I posted a few days ago that I had a Gold Ring 8x42 coming. I have had it for some time now, and feel some comments about the performance of this binocular might be worthwhile since the McKinley now stands as Leupold's top dog with a new Gold Ring still over the horizon.
I got this binocular from the optics lab at Leupold. I was discussing some McK vs GR stuff with my Leupold contact and the next day after a conversation I get an email from him saying he found one in excess of need in the lab and did I want it? Uhhh..yeah I wanted it, so a few days later it showed up. It took me just a few minutes after setting this binocular to make the determination this was not going back to Leupold. So an email later I was in possession.
There was a post from Lulubelle reporting a comment she got from an Eagle Optics rep that the Gold Ring was a lot better than the McKinley. So the question is, was the EO rep right? The answer is well...mostly, but it is not a lot better.
Here is the deal. I have always thought the Gold Ring was a serious alpha class competitor. When somebody like FrankD says he never could quite like the GR image, that gets my attention. There were also similar comments from other users in other forums that said the same thing Frank did. The thing is, I don't think anybody who retains the ability to objectively view and analyze an image will find any more fault with this binocular than I did. Frank and I have swapped back and forth enough and written review comments on the same binocular enough for me to see we have similar opinions on binoculars. The other thing is I suppose is that the first Gold Ring HD I saw, at Huntington's in Oroville, CA I thought was every bit as good as I think this one is. The competition at Huntington's in 2007 were the Swarovski EL and SLC Neu, the Zeiss Victory FL and the Zeiss Conquest. I thought the GR gave up nothing to the FL, EL, and SLC, but was better than the Conquest. So I don't think those who saw and did not like the GR saw either one like the one I now have or the one they had at Huntington's. I wonder if QC issues had some role in the GR demise. I guess I need to send this to Frank at some point and see what he thinks about this unit.
I am wondering now just how typical this Gold Ring is. It came out of the Leupold lab. I don't know, and neither does my contact, at least at this point, just what sort of use this got in the lab. On one hand it could be what they deemed a typical "good" specimen and just used it for light transmission, resolution, and whatever other tests the lab needed to do. On the other hand, it takes no particular reach of the imagination to envision the tech heads in the lab wanting to see what they needed to do to "maximize the output" and give way to technical tinkering.
I have to wonder about the latter though for a couple of reasons. First "Bubba" at some point, took an engraver to the underside of the hinge and carved his initials. It takes no great imagination to envision "Bubba" breaking the binocular and sending it back. Since the Gold Ring was always an ongoing work in progress, it is pretty easy to see them just rebuilding "Bubba's" specimen in the lab and using it to generate some data.
The second thing is that this particular Gold Ring, keeping the comment confined to 8-8.5x roof prism binoculars I have personal experience with, certainly ranks in the top ten binocular views I have experienced. I'm not saying the best, but it sure is not number ten on the list either
.
There is nothing I can find to fault this binocular optically, with the sole minor exception of having a tendency to let some stray bright sunlight in between your face and the eye cup which sometimes will give a slight unfocused star light type reflection off the surface of the ocular. There are no apparent differences between the barrels...none. I can see nothing that indicates anything but perfect collimation. The IPD lock does not work either. So if Bubba sent it back and the lab was using it for tests, I can see them not fixing it. I have no issue with it not working, but would rather see a tripod socket.
Image Performance
The image is sharp as can be, and the further you stretch the distance the more it shows its heels to the McKinley and the others. It has the same ever so slight brownish-amber-reddish color bias that the McKinley has and as a result the image appearance, color balance, and contrast of the McKinley and the Gold Ring are about identical. The GR does seem brighter however.
The apparent depth of focus here is superb. It is almost like a 7x in that regard. While the color balance appears slightly warm, the color representation of the object in the binocular seems very natural. Colors pop right out of dull, not yet living early spring vegetation just beginning to break dormancy. Different shades of various green, brown, and tan vegetation are clearly differentiated. Focus this thing at infinity and there is no need to refocus on anything past 100 feet. I have spent several days in the Klamath Basin Wildlife Refuge complex using these on waterfowl and never felt even once that I needed to touch the focus. I did just to get a feel for the instrument, but the need, as far as enhancing the image was just not there. It is better than the McKinley in this regard. It bests the McKinley to some degree, albeit slightly, in low or dull light scenarios.
Field Performance
The field is relatively flat, but not to the degree I think they used flattener elements, but I am checking that detail. There is a little ring of field curvature, but it is not very severe and edge performance I would rate as good+. The edge performance and flatness of field is a lot like the Swarovski SLC-HD. In both there is some curvature but not much but neither has the edge sharpness of the SV.
The fov is listed on the binocular as 7.46*, or 390' @ 1,000 yds. This one measures 404' or 7.7*. The sweet spot seems at least 85%.
CA seems all but absent in the image anywhere, except at the very outer 1% or so at the very edge of the field. Glare is so well controlled it is a non issue.
Differences with the McKinley.
The bare weight of the Gold Ring is 32.0 oz. The McKinley checks in at 29.8 oz. The strange thing is having one in one hand and one in the other, the Gold Ring feels lighter. The GR is s little bit smaller physically than the McKinley, particularly in regards to barrel diameter. Leupold could shave a little armor to good effect here I think.
The GR is somewhat sharper and brighter than the McK. That difference is in twilight and low light condition primarily, the difference is not great, but it is a distinct difference in favor of the GR. The degree of that difference to the individual user will be the teller of the tale.
The focus features of the McK I put in the review. The GR focus is one of the very best I have used in any binocular. It is a lot faster than the McK is. They are both counterclockwise to infinity. The chief differences is the smoothness of the focus, favoring the GR and the quickness of the focus in close, again favoring the GR. The McK uses a turn going from the close focus to 100 feet. The GR uses half that, making the GR a lot better tool for insect watching. There is about a quarter turn past infinity on each binocular.
I think ergonomics will clearly favor the GR. Event though it is heavier than the McK, it feels lighter. The oculars are still fairly large, but they are enough smaller than the McK to be a nice feature for me.
Anyway, enough for now. I'll be back with some user choices between 8x and 10x when they did not know which was which and with whatever comparisons I have been able to do so far.
