Swift 828HHS Bins - Any opinions ?

[rka]

I'm looking for a good budget birding binoculars (<US$400). After quite a bit of research, it's down to two units. Interestingly, both units are from Swift, a brand I have never looked seriously at before. Does anyone have experience with the following units:

1) Swift 828HHS 8.5x44 (Latest Roof Model)
2) Swift 820ED 8.5x44 (Porro Model)

rka

[Leif]

See BVD (http://www.betterviewdesired.com) for reviews.

[mcdowella]

I have the 820 non-ED and am very pleased with it. The specifications show these to be quite different binoculars: the porro prism 820 is heavier than the 828, but has an unusually wide field of view - and BVD points out in general that porro prisms make the optical designer's job easier.

[rka]

Decided on the 828HHS and just purchased it online for US$270. I'm not qualified to provide a proper review but will post my impressions in this thread.

rka

[brocknroller]

rka,

new to the forum. i saw your post and am interested in hearing about the audubon roofs. i had the 820 porros, and was very impressed with the resolution, best i've seen, and i own nikon SEs, BUT the oversized eyecups would not fit comfortably into my eyesockets (deep-set eyes) so i couldn't see that wonderful wide FOV everyone is so excited about, saw maybe 6.5*, not much more than the roofs. i prefer a larger FOV, but like the resolution on the audubons. i've read that the roofs are not as sharp as the porros,but still very good. eager to hear your review. thanks.

brock

[brocknroller]

rka,

Saw your review on the review page. Thanks for posting it. I guess when you compare any 8X40-44mm birding bin to a spotting scope, especially an 80mm premium model, it is not going to compare more favorably except perhaps for FOV and portability. I would like to see the HHS compared to comparably priced phase-coated roof bin (e.g., Pentax DCF 8X42).

The one con you listed was the blurry edges, and you gave the edge performance a rating of 6/10. Does that mean that the views are sharp to about 60% from the center or is that just a subjective value? I read another review (excelsis.com) that put the edge sharpness to 15% from the edge (i.e., fall off at 85% from center), which is quite good for a birding bin. Please elaborate more on the edge performance of the HHS. Thanks!

Brock

[bineshii]

I am considering buying the Swift 828 after much deliberation. They seem like the best bino for the buck- I have seen them at 279.00 US. I wear glasses and think they would be better for me than the porros.

[mcdowella]

Here's an update on the Porros - I tried to clean the 820 non-EDs by immersion and ruined them because although it said waterproof on the outside it didn't mean that waterproof. After a long wait and many email messages via WarehouseExpress I got a replacement pair, which were faulty on arrival - one side permanently blurred and rattling when shaken.

In the mean time I had got a pair of 820EDs because I did like the optics. On Sunday I went to the Forest of Dean and spent a few hours birdwatching in the rain. Yesterday I noticed that the 820EDs were internally fogged on one side. Putting them on top of a radiator for a few hours seems to have cleared that, but confirms that the 'waterpoof' marking on them doesn't mean waterproof in the sense of being rainproof for a decent length of time, either.

So I am accumulating multiple worries about the company, their use of english, and their quality control, but the 820 optics do seem to be good.

[Leif]

Here's an update on the Porros - I tried to clean the 820 non-EDs by immersion and ruined them because although it said waterproof on the outside it didn't mean that waterproof. After a long wait and many email messages via WarehouseExpress I got a replacement pair, which were faulty on arrival - one side permanently blurred and rattling when shaken.

In the mean time I had got a pair of 820EDs because I did like the optics. On Sunday I went to the Forest of Dean and spent a few hours birdwatching in the rain. Yesterday I noticed that the 820EDs were internally fogged on one side. Putting them on top of a radiator for a few hours seems to have cleared that, but confirms that the 'waterpoof' marking on them doesn't mean waterproof in the sense of being rainproof for a decent length of time, either.

So I am accumulating multiple worries about the company, their use of english, and their quality control, but the 820 optics do seem to be good.

I have heard that the body is waterproof, but the eyepieces aren't which would explain your observation!!!! This might also explain how they have achieved waterproofing in a non-internal focus binocular.

The only problem with the eyepieces flooding and then being dried out is that dissolved minerals in the water will end up on the optical surfaces!

[mcdowella]

I don't know where the water came in, but I know where it ended up - the fogging was on the inner surface of the ?objectives? - as far away from the eyepieces as you can get. I don't like to think of what this might be putting on the unreachable glass surfaces, but as far as I can tell the resolution is still limited by my eyesight - I suspect that I could say this of cheaper binoculars, too, but I wouldn't get the same field of view. I get very nearly the full field of view despite glasses, by the way - but my optician always tells me to go for the closest fitting frame they can get because the lenses need to be pretty strong.

[henry link]

Binoculars claimed to be "waterproof" should be immersible. Swarovski specify submersion tightness to 4m for their binoculars, including porros. The maker of a binocular that can't be submerged should use one of the old familiar dissembling terms like "spray proof" or "splash resistant", so we can all know not to take the claim seriously.

[mcdowella]

These claim to be immersible, but only for a relatively short period. Two hours in the rain would I presume therefore not be covered. In fact, I can't think of any real life situation that would be covered. It says Waterproof US Pat 4626081 on the body. If you look that up on the web (google search for Patent 4626081 and then follow the link to the patent office) this turns out to be a new way to hold the prism in the binoculars, so that you can adjust the fitting of the prism without the adjustment needing a hole to let in water.

[henry link]

I wouldn't call using binoculars in the rain immersion at all. Your first pair's soaking in the kitchen sink would qualify. I think you have a very legitimate complaint that niether pair lived up to the manufacturer's claim of "waterproof". Imagine a "waterproof" watch that you couldn't wear in the rain.

[joe_charismatic]

I have the 828HHS, and so far (up until yesterday), I was very happy with them. Suddenly, and unexpectedly, a silverish spot has developed on the inside of the right ocular.

I am in the process now of trying to communicate with customer service about this. Unfortunately, the retailer I purchased from has a very short return time, and I just went beyond it.

They are very comfortable, and the view is great, but I have some doubts about the overall construction, especially since I have only used these about 8 times, and not in any type of inclement weather.

I am now looking at Swarovskis.

[Macca]

Hi

Two weeks ago I bought the 828's for £240 the local photographic shop had them in at £290 but I haggled them down as my friend also bought a pair at the same time.

This is my opinion of them at the moment (been out 6-8 times) they are quite good bin's for the money and allow a good amount of detail within the image. The colour rendition is superb (compared to my old bins.... helios patrol). On the brightness side of things they are good. Have not been in the position to test the "waterproofness" of them yet.

They are light and come in quite a small for their size of 8.5x44. They fit in my hands very well and can be used single handed no problem at all. They allow panning with no blackouts at all (unlike the swaro's I looked at). Also the pop out eye cups fit my eyes nicely and do not let any distracting light in.

One slight nag is the soft edges encountered which seems at worst when viewing at a distance.......close up's are excellent.

One thing to note Joe is that they do come with a lifetime warranty in the UK. Yours should be the same!! The registration card had to be sent in within 2 weeks for it to be valid. As far as the shop I bought mine from reckon that if anything happens to them within 12 months it's straight back to the shop with them for them to deal with.


Cheers, Macca B (:

[NervousXtian]

Have had these for about a month now and love these bins. Highly recommened if you can't afford the big dog Swarv's Leica's Zeisse's Nikon LX's.

[smhaig]

I just bought my Swift 828's in NY at B & H. I had spent quite a bit of time figuring out which binoculars to get to replace my ancient Bushnells 7 X 35 cheapos which I had graduated from years ago. Plus they had double vision. Anyway, I went to a small birding shop in rural Connecticut and was lucky to talk with an expert with a lot of credentials. He gives we a pair of binos I had not heard of in my research. Swift roof 8 x 42 (warbler). I could not believe how comfortable they were and clear. Then he shows me some high end Swarovski's. I liked the Swift out of every one. clear, crisp, bright and wonderful to handle.

Went to B & H and looked at that pair plus the 828 and 820. I really liked the 828 over the 820. The guys there had never looked through Swifts and were amazed at how good they were. They thought they should put them on display along with the Swarovski's and Zeiss's!

Perhaps it was not the best place to test these, but I did not see the great difference in the field of view. Also, the roofs still felt less bulky. Anyway I read that the difference between the two fov 's are not that great in reality and that the clarity in the middle suffers with the wider fov. Would like to hear more on this from others. It takes some getting use to since I have been using binoculars with a much wider fov -- the old bushnells. I wonder just how much more one can really see and whether that does affect the center view.

So I have tried the swift 828's where I live -- across from a fresh water marsh. Can see every blade of wild rice. Can even see the different color of the marsh water where it is shallow. Then I can quickly go close focus and see the into open mouths of the finches who monopolize the bird feeder. At night I can look into the woodland and see anything that might be there.

One final thing. It is amazing how the "feel" of the bino's affect the decision and I don't know whether that should be discounted. Having used porros all my life, these roofs felt so much better.

Suzanne Haig

[Godana]

Does anyone know where to get the "official" specs on this bino? I like to bird in cold weather so I'm concerned about fogging. Eagle Optics says the 828 is Waterproof/Nitrogen purged, but Optics4birding says otherwise - they say its only "showerproof" and not nitrogen purged. Any idea how I can get the truth?

Thank you.
--Karl

[Bill Atwood]

http://63.106.130.71/birdwatching.htm#audubon

[Godana]

thank you for the link.

I spoke with Optics4birding - they made a mistake on their website. The HHS 828 is fully waterproof/fogproof/nitrogen purged.

[Macca]

Hi

They are waterproof I have had mine out a good few times in downpours and have been fine. I have not had them out in the extreme cold yet.

The official distributer for the UK is a company called Pyser. The specs are listed on the following link;
http://www.pyser-sgi.com/product.asp?ParentID=383

There is also a good review on them at;
http://www.betterviewdesired.com/march02/index.html

Cheers,
Macca B (:

[finfoot]

No comparison. Swift 820 (I recently evaluated the ED and only found it only very marginally better). The regular swift audubon 820 is a real bargin.
A multi habitat birder is not going to be limited by the FOV or by the slightly poorer optics by the midranged roofs. If you bird venezuelan jungle you are going to notice the advantage big-time of wide FOV. For me the 8.5 Mag was a little High- I tend to prefer 7x.
For those in england the Opticron Aspheric for me wins hands down the low price value for money bin (£80 or approx $145) though I personally didn't get on with them. The Swift Audubon 820 comes next (currently at around $250)
However if you have a little more money to spend, the old classic Zeiss 7x42's you can find for around $600(new although they are now discontinued). Ive never visited Trinidad, but I hear the Asa Wright center and birding in general is terrific. By the way, I have posted a link called the perfect binoculars where some comments you might find helpful


I'm looking for a good budget birding binoculars (<US$400). After quite a bit of research, it's down to two units. Interestingly, both units are from Swift, a brand I have never looked seriously at before. Does anyone have experience with the following units:

1) Swift 828HHS 8.5x44 (Latest Roof Model)
2) Swift 820ED 8.5x44 (Porro Model)

rka

[rka]

Yes ... birding in Trinidad is great! A lot of variety for such a small island. I ended up choosing the 828HHS mainly because of its potential to handle wet and humid conditions better than the 820. So far ... knock wood ... I've been very satisfied with the purchase.

Interestingly, I purchased a cheap Olympus Tracker x8 porro binoculars and it's image was surprisingly crisp at the centre and just a shade inferior to the 828.

It has become the binoculars I keep in the glove compartment.

rka

No comparison. Swift 820 (I recently evaluated the ED and only found it only very marginally better). The regular swift audubon 820 is a real bargin.
A multi habitat birder is not going to be limited by the FOV or by the slightly poorer optics by the midranged roofs. If you bird venezuelan jungle you are going to notice the advantage big-time of wide FOV. For me the 8.5 Mag was a little High- I tend to prefer 7x.
For those in england the Opticron Aspheric for me wins hands down the low price value for money bin (£80 or approx $145) though I personally didn't get on with them. The Swift Audubon 820 comes next (currently at around $250)
However if you have a little more money to spend, the old classic Zeiss 7x42's you can find for around $600(new although they are now discontinued). Ive never visited Trinidad, but I hear the Asa Wright center and birding in general is terrific. By the way, I have posted a link called the perfect binoculars where some comments you might find helpful

[GEO]

Looked Thru 828 At Cape May Birding Outing Loved Them And Birding Pros Thought They Are A Great Buy.try To Get Them For Under $300.

[lvn600]

I checked with the swift company and they said anything they sell advertised as waterproof must be able to be able to withstand 5 minutes of submersion in 5 feet of water. If the lenses become internally fogged which is possible then they would replace or repair them under warranty.

[spyglass]

I'd like ta add my tuppence...I've found over the last 20 yrs (since I became an optics junkie) that generally anything Swift markets gives a lot of "bang for the buck". Their recently discontinued Ultralite 42's and certainly the 820's and 826's can compete head to head with units from other outfits costing 3 & 4 times as much (except for weatherproofing). This new 828 is no exception....for under $300 it's untouchable. While not quite as sharp as the 820, it makes up for in eye relief and better weatherproofing. The afov, at 54*, is just enough to give an "easy" view and 18+mm of er makes it a winner. As I'm reluctantly pushing 60, the eyeballs aren't quite as capable as they once were and I see better sometimes with the specs on (my eyes aren't quite the same day to day....have to make occasional diopter chgs). I'll keep my 820 with its lousy eye relief, but will consider long & hard adding an 828 to my inventory.

[scryeball]

Swift 828HHS Audubon 8.5x44 (Swift product code for this is 828 HCF)
This is Swift's first (and so far only) roof prism binocular to carry the Audubon name and size of 8.5x44. Typical retail is $349 as of December 2005 though can be found online several places for just under $300 delivered (incuding shipping). These are fully multicoated Bak4 prisms and phase coated, which is a basic requirement for any roof prism i would consider. Swift's web page for this is: http://www.swift-optics.com/products/birding/eight_power/828

Upon taking it out of the box, the quality of manufacture is clearly high. Well fitted. Smooth moving. Nice feel to focus. Comes with a well fitting dustcap for ocular lenses that attaches to neckstrap. Objective lenses have the standard plastic lens caps. Are nice and compact. Much smaller than Nikon Monarch ATB roofs for example, and even year 2000 Pentax DCF SPs by a touch. The neck strap is comfortable and of generous length.

These are not featherweight binoculars. They feel solid, as made with real metal bodies and hinges and substantial glass. Feel like old-school durable quality. They do not feel too heavy around the neck though I did start to notice the weight in hand while glassing for an extended period while testing focal distances and setting diopter. But no more than I do with the Pentax DCF SPs for that matter. The interpupillary distance on these is as large as any other binocular and as usual for me, I was bringing the barrels quite close together (almost all of the adjustment) to fit my eyes. These would not fit very small faces or children well. The twist up eyecups are fair. Only has click stop at full "out" position or full "in" but twist is firm so will stay where you leave them if you wish a middling spot. For me, the eye relief was perfect at full extension. The eyecup is hard plastic and I found that even pushing against my face I could not 'meld' these to my eyesockets to keep side light out of eye. This is not really an issue for me as i am used to holding binoculars with varying gaps...

Optically, these are very good. Collimation is excellent and center image is clear, bright and clean. Testing alignment by focusing on distant cross, pulling head back and looking eye to eye showed steady same image which did not move one iota! At outside distances, the edge of the Field Of View was well defined and appears as one properly overlapped image. Interestingly, indoors (i.e. looking at the wall about 15' away) the FOV clearly appears as two slightly overlapping cirlces. I feel some slight eye strain inside with artificial lighting and at the indoor distances. Outside, I did not notice any eye strain.

I can confirm what is reported elsewhere that the outside edge of the viewing image is degraded. Doing the math, i estimated that 85-90% of the FOV is excellent with only a thin (but discernable if you look for it) band uniformly around the edge which was both darker and slightly blurred. The image quality was excellent right to this edge band where it dropped off. This contrasts to the Pentax DCF SPs which are to my eyes perfectly clear to the crisp sharp edge of the FOV. (But good luck finding the Pentax much under $600 today! ) However, my usage agrees with the idea that the middle is what is important as i tend to keep what i'm focused on in the center. I only noticed the blurred edge when i looked at it. Outside the FOV, the void is perfectly dark as it should be.

It was flat grey stormy weather today so didn't get to experience/evaluate full color spectrum performance yet, but what color i did get a chance to see was satisfactory. Tomorrow morning will take these along on a duck hunt, so will get to experience some dark->dawn performance. I can't wait! ;-)


Other:
The included soft case is snug fitting and a bit tight when trying to put binocular in with attached neck strap. I would wish a touch more room for accommodating this standard 'accessory' when fitting the case. The case also comes with a belt loop sewn on the back. If you intend to carry this upon a belt (it is small enough!) I would want to tuck the permanently attached carry case shoulder strap into the case as well. But then good luck closing the case if you have the neck strap attached, too. Just too tight. If I actually use the soft case on a belt, it will be easy enough to cut the strap off and add an additional friction buckle. But one wonders why was this designed so?

[Chris Oates]

Good review.
Agree with what you say - really feel good in the hand.
My IPD is tiny and the Swift suit me fine - I've tried many bins that I can't use.
The eye relief is great as a glasses wearer and using them one handed is no problem.

I fold up the strap to store the bins in the case and it only just fits - the common 'slips off the shoulder' strap had to be cured with a home made rubber grip.

I really don't notice any edge degradation as I'm probably not looking for it but the image I do see is very nice.

I do like the hidden dioptre adjustment - worth the price just for that.

Focus is slow but accurate.

I'd be interested if you see chromatic abberation - I see it with black ducks on brightly lit water as a purple fringe but my brother doesn't see it at all.

Nice bins - very pleased with them and thoroughly enjoy using them.

I replaced the strap with a neoprene one, never use the objective caps as they fall off too easily - I could grow old with these bins.

[elkcub]

Last weekend I finally got a chance to evaluate the Swift 828 at Scope City in San Francisco. Frankly, for a glass priced at $299.99 I thought they were terrific. Very clear and bright with wonderful eye relief for those with glasses. I'd recommend them any time to someone with a limited budget, or really needs the eye relief. I'm tempted to add one to my collection, or better yet buy one for each of my kids.

Ed
PS. Correction: I'd recommend them to anyone interested in a good birding glass, period.

[Tero]

Sorry about the immersion problems you guys are having.

Have not gotten to see the roofs yet. I checked out the porros, and though it did cut down the field a bit, they were very useable with glasses on. Very bright for the price. The cups pull out and then lock into place for use without glasses. Very few porros are designed for glasses wearers.

I'm keeping an eye on these as I am very interested in 8.5x and there are almost no others in this price range.

[matt green]

Last weekend I finally got a chance to evaluate the Swift 828 at Scope City in San Francisco. Frankly, for a glass priced at $299.99 I thought they were terrific. Very clear and bright with wonderful eye relief for those with glasses. I'd recommend them any time to someone with a limited budget, or really needs the eye relief. I'm tempted to add one to my collection, or better yet buy one for each of my kids.

Ed
PS. Correction: I'd recommend them to anyone interested in a good birding glass, period.
does anyone know if these 828's have the same design screws which are used on the porro prism models,i read some where on this forum that the porro's don't hold collumnation to well[something to do with the screws that adjust the internal prism housings?].
i briefly tried a pair and thought they were quite good,they can be had for £229 from warehouse express.any thoughts.

matt

[Chris Oates]

does anyone know if these 828's have the same design screws which are used on the porro prism models,i read some where on this forum that the porro's don't hold collumnation to well[something to do with the screws that adjust the internal prism housings?].
i briefly tried a pair and thought they were quite good,they can be had for £229 from warehouse express.any thoughts.

matt

My 828's have been bounced around and generally abused (as you do) with no ill effects - lovely glasses.

[elkcub]

My 828's have been bounced around and generally abused (as you do) with no ill effects - lovely glasses.

I now own a pair of 828's. According to Alison Swift (President, CEO) they are made by Hiyoshi Kogaku, Llt., the same company that made all their Audubons for the last 35 years (so I guess that also includes the 820). They have a slightly narrow AFOV, but have very bright and clear images, plus excellent twist-out eyecups and generous eye relief. I really like them.

Ed
PS. Matt, being a roof design I'm sure they don't have the same collimation screws as the 820 porro prism. They actually feel a lot like the Swaro 8x30 SLC.

[chartwell99]

I now own a pair of 828's. According to Allison Swift (President, CEO) they are made by Hiyoshi Kogaku, Llt., the same company that made all their Audubons for the last 35 years (so I guess that also includes the 820). They have a slightly narrow AFOV, but have very bright and clear images, plus excellent twist-out eyecups and generous eye relief. I really like them.

Ed
PS. Matt, being a roof design I'm sure they don't have the same collimation screws as the 820 porro prism. They actually feel a lot like the Swaro 8x30 SLC.
Ed - I thought the original Audubons were designed and made by Tamron in Japan - is that the same outfit as the Hiyoshi folks?

[matt green]

I now own a pair of 828's. According to Allison Swift (President, CEO) they are made by Hiyoshi Kogaku, Llt., the same company that made all their Audubons for the last 35 years (so I guess that also includes the 820). They have a slightly narrow AFOV, but have very bright and clear images, plus excellent twist-out eyecups and generous eye relief. I really like them.

Ed
PS. Matt, being a roof design I'm sure they don't have the same collimation screws as the 820 porro prism. They actually feel a lot like the Swaro 8x30 SLC.
did you get the model with the central dioptic adjustment in the focus wheel,how would you compare this with similar designs from swaro/leica.

matt

[elkcub]

Ed - I thought the original Audubons were designed and made by Tamron in Japan - is that the same outfit as the Hiyoshi folks?

Tom,

Yes, indeed, the original Audubons were made by Tamron for the first decade. For the last 35 yrs. they were made by Hiyoshi Kogaku, which is a different outfit. I didn't make that distinction too clearly in my earlier post.

What surprises me is that Hiyoshi (apparently) still make the current 820 porro and 828 roof Audubons, although I can find no indication of that on either binocular. The serial number of my new HHS 828 doesn't seem to be date coded either. From previous BF exchanges I have gotten the impression that the 820 may still be date coded, but that has yet to be verified.

Incidentally, Hiyoshi Kogaku also produced all the large body European Type 3 Audubons, and other B-body formats that didn't have American counterparts. Renze de Vries is the emerging expert in that area. The managing director of Swift is located in The Netherlands.

Swift Optical is considering the development of a museum now that they moved their Boston operation to San Jose and inherited some of the early pieces.

Ed

[elkcub]

did you get the model with the central dioptic adjustment in the focus wheel,how would you compare this with similar designs from swaro/leica.

matt

Matt,

Good question, I hadn't connected with that idea. Yes, I have that model and will report a comparison when there is time. Basically, the overall feel is very similar to my 10x42 SLC, and the focus controls are very much alike (altho opposite in direction). I am quite impressed with them to say the least.

Scryeball did an excellent first impression report on post #27, which is identical to my own impressions.

I usually go through a new-binocular thrill period, but right now I also have an 8x30 E2 that's thrilling me. So, the logical thing to do is compare the two in various ways.

Ed

[elkcub]

Matt,

The integrated diopter control on the HHS 828 Audubon in some ways is nicer than the Swaro 10x42 SLC. Once it's pulled out the adjustment can be made easily and then locked by pushing it back. By comparison, the Swaro must be held in for adjustment but locks by itself when released. Six of one half dozen of the other. The Swaro does have a ±5 range to the the Swift's ±3 for those who need it.

Unfortunately, I've come to realize that my view is much improved by using my glasses. Although far sighted, my left and right eyes have opposite astigmatism, which the brain (what little I have left) balances out. However, the extended eye relief of the HHS Audubon (19mm) lets me see the entire field easily. So my glasses improve the apparent size and contrast quite a lot. The 10x42 SLC doesn't have as much eye relief, so the field is slightly cut off. Net result: both binoculars produce different sizes of the same (absolute) visual field. The Swift optics are terrific with only a little more off-axis CA and quite flat. Resolution and color contrast is outstanding and depth of field is excellent. I love 'em.

Ed

[matt green]

thanks for the insight,i wondered how you adjusted the diopter setting on those swaro's,when i tried out the 7+42 and the 10+42 i did'nt have to reset
it as it was already set in the middle position which suits my 20/20 vision.

strangly i've never been that impressed by anything from swarovski and i'm still mithering over a pair of trinovids or ultravids,maybe nickon LXL's.

matt

[elkcub]

thanks for the insight,i wondered how you adjusted the diopter setting on those swaro's,when i tried out the 7+42 and the 10+42 i did'nt have to reset
it as it was already set in the middle position which suits my 20/20 vision.

strangly i've never been that impressed by anything from swarovski and i'm still mithering over a pair of trinovids or ultravids,maybe nickon LXL's.

matt

Matt,

I suspect a lot of binocular preferences are psychological (and beyond further explanation). In my case the Swaros impress me, as do the Zeiss, but Leicas put me off. Go figure. Right now I'm thinking the Swift 828 is gangbusters. It holds its own with the 10x42 SLC, at least for me.

Regards,
Ed

[matt green]

mmmmmm,need to take a closer look at those swifts,the ones i last looked at were the old models with the pop up eye cups.

as for the leicas vs swarovski's,the dead tree half a mile from the shop carpark looked much sharper through the leicas.

that was the only basis of concluding that to me the leicas had better optics,
in every other respect the swaro's were fine,pity the swaro's focus was'nt wider though.

matt

[elkcub]

mmmmmm,need to take a closer look at those swifts,the ones i last looked at were the old models with the pop up eye cups.

as for the leicas vs swarovski's,the dead tree half a mile from the shop carpark looked much sharper through the leicas.

that was the only basis of concluding that to me the leicas had better optics,
in every other respect the swaro's were fine,pity the swaro's focus was'nt wider though.

matt

It could well be that the Leica's seemed or were sharper than the Swaros. I compared the Ultravid 10x42 BL with Swaro's 10x42 SLC and saw an apparent brightness difference in favor of Leica, but I preferred the Swaro's color saturation and contrast. In terms of visual acuity it was really a wash betwen them for me.

What do you mean "... the swaro's focus wasn't wide enough?" Do you mean depth of field?

I guess the reason I'm so impressed by the new Swift 828 is that their small compromise in FOV allows a terrific 19mm eye relief. Also, the 8.5x magnification makes a nicer image, and the 44mm objective really does give it more versatility than my 8x30s. They only weigh 23 oz., and the $300 price tag makes me more willing to use them extensively. I'd be interested in how you feel about the optics compared the the higher prices bins.

Ed

[matt green]

It could well be that the Leica's seemed or were sharper than the Swaros. I compared the Ultravid 10x42 BL with Swaro's 10x42 SLC and saw an apparent brightness difference in favor of Leica, but I preferred the Swaro's color saturation and contrast. In terms of visual acuity it was really a wash betwen them for me.

What do you mean "... the swaro's focus wasn't wide enough?" Do you mean depth of field?

I guess the reason I'm so impressed by the new Swift 828 is that their small compromise in FOV allows a terrific 19mm eye relief. Also, the 8.5x magnification makes a nicer image, and the 44mm objective really does give it more versatility than my 8x30s. They only weigh 23 oz., and the $300 price tag makes me more willing to use them extensively. I'd be interested in how you feel about the optics compared the the higher prices bins.

Ed
it's the focus wheel itself that i found quite narrow,compared to the beasts that adorn trinovids and highgrades.

have yet to look at the swifts and higher priced models side by side though as has been said many times here before the difference in price would i doubt equal the difference in optics alone.

incedentally i wonder how many folk prejudge binoculars on their retail price alone before actually looking through them in the optics store.

matt

[elkcub]

it's the focus wheel itself that i found quite narrow,compared to the beasts that adorn trinovids and highgrades.

have yet to look at the swifts and higher priced models side by side though as has been said many times here before the difference in price would i doubt equal the difference in optics alone.

matt

Hmmm. Do you mean in length or diameter? My 10x42 SLC has a focusing wheel that's 22mm long and about 27mm in diameter. By contrast, the 828 HHC's wheel is 24mm long and about 30mm diameter. I have no recollection of the other beasts in this regard.

The SLC is very fast, racking from one stop to the other in one revolution. The HHC takes exactly two turns, but a lot of that travel is at the near focus range. Rotation angle and focus distance are not linearly related.

... i wonder how many folk prejudge binoculars on their retail price alone before actually looking through them in the optics store.


Oh, gosh, you don't really mean that, do you? This could be very ... you know ... embarrassing. Would anyone ever honestly admit that a low cost product was as good as, much less better than, a highgrade? :h?:

Ed

[matt green]

i meant that if the swifts retail in the uk at £300 and the highgrades at about
£800 the highgrades optics TO SOME might not appear £500 better.

did'nt mean to give the impression that i thought lowerpriced roofs can outperform highgrades or any other top end binoculars.

as for the swarovski's it's both the thickness and lengh that i found wanting,the focus wheel on the leica range and nickon highgrades are much bigger adding to better control of focusing imo.

matt

[elkcub]

i meant that if the swifts retail in the uk at £300 and the highgrades at about
£800 the highgrades optics TO SOME might not appear £500 better.

did'nt mean to give the impression that i thought lowerpriced roofs can outperform highgrades or any other top end binoculars.

as for the swarovski's it's both the thickness and lengh that i found wanting,the focus wheel on the leica range and nickon highgrades are much bigger adding to better control of focusing imo.

matt

Well, I must agree. The HHS 828 roof costs about $300 USD, and the Swaro 10x42 SLC about $1300. Is is really worth the extra $1000? Would anyone appreciate birds or nature with one that much more than the other? I was out with the HHS today. Beautiful California weather. Nice binocular. I tell you I could see every breast feather of that Northern Harrier sitting 35 yards away, and count the bands on her tail.

Ed

[kmiernik]

What is 828 HHS interpupillary minimum distance? I have quite close one - like 60-61 mm. Would they be comfortable in use?

I'd like to order those binoculars by net so I'm little bit afraid (particularly after reading that their ID is not for children) that they won't fit my eyes.

[Otto McDiesel]

What is 828 HHS interpupillary minimum distance? I have quite close one - like 60-61 mm. Would they be comfortable in use?

I'd like to order those binoculars by net so I'm little bit afraid (particularly after reading that their ID is not for children) that they won't fit my eyes.

They will be fine for you. They fit my 6 year old daughter just fine. I can't tell you exactly what the IPD is (someone borrowed my calipers and forgot to return them) but it is less than 60 mm.
A much better choice than the Williams, i might add.

[kmiernik]

A much better choice than the Williams, i might add.

I hope so. Reviews are great and Swift company seems to be - from every forum I checked - like good old-school "family" biznes. And WO 8x42 opinions aren't great in terms of quality. What's more 828 are another binoculars which price in Europe is almost same as in US. Usually binoculars are priced twice more.

[Chris Oates]

They will be fine for you. They fit my 6 year old daughter just fine. I can't tell you exactly what the IPD is (someone borrowed my calipers and forgot to return them) but it is less than 60 mm.
A much better choice than the Williams, i might add.

Agreed - my IPD is tiny and the Swifts are not quite closed up.

[Chris Oates]

I hope so. Reviews are great and Swift company seems to be - from every forum I checked - like good old-school "family" biznes. And WO 8x42 opinions aren't great in terms of quality. What's more 828 are another binoculars which price in Europe is almost same as in US. Usually binoculars are priced twice more.

Got mine from WE at a lot less than the dollar price - absolutely love them - they are great with glasses and narrow eye separation - what some people might not like is the slow (but precise) focus (doesn't bother me) and the chromatic abberation of black birds against water (I see it but my brother doesn't)

[Alexis Powell]

Minimum interpupillary setting for the Swift 828 HHS is 57 mm.
--AP

[kmiernik]

Thanks to you guys I became new member of the Swift family. I've just made first observations from my balcony using my new Swift 828 HHS.

Really nice binoculars! I did not expect that they are going to be such small, handy with so clear and sharp image. They beat my Nikon Action EX 8x40 which are now going to be substitute player.

And guess what birds I've seen. Swifts of course!

[CapnJackSparrow]

I love my Swift 828 HHS bins, and endorse everything positive said about them here, they are a serious bargain and I've had startlingly good and crisp views through mine over the past few months.

I guess I will have to win the lottery before I can afford anything better, and even then I would not sell them :D

Got mine from Warehouse Express at £229.99 UK Pounds, took a while to come in stock but it was worth the wait!

Cap'n Jack

[elkhorn98]

Had mine for over a year now and they are great. I echo a lot of the other comments.

[Kevin Barker]

I'm looking for a good budget birding binoculars (<US$400). After quite a bit of research, it's down to two units. Interestingly, both units are from Swift, a brand I have never looked seriously at before. Does anyone have experience with the following units:

1) Swift 828HHS 8.5x44 (Latest Roof Model)
2) Swift 820ED 8.5x44 (Porro Model)

rka

A friend owns a pair and i have used them several times.
I think the non ED 8.5 x44 Swift Porro's are a good value. They are very nice optically although a little false colour is evident if one looks for it. The field of view is very wide and the image is sharp for at least 60 % of it.

They are a bit heavy for some. thee claim to be waterproof although in rain my friend suspected the eyepieces let water in between the elements. They did clear though.

This pair is really good for hand held astronomical observation.

pretty good value for money all in all.

Kevin NZ