BEST 7x42

[308CAL]

I have the SLC new in 7x42 and A couple years ago I compared it wit hthe ultravid in 7x42 and ultravid in 8x42. I preferred the eyecups, sweet spot, and focus wheel of the SLC. THe rest was a toss up. I tested for flare, brightness etc and the SLC was as good or better. The only category it lost was weight.

I have always said if there was a 7x42 EL it would be a hit.

i also had and sold the 8x42FL w/o lotutec and didnt like the small sweet spot but brightness and sharpness in the center was great.

Overall i like the swaro because of the wise sweet spot.

I have looked at the 8x32 meopta but going from the roomy 6mm exit pupil of the slc to the 4mm of the meostar was not for me. Also the lens covers and eyecups were not as good on the meopta but the image was nice

If you could get any 7x42 which would it be and why? which have you actually seen?

I havent seen the ultravid HD in any configuration nor have i seen the 7x42 FL.

I heard the meopta 7x42 is great but i havent seen it and if it has the same lens covers and eyecups as the 8x32, i would not get it.

[Steve C]

308

When you have one alpha class glass and really like it, I advise you to just stick with it and enjoy it. When you get up to that class of glass, personal preferences dealing with how well your eyes match the optical system of the binocular are a lot more important than whether it is Z, L, S, Nikon or Meopta. That, and how it feels and handles for you. That is kind of a how many angels can dance on the head of a pin argument. The 7x EL would be nice to see, but I think they they would shoot a hole their market for the 7x42 SLC. Look at whatever you can find and listen to what your eyes tell you.

All of the alpha 7x42 are pretty heavy, except the Ultravid is lighter. So is the Nikon EDG.

[Bob A (SD)]

I have the SLC new in 7x42 The only category it lost was weight.

If memory serves we both got our 7x42B SLCs from the same source within weeks of each other. It is an excellent bin. But I concur, the 33.5 ounces can be a literal pain. And I agree with Steve.... no profit in swapping among Alphas.

What I've done instead is to seek an excellent non-Alpha 7x that is much lighter. While I've just received it today and am still wringing it out, I'm pretty comfortable saying I scored yet again with the Zen-Ray 7x36 with it's ED glass, wide 477' FOV and 22 ounce weight.

[308CAL]

So bob are you selling the slc's & keeping the chinese glass.

[308CAL]

So bob are you selling the slc's & keeping the chinese glass.

[Bob A (SD)]

So bob are you selling the slc's & keeping the chinese glass.

Honestly, I originally thought that would be the game plan. But of late I keep thinking that I'll never get enough out of the Swaros given the economy; and they'd be very expensive to replace if I had seller's regrets. So as nice as I'm finding the lighter weight and wider FOV Zen ED2s, I think the Swaros will stay but get relegated to local use rather than being packed out anywhere. My neck objects too much. But no question that the ED2s will see a lot of use heretofore the exclusive domain of the Swaros.

[308CAL]

How do they handle flare or stray light? Think their customer service will be as good as swaro?
I dropped mý swaros, they still are in alignment, wonder if the zen rays will are as durable.
So are the zen rays better than the swaro?

[Bob A (SD)]

How do they handle flare or stray light? Think their customer service will be as good as swaro?
I dropped mý swaros, they still are in alignment, wonder if the zen rays will are as durable.
So are the zen rays better than the swaro?

SCV,

Take a look at the various Zen-Ray threads in the "Other" Bin subforum. You'll find your answers there.

They're darned fine bins but no one is saying they are fully equal to Alphas. In many areas the do match up well. Still we're talking a $400 bin versus $2000 :)

[Steve C]

How do they handle flare or stray light? Think their customer service will be as good as swaro?
I dropped mý swaros, they still are in alignment, wonder if the zen rays will are as durable.
So are the zen rays better than the swaro?

I know your China position, so didn't suggest these to you. However, if you want good 7x glass that is substantially lighter than the 7x SLC, and will keep the wide fov, the ZEN 7x36 are your ONLY option (OK the 7x42 Ultravids are smaller but not as small as the ZEN). So hence my advice to keep the SLC. Other good optical alternatives are the Swift Eaglet 7x36 (japanese) and the Leupold Switch power 7/12x32, but the less fov will really jump out at you. The image is a tick less than the ZEN too.

"Better" is relative to what your definition of need is. ZEN is pretty new, and no, there is no guarantee they will last. How durable they are is still open to question, the whole line is too new. But they are as substantially built as is anything much less than $750. Certainly as well built as anything $600 and below.

Flare/stray light is a non issue for me, evidently not for some. So far there is no one who has complaints with Z-R customer service. Since the Swaros seem to better suit your view of better, another reason to stick with them.

[308CAL]

The zen seemd like a great bino but I won't knowingly support china so they are out for me.

Back to topic: john traynor awhile ack was saying he would get the slc over the ultravid if he were buying today. I was hoping he would chime in.

[308CAL]

Oh lastly the slc new 7x42 is not 2000. Its 1100-1200 new.
Which is one of the cheapest "alpha" full size binos available

[Bob A (SD)]

Oh lastly the slc new 7x42 is not 2000. Its 1100-1200 new.
Which is one of the cheapest "alpha" full size binos available

Understood.... but I was thinking more in terms of the EL or Ultravids, etc. that are much more expensive than the SLCs. After all you wanted to consider alternatives to the SLCs you now have. I ponied up the ED2s which you've now dismissed, so.....

BTW the China connection is hard to duck. I pulled out some frozen concentrated apple juice this morning and was astounded to see the label identified it as a product of China. What isn't these days?

[FrankD]

I was with John comparing the 7x42 SLCs to the Ultravids shortly before he made that comment. Hopefully he will chime in.

I can say this much. On that day, in that comparison, the SLCs new displayed less CA and better edge sharpness than the Ultravid. The Ultravid was brighter, smaller and lighter. Either is a superb 7x42 as is the Meopta.

[shaocaholica]

BTW the China connection is hard to duck. I pulled out some frozen concentrated apple juice this morning and was astounded to see the label identified it as a product of China. What isn't these days?

308 did say "Knowingly". Perhaps ZR should have some minor piece left unassembled and slap a "Assembled in USA" sticker on them so as to ease the minds of people like 308. You can't even get an American car without foreign parts but not many people know this so it doesn't burden their minds. Wouldn't the same be fair for binos too?

[Kevin Purcell]

308 did say "Knowingly". Perhaps ZR should have some minor piece left unassembled and slap a "Assembled in USA" sticker on them so as to ease the minds of people like 308. You can't even get an American car without foreign parts but not many people know this so it doesn't burden their minds. Wouldn't the same be fair for binos too?

That wouldn't meet the requirement for "Assembled in the USA" ... sustantial transformation is required.

There is another thread were I go into this in detail ;)

I think a lot of good points are made here the most important one is "chasing Alphas". The trick is to find the one you like and stick with it until you are sure a better one comes along. And when that happens don't sell the old one until you're sure.

Bob strategy is a novel one too: making the most of less expensive but still very good bins. A decent porro might fall into this category too but there are not many new 7x porros out there.

[chris lewis]

As an alternative 7x42 I viewed through some Weaver Grand Slam 7x42 roof binoculars yesterday at my local optics dealer. Japanese made with an 8 degree FOV and a 56 Afov. Build quality was excellent and optically it was reminisant of my B. and L. Discoverers with the PC-3 phase coating / FMC / XRT lens which means good mid level range optics. Mild curvature of field on the periphery is noticed but no other obvious major aberrations are overtly noted. D.O.F. is very good is the contrast. Ergonomics were excellent.
I have seen very few reviews / comments on the Weaver series of binoculars.
Just unsure what the availabilty of these are world wide.
I am aware they may not be the 'best' but it is good to be aware of them.

Chris


http://www.opticsplanet.net/weaver-binoculars-grand-slam-849627.html

[Fireform]

You ought to look at the Zeiss FL. The field of view and sweet spot are a good deal wider than in the 8x42 version.

[Swedpat]

Hi 308CAL,

I have Swarovski SLCNew 7x42B as well. I like them and can confirm what you are saying.

Compared them to Zeiss Victory FL 7x42 earlier this summer.
Yes, the Zeiss is sharper on-axis and the image is more contrasty. But the sweet spot and ease of view of SLC7x42 is hardly beaten. Eye relief is also better. I like the holding comfortability better with SLC7x42, though I can sometimes agree with people about it would be good if they were 200gram lighter.

I could get a good amount of money if I sold the Swarovski because of the high trade-in value. But I think I would regret it. SLC7x42 is great binoculars! I don't want to sell them!

Regards, Patric

[spyglass]

Me, I vote for the 7x42FL.

[denco@comcast.n]

Me, I vote for the 7x42FL.

I second that vote. I have tried alot of the 7x42's and I liked the Zeiss the best if price is no criteria. The sharpness of the sweet spot and the lack of CA and beautiful rendition of colors do it for me. I find the Swaro without any type of ED lens to have more CA and much muddier color presentation. It's not good to learn what CA does to your image because once you know what to look for it is hard to live with it. Color become much more complex because you can see ALL the different shades of blue when observing birds. The Swaro's just don't bring out all those different gradients of color like the Zeiss FL's do. Even the Zen Rays ED outperform the Swaro's in this respect because of their ED lenses.

Dennis

[Pileatus]

The best 7X42 is...
FL glass in a Leica housing with a Swarovski sweet spot.

Too bad it doesn't exist.

[FrankD]

The best 7X42 is...
FL glass in a Leica housing with a Swarovski sweet spot.

Too bad it doesn't exist.

Yes it does John. Just buy all three and keep rotating through them when you look at a bird.

I am sure the bird will cooperate.

;)

:D

[npos]

I have the SLC new in 7x42

If you could get any 7x42 which would it be and why? which have you actually seen?



If close focus is important, say for observing insects and butterflies, you will prefer the Zeiss. Six or seven feet close focus is good. The Swarovski EL line does not appear to include a 7x. Am I mistaken? The SLC is heavy, but you know that. By the way, the SLC body styling is quite nice, in my opinion.

Norman P.

[denco@comcast.n]

308

When you have one alpha class glass and really like it, I advise you to just stick with it and enjoy it. When you get up to that class of glass, personal preferences dealing with how well your eyes match the optical system of the binocular are a lot more important than whether it is Z, L, S, Nikon or Meopta. That, and how it feels and handles for you. That is kind of a how many angels can dance on the head of a pin argument. The 7x EL would be nice to see, but I think they they would shoot a hole their market for the 7x42 SLC. Look at whatever you can find and listen to what your eyes tell you.

All of the alpha 7x42 are pretty heavy, except the Ultravid is lighter. So is the Nikon EDG.

Do you consider a Swarovski SLC an alpha? To me alpha's are Zeiss FL's, Swarovki EL's, Nikon EDG's and Leica Ultravid HD's. I would call Swarovski SLC's, Zeiss Conquest's, Nikon LXL's ,Leica Trinovids and Ultravids semi-alphas. The rest of the binoculars we should term sub-alphas. What do you think?

Dennis

[FrankD]

Dennis,

If you are asking "everyone here" then my opinion would be that the Swaro SLCs, Nikon EDGs and Leica Trinovids/Ultravids are Alphas as well. They just aren't the most recent Alphas.

[mooreorless]

I agree with Frank. These are all Alphas to me. Especially the Nikon EDG after looking through NDhunter's 10x42EDG.:t:

[Steve C]

Do you consider a Swarovski SLC an alpha? To me alpha's are Zeiss FL's, Swarovki EL's, Nikon EDG's and Leica Ultravid HD's. I would call Swarovski SLC's, Zeiss Conquest's, Nikon LXL's ,Leica Trinovids and Ultravids semi-alphas. The rest of the binoculars we should term sub-alphas. What do you think?

Dennis

Dennis,

Yes the SLC is an alpha. Same glass as the EL, different package. So the Nikon SE isn't even sub-alpha? I look at it as image quality and build, not price. Seems like you are defining alpha on the basis of what is newest and most expensive. YMMV.

[denco@comcast.n]

Dennis,

Yes the SLC is an alpha. Same glass as the EL, different package. So the Nikon SE isn't even sub-alpha? I look at it as image quality and build, not price. Seems like you are defining alpha on the basis of what is newest and most expensive. YMMV.

So you could have an alpha like Nikon SE that is only $500.00. So price does not define an alpha. I didn't know the Swarovski SLC's had the same optics as the EL's. Same coating too? Not quite the cutting edge style but the same view. They are a pretty good buy then. I guess there are alot of alphas then! I always thought they were the top models by the big three. So these would all be alphas:
1)Swarovski EL,SLC,Habicht.
2)Nikon LXL,EDG,SE.
3)Zeiss FL, Conquest
4)Leica Trinovid,Ultravid,Ultravid HD.

What about the other smaller manufacturers like Minox, Opticron, etc. I think we need to define what really is an alpha binocular.

Dennis

[kristoffer]

that good?I agree with Frank. These are all Alphas to me. Especially the Nikon EDG after looking through NDhunter's 10x42EDG.:t:

[Steve C]

So you could have an alpha like Nikon SE that is only $500.00. So price does not define an alpha. I didn't know the Swarovski SLC's had the same optics as the EL's. Same coating too?
What about the other smaller manufacturers like Minox, Opticron, etc. I think we need to define what really is an alpha binocular.

Dennis

As far as I am concerned we can also add the Steiner Peregrine XP to the alpha list. From reading comments, and reviews (see Renze's review in review section and reviews from Holger Merlitz) we should probably add the Kowa Genesis. I even think the argument could be made for the Meopta Meostar because I think it's view is too close to the SLC to call a difference that matters to any degree. Hey, maybe even the new Minox APO, but I have yet to see one of those, so can't comment. Same with anything Opticron. But if we get to Meopta on the lower level, then, well, pretty soon anything goes. ;) Can China apply?

It might make for an interesting discussion to define alpha class entrance requirements. But back to the original question, does having a 7x42 constitute an basic entry requirement or not?

[308CAL]

the conquest is not an alpha IMO, it never was the best line for Zeiss.

[FrankD]

308 beat me to the punch. Though I would be happy to own an 8x40 Conquest ABK again I have to agree that it is not an alpha. The only thing "Alpha" about it is the ABK prism design which promotes Alpha-level brightness.

CA was worse in the Conquest ABK (in comparison to any of the others Alphas listed above) and the field of view was narrow (at 360 feet) without the benefit of the edge to edge sharpness of the LXL.

It is above average optically but not in the same class as any of the others mentioned...including the Meopta.

[CLRobles]

My vote here for top 7x42 is the Swaro SLC... As for the Alpha Bit I see it more as a bin manufacturer thing with Swarovski, Zeiss, Leica, and Nikon being the alpha builds. Meopta, Kowa, Steiner, Docter being that tier right below but not of the same overall build...

[CharleyBird]

It's interesting how the discussion about ranking quality bins parallels the world of pianos, from the angst about durablility when buying Chinese/Far Eastern products, the use of non-European quality parts, the different quality(sound/view) of models produced by one manufacturer, down to the fact that some people's ears/eyes simply prefer one model's or manufacturer's sound/view over anothers.

One comment that I've taken to heart about pianos is that, in these days of the gobal economy when anyone can buy in the best components to build a piano, what becomes increasingly important in a Tier One piano is the quality of build and finish.

You can rarely use a manufacturer to blanket-describe a Tier One product. Also, price is only an indicator that the product is likely to be of Alpha quality.
I'd go along with FrankD's definition as the best, that an alpha binocular is an optical instrument significantly above average with respect to optic and build quality.
When it comes to Nikon for example, their EDG models probably qualify as alphas, but not some other models.


Pianists waste a ridiculous amount of time discussing the ratings of brands and their models given in Larry Fine's "The Piano Book", which has annual supplements where small ranking changes of instruments in tiers and sub-tiers can provoke traumatic debate.
God forbid anyone ever publishes "The Binocular Book" o:D

[kristoffer]

Pianists waste a ridiculous amount of time discussing the ratings of brands and their models given in Larry Fine's "The Piano Book", which has annual supplements where small ranking changes of instruments in tiers and sub-tiers can provoke traumatic debate.
God forbid anyone ever publishes "The Binocular Book" o:D

Haha, funny with parallels like these. That book would certinily wreak havoc on bf :D

Lots of other forums share the views shown here on bf about products made in Europe/China etc, just like you mentioned. The most unexpected perhaps Sanchos richa forum ;)

[FrankD]

Meopta, Kowa, Steiner, Docter being that tier right below but not of the same overall build...

CL,

Respectfully I have to disagree with this statement at least from the standpoint of the Meopta. I have seen these binoculars withstand conditions (personally and in the link below) that totally blew me away. I have no doubt in my mind that they would stand up to any abuse that a Leica Ultravid, Zeiss FL or Swarovski EL would.

Truth be told, I would not be entirely surprised if they bettered at least one of those three in terms of overall durability.

http://www.cabelas.com/cabelas/en/content/community/product_features/photos/pages/pf_eurobinoculars_large.html

Granted, the above link is just a glorified infomercial with questionable data in the first minute or so of the presentation but it was what occurred after 1:15 that impressed and continues to impress me about these binoculars.

Also interesting are the 120+ reviews that these binoculars have received. Though you have to take them with a grain of salt because you don't know the reviewers experience level/background the simple fact that 120+ people took the time to post about them says quite a bit about their performance and price in my opinion.

http://www.cabelas.com/cabelas/en/templates/product/reviews.jsp?productid=712421

[mooreorless]

Yea Frank I am impressed with the hot water, frozen etc. These guys must have super vision to see 3.7 without a booster though .:-)

[FrankD]

Yea Frank I am impressed with the hot water, frozen etc. These guys must have super vision to see 3.7 without a booster though .:-)

Yep, hence my comments about disregarding the first minute or so of the video.

;)

[CLRobles]

CL,

Respectfully I have to disagree with this statement at least from the standpoint of the Meopta. I have seen these binoculars withstand conditions (personally and in the link below) that totally blew me away. I have no doubt in my mind that they would stand up to any abuse that a Leica Ultravid, Zeiss FL or Swarovski EL would.

Truth be told, I would not be entirely surprised if they bettered at least one of those three in terms of overall durability.

http://www.cabelas.com/cabelas/en/content/community/product_features/photos/pages/pf_eurobinoculars_large.html

Granted, the above link is just a glorified infomercial with questionable data in the first minute or so of the presentation but it was what occurred after 1:15 that impressed and continues to impress me about these binoculars.

Also interesting are the 120+ reviews that these binoculars have received. Though you have to take them with a grain of salt because you don't know the reviewers experience level/background the simple fact that 120+ people took the time to post about them says quite a bit about their performance and price in my opinion.

http://www.cabelas.com/cabelas/en/templates/product/reviews.jsp?productid=712421

No doubt about it! Meoptas are some of the finest and toughest built binos on the market! They are on a very short list of bins that I would spend my hard earned money on and that says a lot... at least to me! I have been in the field a glassed along side of many meoptas and probably knew what meostars were before most ever heard that the Chech republic made a world class bin! I have even owned a Meopta Rifle scope :t: Funny though I have never seen a Meopta spotting scope in the field? Having said all this I do see a difference between the Meoptas and thier almost clone the Swarovski SLC. Its not a big difference but the overall quality and the the overall view is just a bit better in the SLC. When glassing in the lowest light conditions and trying to resolve at extreme distances I see a difference.... As I said though, not much and only by the smallest of margines! The Docters are the same way... I have had a pair of 10x40 Aspherics that are 15 years old now that are built every bit as tough as any of the alphas and probably tougher! They are also in the same league optically! But there still is a difference.... Small as it may be, it is there. And this is what puts them and the Meoptas just below the top four...
This is why I was so totally blown away by the performance of the SE's when I finally woke up and purchased the set of them... No they are not as tough as the Docters or Meoptas but they are better bins in most ways. They are a Alpha bin and deserve to be talked about the way they are!
And I was not trying to make a blanket statement about bin quality by saying manufacturers are the way to rate bins.....
Yes two of the top four have made more affordable and less quality bins but this does not take away that these four bin makers are THE authority in the optical world! And this makes them Alphas!

[FrankD]

Ahh, now I understand what you were saying. I had thought your earlier comment was in reference to build quality, not optics.

From an optical standpoint I personally find the Meostars competitive with the SLCs and Trinovids. If they utilized an ED glass design I think they would then subsequently be comparable to the ED "Alphas".

[CLRobles]

Ahh, now I understand what you were saying. I had thought your earlier comment was in reference to build quality, not optics.

From an optical standpoint I personally find the Meostars competitive with the SLCs and Trinovids. If they utilized an ED glass design I think they would then subsequently be comparable to the ED "Alphas".
I agree, they are right there and really very, very good bins! The SLC's have been continually improved optically and use the same glass, coatings, and prisms as the EL's. Only the bodies are different. So there is a big difference in a SLC of the last 6 years or so and the Trinovids. Having said this the trins are a great bin too!