Just Optics--what's The Best!

[denco@comcast.n]

Ok what do you think are the best birding binoculars JUST for optics. No ergonomics, no size or weight considerations, focus or handling or balance does not enter into the equation. No porro prism models because very few birders use them and because they are not waterproof. I know some people like the Nikon 10x42 and 8x32 SE's but I had them and too me the eye placement was difficult with too much black beaning. So lets just talk roof prism's of any aperture.
When I say optics I mean anything that makes your view of the object you are looking at better or easier. This means sharpness, size of sweet spot, contrast, lack of flare, color purity, brightness, ease of eye placement, FOV, and eye relief. All the things that make you go "WOW!" when you look through a really fine binocular. Ok do we understand the criteria? Then let's go on to my selections.
Here is my top four not necessarily in order of optical quality.

1) Leica Ultravid HD 7 x 42
2) Leica Trinovid BN 7 x 42
3) Swarovski EL 8.5 x 42
4) Zeiss FL 7 x 42

You notice I did not choose any 8 x 32's. Simple reason I do not feel any of them are equal to the bigger aperture binoculars in optical quality. I chose mainly 7 x 42's instead of 8 x 42's because of their wider FOV and easier eye placement and the ability to hold them steadier because of their lower magnification. I know that's not really optical quality. I chose the Swarovski EL because after looking through all of their binoculars I find it to have some of the best optics and they do not make a 7 x 42 except for the SLC and I don't think they are in the same class as the EL's. The best value here is the Leica Trinovid BN 7 x 42 because the street price is about $1200.00 way less than the other picks and it has some optical advantages over the Ultravids including a bigger sweet spot. So let the discussion begin.

Dennis

[Steve C]

This seems to me to be an unanswerable question, other than from a subjective personal opinion, and everybody has their own. Having spent some time recently with most of your choices (no Trinovid) @8x at the same time and place against a resolution chart, the ability to resolve detail in these glasses seems to me to be for all intents and purposes equal.

You would have to be willing to use some sort of test of light transmission or other optical criteria to seperate them and choose from that. Simple application of eyeball, binocular and resolution chart will not seperate any of them for me. The images of all of them have some characteristics that tend to give each image a distinct "look".

For example, to me the Zeiss is brighter with a touch of a cool color bias. The Leica is just about ideal for a neutral color rendition, and the Swarovski seems perhaps a tad on the warm side. Some people will see the image differences as quite significant and this will easlily influence their choice of one of the binoculars. I could easily have any of the image offerings and be quite happy with it. My choice would be defined by the ergonomics and other factors that lie outside of your listed criteria.

[Phil Bishop]

The problem is that everyone is different, and what suits one persons eyes may not suit another.
For many years I used a pair of Zeiss 7x42 and loved the clarity and contrast. The wide field of view I enjoyed but being very short sighted with some astigmatism too, my glasses are quite thick at the edges (even high index ones) causing significantly more field curvature/distortion than most users report (this being a well known problem with the Zeiss eyepieces then).
I changed to Nikon 10x42HG about 8 years ago. I spent several hours testing between the equivalent Zeiss Swaro and Leica models and in the end, the Nikons just beat the Swaros for me, but there was little in it. I find the smaller exit pupil of the 10x is less affected by my glasses, and being a slower optical system, any aberrations in the binoculars is also reduced.
If I were to consider a new pair, the only ones that I have tried that impress me are the Ultravids-both the 8x32 and 10x42. I never did see the new Swaros before they were pulled, but suspect that they and possibly the new Nikons, if they ever get made would have to be considered.

[FIDDLER]

Zeiss 10x56 fls.
fiddler

[orbitaljump]

Purpose defines "best." There is no answer.

[denco@comcast.n]

Purpose defines "best." There is no answer.
I disagree! I think to 90% of the people with normal vision they would agree these four binoculars are among the best. Do you have any other pick that should be in this top four or five? I can totally judge a binocular by looking through it. You do not need instruments to test you can use your eyes. I think it is easy to pick out an alpha binocular from a mid priced one. All these studies and tests have shown this to be a fact too. In the Cornell study the testers easily could tell an alpha binocular from a mid priced binocular with their own eyes. With my own eyes I have picked out these binoculars to be the best and I think 90% of people would agree. I do not think optics are that much of a personal thing like ergonomics. Were all human and our eyes all work in the same way pretty much. Either a binocular is good optically or it isn't so hot. If it wasn't true then why in all these studies do Leica, Swarovski, and Zeiss keep floating to the top of the heap. It is not pure coincidence! They are better. Among the top say five binoculars there is probably not much difference. I am saying these are the top four in my book.

Dennis

[orbitaljump]

They are surely fine binoculars.

[ronh]

Dennis,
I don't guess you'll find many people really familiar with all four. But, I have the 8.5x Swaro, which gets used mostly by my wife, and also an 8x42 Trinovid BA.

The Swaro is definitely the racier of the two--lighter, slim and easy to grab, a bit brighter, and with colors that seem to sort of glow. I can see why these things jump off the shelves, and are much loved.

But to my eye, there's something unnerving about the Swaro view, vs the Trinovid. The little bit of extra magnification, coupled with lower weight, makes it seem less steady. The larger apparent field is a trifle overwhelming. I sort of feel like I'm watching a film in a Dynamax theater. The Trinovid view is easy to acquire, steady, realistic, extremely sharp, and just relaxing in some subjective undefinable way. I notice CA less in the Leica. And, it seems to me more resistant to leakage when trying to see into shadows near bright sky (strange considering its more reflective coatings and some bare alumininum interior parts).

When the chips are down, including late dusk, the two binoculars show equal information about an object. I'd say the choice is totally subjective. But, while for me, the Swaro would be the "obvious" purchase choice, after some time, the Leica has worn better.

I'm not supposed mention Porros I know, but since mine is waterproof, has a 7.1mm exit pupil, and I do go birding with it, perhaps you will allow the exception. It's the 7x50 Fujinon FMT-SX. I like the lower power, and coupled with the most un-bird-like 51 ounce weight, you can believe the view is steady. Sure it's bright as all get out, with 95% transmission vs 82% for the BA and 87% for the EL, and in near darkness ( I like to go looking for owls) the big exit pupil takes off like a rocket. But what really kills me is the sharpness, color saturation, and contrast, which beat either of the roofs. So, I guess I have to go stand in the corner now?
Ron

[orbitaljump]

Now youve done it Ron! LOL!

[Steve C]

I'd certainly add the Steiner Peregrine XP 8x44 to that list. I'd assume the Nikon EDG would make the cut too.

I'd not argue the ability to totally judge a binocular by looking through it. I'd also add that the judgement includes ergonomic and other factors as well. However, the overall look and feel of the image is different in all of the binoculars, and each has their appeal to a number of people. If one was the best, then everybody would pick the thing and that would be all that would be for sale. But that, thankfully is not the case. So what we wind up with is a mostly subjective evaluation of how the individual views the image, the price paid for it, the ergonomics and any other considerations deemed important by the user. As I said earlier, I think that the ability to resolve detail off a chart is pretty much a wash among the various top end glass.

[iveljay]

If such a beast existed I would have bought it by now and saved myself a lot of money.

J

[Pileatus]

Ok what do you think are the best birding binoculars JUST for optics. No ergonomics, no size or weight considerations, focus or handling or balance does not enter into the equation. No porro prism models because very few birders use them and because they are not waterproof. I know some people like the Nikon 10x42 and 8x32 SE's but I had them and too me the eye placement was difficult with too much black beaning. So lets just talk roof prism's of any aperture.
When I say optics I mean anything that makes your view of the object you are looking at better or easier. This means sharpness, size of sweet spot, contrast, lack of flare, color purity, brightness, ease of eye placement, FOV, and eye relief. All the things that make you go "WOW!" when you look through a really fine binocular. Ok do we understand the criteria? Then let's go on to my selections.
Here is my top four not necessarily in order of optical quality.

1) Leica Ultravid HD 7 x 42
2) Leica Trinovid BN 7 x 42
3) Swarovski EL 8.5 x 42
4) Zeiss FL 7 x 42

You notice I did not choose any 8 x 32's. Simple reason I do not feel any of them are equal to the bigger aperture binoculars in optical quality. I chose mainly 7 x 42's instead of 8 x 42's because of their wider FOV and easier eye placement and the ability to hold them steadier because of their lower magnification. I know that's not really optical quality. I chose the Swarovski EL because after looking through all of their binoculars I find it to have some of the best optics and they do not make a 7 x 42 except for the SLC and I don't think they are in the same class as the EL's. The best value here is the Leica Trinovid BN 7 x 42 because the street price is about $1200.00 way less than the other picks and it has some optical advantages over the Ultravids including a bigger sweet spot. So let the discussion begin.

Dennis
The Trinovid is unavailable, the EL is being replaced, the Zeiss didn't dominate the market, and the Ultravid HD is an Ultravid with dubious updates.

[denco@comcast.n]

Good review! I totally agree with the Swarovski and Leica comparison. Our eyes must be very close because I have compared the two and you explained the differences very well. Your right on initial comparison most people would buy the Swarovski but with time the view through the Leica seems more comfortable. Two of the best optically binoculars in the world though. Interesting you like the 7 x50 Fujinon. Again I am sure it is bright, easy to hold steady(7x) and easy eye placement. I will have to check those out.

Dennis

[Tero]

The trouble I have is with the alpa class bins in 42mm, due to weight. If you gave me 1800 to go spend, I would probably end up with 8x32 or so.

The other specs on the 8.5x42 are pretty much right.

[temmie]

some of the best I looked through:
Zeiss: 7x42 and 8x42 T-FL, 8 and 10x56 T*FL, 7x42 dialyt, Zeiss Night Owl (all)
Leica: 10x50
Swarovski: new SLC 10x42

My next one will be the Zeiss 10*56 T-FL. I am addicted to the light coming through the Zeiss. Nothing beats them, and the fact that the colours are somewhat 'cold' isn't (imho) really as important as light and contrast, the primary sources of information in identifying a bird.

[orbitaljump]

If you gave me 1800 to spend, I would surely end up with more than one binocular....probably a half dozen.

[denco@comcast.n]

Good choices! I totally agree with all your picks. You obviously have done alot of birding. I will bet those Zeiss 10x56 FL 's are fantastic. Would be great on a tripod too. Those big apertures are a little heavy but what a view!

Dennis