10x32 vs 42 (1 Viewer)

I want to upgrade to a great 10x glass. I have been using one--Nikon 10x42 SE--but the focus is slow, not an issue for the seasonal hawk watch, but for mixed distance birding it is for me, and I like a 10x glass. CA is an issue, and I definitely see CA with my 8x32 LX Nikons (summer woodland birding, they are fine). I also do pelagic trips once a year usually, so distance viewing is frequent.

I am settled on the Zeiss FL T's, but want to know I am making the best choice. I am attracted to the wide FOV and convenience of the 10x32, and they have been recommended by more than one salesperson. A few people on the Forum have praised the 10x32 format, but not many, even for other manufacturers.

I have some concerns: I am afraid that the light weight and smaller size of the 32's might make for stability issues, and that I will be missing details with the smaller objectives. Some people have praised the wider 'sweet spot' of the 32's. I am not so concerned about end of the day light conditions. I am also aware that "serious birders" do not use 10x32's, so I want to include that in the mix. I know that attitude may be entirely rubbish. I thought I remembered someone who owned both sizes of the FL's saying that they were indistinguishable, but I have not been able to find that post, so I might have made it up! All my colleagues have full size glass (90% Swarovski, BTW--I saw one FL at the watch).

This is a big expenditure, and these will have to last me for a while. I cannot compare them in the field, and I will sell the Nikon SE's to help pay for the Zeiss. I need binoculars that will fill that gap. I realize that for my birding uses, the SE's were a mistake and I don't want to make another one. I wear glasses, and am over 50 (I say that because pupil size may afffect this decision). The difference in cost between the two sizes is not that great to be a serious factor, nor is weight, really.

Any advice is most welcome, I feel not to order the 10x42's would be a mistake, they seem like the safe choice, but have ordered the 32's--which can be returned.

David

20 oz is enough weight for a 10x. I think the 10x42 in fact weighs too much and looks a little bulky. You would have to judge the optics yourself. There are less expensive 10x42 options out there, where the 10x32 format offers fewer good choices. Good plan to order from a place where they would be easy to exchange if not happy.

I have the same problem in searching for more 10x choices out there. Having gotten used to to 10x, it is difficult to go to 8x full time. There is nothing wrong with 10x for birding, I have seen experts with7x, 8x and 10x. They can all be made to work.

I have the Zeiss 8x32FL and Leica 10x42 trinovids. So its a similar setup to yours. The only 10x32 I would go for would be the Zeiss. Having said that if I was to replace my Leicas, it would be for another 10x42 not 10x32 because of the brighter image, and possibly greater depth of field (or is that just in my imagination?). The Zeiss 10x42FL are a bit bulky, but they aren't heavy (compared to my Leicas) and are well balanced.

Zeiss FL 10x32 would be the only 10x32 that i would use. Compared to the 10x42 FL, you get: less depth of field, less distortion and astigmatism at the edges, a wider field of view (nice!), and all the physical differences. In terms of brightness, you will only notice a difference in a side by side comparisson on a very dark day.

Luca said:

Zeiss FL 10x32 would be the only 10x32 that i would use. Compared to the 10x42 FL, you get: less depth of field, less distortion and astigmatism at the edges, a wider field of view (nice!), and all the physical differences. In terms of brightness, you will only notice a difference in a side by side comparisson on a very dark day.

Click to expand...

Thank you. I will definitely give the 32's a good look, and you have pointed out some important advantages. Wouldn't it be nice to try out various options for a day, at a Hawk Watch, for example? Big decision for me, but I know the FL's in any configuration will probably address my main concerns.

Jacquot,

I tried a 10x40 Zeiss Classic and a 10x42 Leica BN and had stability problems, especially for views much above the horizon. I decided to try the 10x32 FL, but not as my main glass. First of all, the wider view of the FL had phenomenal color. Secondly, I use it in conjunction with a 7x42 and find it a generally happy choice. I have not had troubles with brightness, even for deep shade on sunlit days. Needless to write, you have to try it yourself.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur Pinewood

[jacquot] I want to upgrade to a great 10x glass.

Hi Jaquot,

I'm one of your serious birders, and I use a 10x32 as my primary glass. I've used both the Zeiss TFL and the Nikon LXL 10x32s, and in my opinion the performance of the two in the field is identical for all practical purposes. The Zeiss gives very slightly greater image detail, but the faster focusing action of the Nikon often allows me to get on a bird more quickly. Eye relief is fine for me with both units. I've also used the Nikon and Zeiss 10x42s, and though they both give a lovely image it comes at the cost of greater weight and bulkiness; the compactness of the '32s works better for me. I've never found myself out in the field with one of the '32s and wished I had the '42 with me instead. I usually pick up the Nikon 10x32 when I head out the door to go birding.

John Frink

Received the 10x32's today and got a quick look at dusk. Colors are truly amazing, and detail--even at longer distances, and across the field. I really had to hunt for some birds, but caught two robins flying fairly high overhead, breasts glowing in the setting sun, then just looked around generally. I found the size, shape and weight quite good and easy to hold, and eye relief seemed good for me. The view was quite easy and natural. I am looking forward to a longer workout, but these seem excellent for my needs. I'm sure if I had the 10x42's I would see a difference, but these are impressive to say the least. I had good views around in fairly low light, and also looked at branches against the sky when still fairly bright, and saw no CA. For first impressions, I definitely like these!

Good they worked out, the better Zeiss. I toyed with the idea of the 10x30 Conquest but lost interest, so I still have no Zeiss.

I use two pairs mainly when I am seriously spending time in the woods and fields, 10x42 and 8x32. They weigh the same, so I really could not justify the 10x32 as a third. In addition, I need to fiddle with diopters more, the smaller the 10x is.

If I go with one pair, I use a 9x25.

Your 10x32 has enough weight, for me, and with fov of 360 should have a nice big apparent fov. I don't get that with my best 10x roofs or any of my roofs. My porros maybe, but I have been moving away from them. I used them last spring a lot, but I actually don't enjoy the objectives being that far a part. With medium distance birds I am OK, but with close up birds I prefer roofs.

I thank everyone for their comments. After more use I can say these glasses are amazing. Brightness is comparable to my Nikon SE's in full winter daylight. FOV is great. The resolvable detail is greater with the Zeiss than the Nikons. It is subtle, but definitely noticeable, and a pleasure. I was truly surprised to see it. The colors are a bit cooler by comparison, but as definite and bright. This may have to do with a difference in contrast ratio. The Nikons seem to have an easier view (blackouts aside) but this may have more to do with the format than the manufacturer. I love the size and weight, they are very easy to hold stable. Given the quality of the image, I can only imagine what the 42's must be like.

I found the focus speed to be very comfortable, too, and I am used to the speed of the Nikon LX and B&L Elites, which is why the SE's were such a problem. These are great binoculars, I am very pleased. I wish I had them for the Christmas counts!

David

Jacqot,

Enjoy the view,
Arthur