• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Swift Ultra-Lite 8x42 roof review (1 Viewer)

trashbird

trashbird

Well-known member
I've owned the Swift Ultra-Lite 8x42 roof prism binocular for a couple of weeks now and I think I have finally found The One. It seems to fill all of my birding-optics needs within my budget. Perfect eye relief, low minimum interpupillary distance, fast smooth focussing, sharp bright optics, and rugged waterproof construction.

Beyond these details, the Ultra-Lite roofs just seem to "fit" me very well. Their size, balance, and feel make them nearly effortless to use. I hear, I see, I put the Ultra-Lites to my eyes and the image appears. When I am birdwatching, I am thinking about the birds, not about fumbling with the binocular, fussing with getting my eyes just right -- a problem I have had with other binoculars I tried and later returned.

In fact, I've been wanting to write a review about the Ultra-Lites since I first started using them, but it simply feels now that these are my birding binoculars. They are not perfect. But they are perfect for me at this time in my life, considering my needs and my budgetary restrictions. I think I will be happy birdwatching with the Ultra-Lites for many years -- long enough to see my children into early adulthood, at which time I hope to have additional discretionary income.

I am going to review the Ultra-Lite roofs in more detail in future posts to this thread, where I hope to cover some of the issues I have touched on in this introduction.
 
Interesting to start getting some feedback on these binoculars because when I bought them they were still very new and no reviews were available on them.To me they seem to be bright with nice color. The one thing I notice is that they are not as sharp and don't have the depth of field that the top models do.The overall package seems pretty good for the price though.
 
lvn600 said:
Interesting to start getting some feedback on these binoculars because when I bought them they were still very new and no reviews were available on them.To me they seem to be bright with nice color. The one thing I notice is that they are not as sharp and don't have the depth of field that the top models do.The overall package seems pretty good for the price though.
Click to expand...

Larry, I had the chance to get a used pair of Pentax 8x42 DCF WP roofs for the same price as the new Ultra-Lites. They were noticably sharper. But they didn't fit together close enough for my narrow-set eyes. Too bad, but that's the way the IPD issue crumbles.
 
trashbird said:
Larry, I had the chance to get a used pair of Pentax 8x42 DCF WP roofs for the same price as the new Ultra-Lites. They were noticably sharper. But they didn't fit together close enough for my narrow-set eyes. Too bad, but that's the way the IPD issue crumbles.
Click to expand...

What is your IPD?

ED
 
Ed, my IPD is about 57mm. And I seem to require a mm or two less for viewing closer than 10 ft.

Larry, your narrow IPD may be one reason why the Ultra Lites work for you. Their minimum IPD is 55mm.
 
trashbird said:
Ed, my IPD is about 57mm. And I seem to require a mm or two less for viewing closer than 10 ft.

Larry, your narrow IPD may be one reason why the Ultra Lites work for you. Their minimum IPD is 55mm.
Click to expand...

The minimum IPD of:

Swift Audubon 828 HHS = 57mm.
Swift Audubon 804R = 55mm
Swift Kestrel 826 = 55mm
Swift Audubon 804ED = 56mm

ED
 
elkcub said:
The minimum IPD of:

Swift Audubon 828 HHS = 57mm.
Swift Audubon 804R = 55mm
Swift Kestrel 826 = 55mm
Swift Audubon 804ED = 56mm

ED
Click to expand...

Swift is one company that has always offered wide-ranging IPDs on their binoculars. I liked the old Swift Ultra-Lite porros for that reason. When I owned the Swift Audubon 804R, I remember that they were also adequate for me in that regard. Unfortunately, eye relief was a problem with the Audubons. For some reason, the new waterproof Audubon porros -- the 820 -- have a minimum IPD of 59mm, perhaps due to the newly designed body.

I tried the 828 HHS and their minimum IPD was barely enough, and I was put off by the focusing -- some people are fine with it, but I found the focussing of the Ultra-Lite roofs to be the fastest smoothest focusing I have ever tried. The 828 HHS had better resolution, but I thought the Ultra-Lites had a brighter image. The Ultra-Lite roofs also had a bit more FOV than the 828 HHS. But I understand that for some, the 828 fits their needs better.

I tried the new armored, waterproof-fogproof Ultra-Lite porros, too. They produced sharp, contrasty images, but I am no longer comfortable with porros for birdwatching. I prefer the streamlined handling of roofs. And I found the focusing in the new Ultra-Lite porros to be a little stiff with some backlash. This seems to be common in waterproof porros because they have to put rubber gaskets or something inside the focusing system to make it water-tight.

I was very tempted by another porro when I was at the shop I frequent. It was a used Celestron Ultima 10x50 porro -- back when they were made by Vixen in Japan (like the old Swift Ultra-Lites). It only had a 5-degree FOV but it was such a crisp image, with a big juicy sweet spot (sorry for that image). Lots of eye relief, a vintage look with the padded leatherette covering on the body. And the focussing was smooth and silky -- not a waterproof binocular of course. It would be a really nice astronomical binocular. The old Celestron Ultimas are still being sold by Orion under the Vista name, I think.
 
Last edited:
trashbird said:
Swift is one company that has always offered wide-ranging IPDs on their binoculars. I liked the old Swift Ultra-Lite porros for that reason. When I owned the Swift Audubon 804R, I remember that they were also adequate for me in that regard. Unfortunately, eye relief was a problem with the Audubons. For some reason, the new waterproof Audubon porros -- the 820 -- have a minimum IPD of 59mm, perhaps due to the newly designed body.

I tried the 828 HHS and their minimum IPD was barely enough, and I was put off by the focusing -- some people are fine with it, but I found the focussing of the Ultra-Lite roofs to be the fastest smoothest focusing I have ever tried. The 828 HHS had better resolution, but I thought the Ultra-Lites had a brighter image. The Ultra-Lite roofs also had a bit more FOV than the 828 HHS. But I understand that for some, the 828 fits their needs better.

I tried the new armored, waterproof-fogproof Ultra-Lite porros, too. They produced sharp, contrasty images, but I am no longer comfortable with porros for birdwatching. I prefer the streamlined handling of roofs. And I found the focusing in the new Ultra-Lite porros to be a little stiff with some backlash. This seems to be common in waterproof porros because they have to put rubber gaskets or something inside the focusing system to make it water-tight.

I was very tempted by another porro when I was at the shop I frequent. It was a used Celestron Ultima 10x50 porro -- back when they were made by Vixen in Japan (like the old Swift Ultra-Lites). It only had a 5-degree FOV but it was such a crisp image, with a big juicy sweet spot (sorry for that image). Lots of eye relief, a vintage look with the padded leatherette covering on the body. And the focussing was smooth and silky -- not a waterproof binocular of course. It would be a really nice astronomical binocular. The old Celestron Ultimas are still being sold by Orion under the Vista name, I think.
Click to expand...

Yup, you're quite right about the waterproof porros having a stiffer vocus. Even the 804ED is that way, but it's very smooth and not objectionable. The only annoyance I have with the 828 is its clockwise focusing. I have to think about how to turn it every time. But, the two slow rotations from stop to stop doesn't bother me too much.

I'm gradually making a personal conversion to porros, although it took the out-of-production 804R and 804ED Audubons and 827 Kestrel to get me there. Nikon products don't do it for me for some reason, although I understand the passion.

ED
 
Last edited:
I still love my Swift Ultralite 8x42 roofs. They are keepers. I've done quite a bit of birdwatching with them now and have never been disappointed. They have even worked out well for casual stargazing. Roofs aren't usually recommended for astronomy, but they give a great view as far as I am concerned.

I have yet to find any downside (rememebering that these are $300 roofs and not Leica, Swaro, Zeiss, blah blah blah). But I looked carefully at many different binos before I finally decided on the Ultralite roofs. They fit all of my "special needs".
 
I'm considering these bins for the same reason (IPD) as others, but I've seen the weight given variously as 624g, 680g and 800g. It's hard to imagine that they could call something weighing 800g Ultralite, but you never know. In any case, I'd be grateful if someone could enlighten me. That was nearly a joke.

Michael.
 
I had to send my swift ultralite 8x42 roofs in for repair today.(focus wheel is out of wack)-They are supposed to have a lifetime warranty so I'll have to see how this works out.
 
An update-I picked up the binoculars today which were repaired free of charge. It took about 2 weeks which wasn't bad since I was told it could take a month.-Good to know that they upheld the warranty.
 
MacGee said:
...It's hard to imagine that they could call something weighing 800g Ultralite, but you never know. In any case, I'd be grateful if someone could enlighten me. That was nearly a joke.

Michael.
Click to expand...

Michael,

Last year I met with Alison Swift (the current President) and chuckled about the same thing in view of the fact that the original 2.5 lb. Audubons were labeled "Feather Weight." Somewhat surprised, she said that "lite" refers to light not weight.

Hope that helps reduce your cognitive dissonance. :eek!:

Ed
 
elkcub said:
Michael,

Last year I met with Alison Swift (the current President) and chuckled about the same thing in view of the fact that the original 2.5 lb. Audubons were labeled "Feather Weight." Somewhat surprised, she said that "lite" refers to light not weight.

Hope that helps reduce your cognitive dissonance. :eek!:

Ed
Click to expand...
Yes, it does, thanks. Cognitive dissonance, eh? The Ultra Brites' big selling point is their ground-breaking use of two different kinds of rubber. The long only-one-type-of-rubber ordeal is finally over. I thought the promotion of this solution without a problem was due to the fact it was their only selling point, but it wasn't. They actually named the things after their real selling point - and still nobody knew about it. Excellent.

Michael.
 
One of the twist-up eyecups of my Swift Ultra-Lite 8x 42 recently started to not twist up and down smoothly. I was warned that this might happen by other members of this forum.

I peeled off the rubber eyecup covering (held in place with a small amount of that rubber cement stuff which isn't actually rubber cement) and I noticed that one of the three screws that acted as guides for the eyecup channels had started to come loose, and the other had come out entirely. It fell out on the floor and I couldn't find the damn thing -- they are tiny!

At any rate, I tightened the loose screw and will take my Ultra-lIte to the dealer where I purchased it. I am hoping he can ask Swift to just send a screw or two.

So I think I would recommend regularly taking off the rubber coverings of the eyecuops and making sure the screws are tight. Just be careful not to drop a screw that has come out entirely.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 17 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Similar threads

D
Swift Audubon 8.5x44 Model 804
2 3 4
Replies
67
Views
5K
jebe68
J
R
The mystery of the Trailseeker ED 8x42's weight
Replies
2
Views
1K
Binastro
B
J
What binoculars are as good as Nikon Superior E?
2 3
Replies
46
Views
4K
Jaywalk
J
Y
Vortex Viper HD and Bushnell Trophy - A noob’s review
Replies
1
Views
561
giosblue
G
J
Do you consider Resale Value/Opportunities due to Brand Recognition?
Replies
14
Views
694
Patudo
P

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top