 Viper out of concern that the FOV was too narrow and the eye relief too long leading to blackouts. Neither factor is a concern, however, for the 10 x 42 Viper which is a truly excellent binocular and an amazing bargain. Your comparison with a far costlier Leica actually does not surprise me. Not that long ago,in fact, I decided to take the plunge on a Leica 8 x 32 Ultravid but on a whim asked to look through a Pentax 8 x 32 DCF SP on the shelf below to confirm to myself that the Leica was really worth the not trivial outlay. Incredibly to me, it was very difficult to find an optical advantage for the Leica other than the slightly greater FOV, and the salesman who also looked through both grudgingly agreed. Perhaps the Leica (which was not an HD model) was less than optimal and the Pentax was an exception to the general run, but I left with the Pentax, very credible optical performance and the comfort of a lifetime no fault warranty.

[J. Moore]

I have not tried the 8 x 42 Viper out of concern that the FOV was too narrow and the eye relief too long leading to blackouts. Neither factor is a concern, however, for the 10 x 42 Viper which is a truly excellent binocular and an amazing bargain.

I guess we are all entitled to our opinions. But if for some reason you think the 350 foot field of view of the 8 x 42 vipers is too small to bird with (a point of view I do not understand), I am a little puzzled as to why you think the 320 foot field of view of the 10 x 42 Vipers is nirvana. In any event, I personally think field of view is one of the most overrated features of a binocular. If you need to survey more area you simply move the binoculars (i.e. scan); I would much rather have light weight and be assured of adequate eye relief than have extra field of view. The 350 feet field of view of the 8 x 42 Vipers, by the way, is about average for mid-priced roof prisms, and is actually 20 feet more than the more expensive Pentax DCF SP 8 x 43 binoculars, 15 feet more than the Swift Audubon 8.5 x 44 roof prisms, and 10 feet more than the well regarded Eagle Optics Ranger SRT 8 x 42 and Celestron Regal LX 8 x 42. It is also only 10 feet less than the more expensive Zeiss Conquest, which is rated as having only 15 mm of eye relief. So I really do not understand the suggestion that the 8 x 42 Viper has some sort of unusually narrow field of view. And I also do not see how worrying about eye relief being "too long" for you personally makes much sense since that can be easily corrected by raising the eye cups (while there is no way to correct for eye relief being too short).

In any event, I agree with trashbird about the Vortex Vipers being lifetime binoculars, and I should probably limit my posting on this forum or I may become the kind of "optics nut", to use his phrase, that will figure out some way to become dissatisfied with them.

Best,
Jim

[J. Moore]

Your comparison with a far costlier Leica actually does not surprise me. Not that long ago,in fact, I decided to take the plunge on a Leica 8 x 32 Ultravid but on a whim asked to look through a Pentax 8 x 32 DCF SP on the shelf below to confirm to myself that the Leica was really worth the not trivial outlay. Incredibly to me, it was very difficult to find an optical advantage for the Leica other than the slightly greater FOV, and the salesman who also looked through both grudgingly agreed. Perhaps the Leica (which was not an HD model) was less than optimal and the Pentax was an exception to the general run, but I left with the Pentax, very credible optical performance and the comfort of a lifetime no fault warranty.

The Pentax 8 x 32 DCF SP looks like a very good binocular. But looking at at least one review site, the Vortex Vipers 8 x 42 were rated as being optically equivalent. (http://www.birdwatching.com/optics/2007roundup/chart_main.html). The only advantage I can see to the Pentax over the Vipers is approximately a 12% wider field of view. On the other hand, the vipers are $320 less, and have a better warranty since it is not only lifetime, but unlike the Pentax, is transferable. I have also read that the Pentax lifetime warranty requires a $20 fee.

Jim

[chartwell99]

I guess we are all entitled to our opinions. But if for some reason you think the 350 foot field of view of the 8 x 42 vipers is too small to bird with (a point of view I do not understand), I am a little puzzled as to why you think the 320 foot field of view of the 10 x 42 Vipers is nirvana. In any event, I personally think field of view is one of the most overrated features of a binocular. ... And I also do not see how worrying about eye relief being "too long" for you personally makes much sense since that can be easily corrected by raising the eye cups (while there is no way to correct for eye relief being too short).
Jim

I agree that FOV should not be a critical criterion provided the field does not appear as looking through a narrow tube. The 350 feet at 1000 yards provided by the 8 x 42 Viper is certainly adequate but I prefer the field of the costlier Stokes DLS at 390/1000 yards as simply more pleasing. I birded for years with a Bausch & Lomb 8 x 42 Elite (360 feet at 1000 yards) without complaint. In truth, I would have preferred the 10 x 42 Vipers to have offered a slightly wider field, but the 10x Viper is such a superb binocular (bright, sharp, light weight, exceptionally easy to handle and a breathtaking bargain) I am happy to join the legion of admirers.

I do disagree with you, however, concerning eye relief. For those of us who do not wear glasses, too much eye relief (a function of shape of eye sockets, IPD etc) results in blackouts which can only be corrected by finding replacement eyecups longer than those supplied. In my own case, 18mm eye relief is optimal, and 20+ can be too long depending on the binocular. I learned that lesson courtesy of a Swarovski 7 x 50 SLC. Swaro's fix to my persistent blackout problem with a glass which is generally superlative was to fit rubber turndown eyecups over the fully extended furnished eyecups. The result was amazing.

[J. Moore]

For those of us who do not wear glasses

Well that changes everything. I guess I assume people posting here do wear glasses if they are concerned about having eye relief at all. I agree that the Viper 8 x 42 would not be as desirable a choice if you do not wear glasses. I think I would make that a fundamental distinction when recommending binoculars -- best choices for glasses versus non-glasses wearers.

Best,
Jim

P.S.: I just tried my vipers without glasses. I thought they worked OK with the eyecups extended all the way, but one does see a lot of black border around the edges, and perhaps some black shadows when scanning.

[trashbird]

In any event, I agree with trashbird about the Vortex Vipers being lifetime binoculars, and I should probably limit my posting on this forum or I may become the kind of "optics nut", to use his phrase, that will figure out some way to become dissatisfied with them.



The best way to become dissatisfied with a glass is to stop birdwatching with it. When I am actively birding with my moderately-priced binos that have very good optics and ergonomics, I never think about them. There is nothing I want more of or less of. Only when I take the binos out and play around with them, look at a street sign, try to figure out how sharp the image is to the edge (or focus on my feet, for crying out loud!), do I become dissatisfied and yearn for a better-looking binocular with a new technology or a more prestigious brand.

And yeah, reading this forum isn't so good for staying satisfied with what you've got, either. ;)

[bkrownd]

If you need to survey more area you simply move the binoculars (i.e. scan); I would much rather have light weight and be assured of adequate eye relief than have extra field of view.

Everybody will have different preferences, but for the record personally I do find FOV to be my #1 consideration. You can't "scan" for what you don't know is there, and even "scanning" is greatly enhanced by extra field of view. (Image area is proportional to the square of the FOV, too) More FOV makes it easier and faster to acquire a target bird, especially when it's moving. More FOV means you'll see more birds at all times. Peripheral vision is essential for detecting new birds you didn't see at first. If you're just fixated on one bird you might not care, but I want to also detect all his buddies hiding out in the nearby foliage and see other birds moving into and out of the area.

I'm not sure why you think FOV and eye relief are exclusive of one another. My Discoverer 7x42s have 20mm of eye relief and a FOV of 420ft at 1000 yards.

[trashbird]

I have rarely found birds in trees and foliage by scanning. Usually, I see some movement or hear a call. I then find the bird with the binos.

Where scanning does seem useful to me is with water fowl and shore birds, where dozens of birds congregate together. In that case, it does seem useful to have a bigger field of view, though I have done fine with 8x and 340/1000 FOV. Then I want to use a scope to zoom in on the bird of interest.

A nice 7x42 is a great glass, but I haven't found one I've felt comfortable with short of a Swaro I once tried out, and that just ain't gonna happen. The Discoverers have too wide a minimum IPD for me. Some of these new 6x and 6.5x binos seem interesting to me for FOV -- lowering the power seems to be a pretty cheap effective way of increasing FOV.

Just my experience and preferences. I'm sure it depends on the kind of birds, their habits and environments.

[J. Moore]

You can't "scan" for what you don't know is there, and even "scanning" is greatly enhanced by extra field of view. (Image area is proportional to the square of the FOV, too) More FOV makes it easier and faster to acquire a target bird, especially when it's moving. More FOV means you'll see more birds at all times. Peripheral vision is essential for detecting new birds you didn't see at first. If you're just fixated on one bird you might not care, but I want to also detect all his buddies hiding out in the nearby foliage and see other birds moving into and out of the area.

I'm not sure why you think FOV and eye relief are exclusive of one another. My Discoverer 7x42s have 20mm of eye relief and a FOV of 420ft at 1000 yards.

Hi,

I am sure there are those who enjoy wide field of view and there certainly are contexts where it may be helpful. And also please understand the context of this thread (as well as another thread I was in) where posters were dismissing the Viper 8 x 42 as not worthy of consideration because it only had a "puny" 350 foot field of view. But a few points related to your comments:

-- You can scan for birds that you do not know are there. That is the first thing I do when I reach the ocean is scan for waterfowl I cannot see with my naked eye. I also do the same at a marsh or field, though I may also be looking for other types of birds such as raptors or sparrows.

-- It is my understanding that it is easier to maintain both a wide field of view and good eye relief with lower power binoculars, such as the seven power binoculars your reference. And different binocular designs will be able to accommodate good eye relief and field of view to a different extent. But for a given design, it is my understanding that the field of view will vary inversely with the amount of eye relief.

-- the only time I use my binoculars is when I see a bird with the naked eye first or when I scan as described above. (And I think that is true of most birders). Hence, the only time I can conceive when you would "see more birds" with a wider field of view would be in the exceptional instance when (i) you could not see the bird with your naked eye, (ii) you would not be inclined to scan (such as when looking in the treetops), and (iii) at least two birds were precisely placed so that one could be seen with the naked eye and when centering on that one bird, the additional bird that could not be seen with the naked eye was outside the 350 foot field of view of an average eight power binocular but within the expanded field of view of a binocular with a wider field of view. In my experience, those set of circumstances seldom happen.

Best,
Jim

[bkrownd]

I am sure there are those who enjoy wide field of view and there certainly are contexts where it may be helpful. And also please understand the context of this thread (as well as another thread I was in) where posters were dismissing the Viper 8 x 42 as not worthy of consideration because it only had a "puny" 350 foot field of view.

I didn't look at anything with a FOV that small when I shopped, either. In fact, my old binoculars are spec'd 367ft at 1000 yards, and maximum FOV was a big selling point for me precisely because the small FOV of my old binoculars was too limiting and difficult to work with. I was disappointed that 420ft/1000yds was the best I could find. YMMV.

You seem to think my considerations are somehow exceptional circumstances. I consider them to be fairly obvious and typical. I guess we're just doing very different things. That's the way it goes...

I also just bought a lens for my camera that takes photos which are wider angle than my eyes can take in at once. I love those wide open views! :)

[J. Moore]

I didn't look at anything with a FOV that small when I shopped, either. In fact, my old binoculars are spec'd 367ft at 1000 yards, and maximum FOV was a big selling point for me precisely because the small FOV of my old binoculars was too limiting and difficult to work with. I was disappointed that 420ft/1000yds was the best I could find. YMMV.

I am not sure how long you have been a birder. But several decades ago seven power binoculars used to be the standard. Now eight power binoculars seem to be. But with the higher magnification comes greater constraints on field of view. I recently changed from seven to eight power, and discovered I like the higher magnification and have no problem trading off some field of view for it. Of course some people prefer even higher magnifications and trade off more field of view, but I think eight power is the limit for me. As you suggest a lot of this is personal preference.

By the way, I am jealous of your location. I consider my trip to Hawaii almost 30 years ago one of the highlights of my birding career. Iiwi would be high on my list of the most beautiful birds in the world.

Jim

[J. Moore]

By the way, if you really want field of view how about these binoculars -- a 900 foot field of view and only $69! --

http://www.eagleoptics.com/index.asp?pid=5135

Jim

[trashbird]

I dunno, Jim. Those binos have only 10mm of eye relief. For an eyeglasses wearer that would cut off about 1/3 of the view, leaving you with a puny 600ft FOV. ;)

[bkrownd]

By the way, I am jealous of your location. I consider my trip to Hawaii almost 30 years ago one of the highlights of my birding career. Iiwi would be high on my list of the most beautiful birds in the world.

Grass is always greener on the other side. ;) I'll always long to someday return to Hampshire county in Western MA. My current dream destination is the North Shore of Minnesota.