• 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.

which pair? (1 Viewer)

L

LW1959

Active member
Hi to you all and thankyou sofar for the help.
Ive narrowed my search for a pair of bins to..

1) Hawke frontier 8x43 ED. £279.00p
2) Vortex Razor 8x42. £390.00p
3) Swarovski EL 8.5 x 42. £1020.00p

Yes there is a big price diff from no,s 1-3 im going to view them soon but would like some of your input on all three.
Which pair do you think is good value for the money they cost?
I did say in another post i could only afford £200.00-£300.00 But ive allways got the Credit Card ;)
Hope to hear your thoughts.
 
I think you should try all three! Seriously.

The Hawke is a very good start and I think for a lot of people it might be all the bin they need.

Vortex have a better warranty than the Hawke's (with a good No Fault coverage) and the Razor is well liked by many (though quite a few think the Viper is plenty, and is a bit cheaper so you might consider it too).

The Swaros are excellent and will be a optical step up from the other two (though how much depends a bit on you). If you get these you cut to the chase (what else could you buy to replace them?) but are they worth three times the Hawkes or 2.5 times the Razors? Only you can tell.

If you do think seriously about getting the Swaros I suggest you add similar Zeiss and Leica bins in there to get a feel for the differences in ergonomics between them. View wise I suspect they all so close to the "best you can get" that it's not a visual issue that separates the Alpha bins.

Before spending "loadsamoney" on the bin I suggest you try a few out so you can talk about the differences between the bins. That might help you make an informed (or at least a convincing) decision!
 
I would also add the Vortex Viper 8 x 42 to your list of binoculars to try. They are lighter than all three you list. They should also be faster focusing than 2, have better eye relief than 1, and be less expensive than 2 & 3. Not quite as good optically, but quite close IMO and very good overall. Vortex is also a more established company than 1, so there should be fewer worries about backing up their excellent warranty (as Kevin mentions).

Best,
Jim
 
Last edited:
The 8.5x has always appealed to me, but there are a couple of options there.

As far as the cost, you should buy what you can afford. It really does not pay to pawn them and to have to replace them if you lose them. Buy a pair you can afford to replace in the next 10 years. Once you get used to a certain level, it is hard to go down.
 
After the rave reviews that the Hawke Frontier EDs have been given (at £279), are the Vortex Vipers (£259) or even the Razors (£390) a match for them optically?

Obviously the Swaros (and their Leica/Zeiss counterparts) have the edge, but they are four times the cost. The Hawkes have effectively delayed my purchase of the Swaros for a while yet, having nearly convinced myself to splash out. I've ordered them as a waterproof, fog-proof, more robust alternative to my Nikon EIIs, figuring I can sell them again easily at a loss of under £100 which is pretty insignificant in the context of a £1000 purchase.

My saved cash will go towards a scope upgrade in the meantime, where a few hundred quid makes a much more significant difference optically.

Graham
 
bitterntwisted said:
After the rave reviews that the Hawke Frontier EDs have been given (at £279), are the Vortex Vipers (£259) or even the Razors (£390) a match for them optically?
Click to expand...

As I've not directly compared them I can't say but even if the Hawke's are better optically (though I suspect they might be) there are plenty of non-optical issues (ergonomic, weight, warranty and so on) that might tip the balance for another users.

I'm having this problem right now with my Bushnell Elite vs the Hawke! It's the worst sort of comparison because it's Apples and Oranges: weight and grip versus optical view.

Hence try before you buy (or with a easy return) is the only realistic test.
 
J. Moore said:
I would also add the Vortex Viper 8 x 42 to your list of binoculars to try. They are lighter than all three you list. They should also be faster focusing than 2, have better eye relief than 1, and be less expensive than 2 & 3. Not quite as good optically, but quite close IMO and very good overall. Vortex is also a more established company than 1, so there should be fewer worries about backing up their excellent warranty (as Kevin mentions).

Best,
Jim
Click to expand...

Ok ,yes the viper do look good, so anyone what do you think of the...
Viper 8x42 ? £259.00p
and
Hawke Frontier 8x43 ED ? £279.00p
There is only £20.00p between them so which one would you go for ?
 
Last edited:
LW,

Take a look at Meopta's 8x42. It's on par with the EL but a wider FOV. It's very nice.

http://www.holgermerlitz.de/kowa85x44.html

This opinion shows how they best the Vortex by quite a margin (not that there's anything wrong with Vortex)
And look at the size difference. The Meopta is very compact and very nice to hold.

If Frank is online he could tell you how they compare with the Razor

The FOV is stunning on these 8's

Cheers
 
Last edited:
LW1959 said:
Ok ,yes the viper do look good, so anyone what do you think of the...
Viper 8x42 ? £259.00p
and
Hawke Frontier 8x43 ED ? £279.00p
There is only £20.00p between them so which one would you go for ?
Click to expand...

I do not believe anyone here has directly compared the two in person, so it is a tough call. Moreover, as Kevin indicated, each individual has different priorities. I suffered for years with binoculars that were quite good optically, but had very poor eye relief, a diopter that had become loose and required constant adjustment, and were fairly heavy. So, based on what I know now, I would probably lean towards the Vipers (which I now use) since (unlike the Hawke), they have a locking diopter, quite generous eye relief, and are quite light. (Though if I directly compared the two my opinion might change of course). But I am sure others here, such as Steve C., whose opinion I have a lot of respect for, would go with the Hawke, because they have different priorities and really appreciate its slightly -- but noticeably -- superior optics.

So it is better for you to compare them if possible, so you personally can decide which is the better fit for you.

My two cents,
Jim
 
Just in case I didn't make it clear in my review the 16mm ER speced for the Hawke is right. With it's 65 degree AFOV I only just miss the field stop top and bottom when wearing eyeglasses i.e. I essentially see the whole field. No ER problems with it.

Even simple things like the feel or the balance can turn a bin from being a pleasure to use that something that annoys you every time you go out birding.

To the OP: are you anywhere near a decent bin dealer?
 
Kevin Purcell said:
Just in case I didn't make it clear in my review the 16mm ER speced for the Hawke is right. With it's 65 degree AFOV I only just miss the field stop top and bottom when wearing eyeglasses i.e. I essentially see the whole field. No ER problems with it.
Click to expand...

Yes, but it should be emphasized that eye relief requirements vary from person to person. So there is no guarantee that it will work as well for other glasses wearers as it does for you (and even for you it does not sound perfect). I, for example, have fairly deep eye sockets, so may have more robust eye relief requirements than some other individuals. And 16 mm is pretty much at the borderline as far as I am concerned. The vipers have 20 mm, so it stands to reason that fewer people (perhaps none?) will find the eye relief inadequate on the vipers as compared to the Hawke.

Best,
Jim
 
Last edited:
Jim,

You are correct about the slight but noticeable differences. That's what they are. However the reason I have the Promaster and am wondering if I keep the Viper is that the Promaster offered the same noticeable optical improvement of the much more expensive glass, but at similar cost to the Viper. If the Promaster sold for $1,000+ I probably would not have bought it. I accepted long ago the fact that I am a cheapskate at heart, and place far more credence on value for the money than I do on absolute technical superiority. I got the value for the money, based on my assumption that Promaster will last as long as the Monarch I have. Time tells that tale.

And if eye relief is a consideration, then the Viper does have the Promaster bested. Since I have no need to use glasses with binoculars, I sometimes tend to overlook that point. The locking diopter on the Viper is nice as well. One of the real virtues of the Viper is that it has the same sort of a set-it-and-forget-it utility you often hear assigned to an IF glass. The Viper does tend to stay where you put it and neither the center bridge, focus wheel, or diopter have much tendency to move around, unless the user moves them. A little better, I will allow, than the Promaster, but not much. As I noted above the Viper does seem to have a deeper field of focus. The real optical difference is that an 8x Promaster will show a touch more detail "way-out there" than a 10x Viper. The next difference is the FOV. I think the Viper is fine at 347'@ 8x. The Promaster at 393'@ 8x is a littler nicer.

The Viper would be a good glass to hybridize with the Hawke/Promaster. Either give the Hawke/Promaster the strong points of the Viper for an open bridge design, or the FOV and optics of the H/P to the Viper for a traditional design.

It will be interesting to me to see how (or if) the rest of the market responds to whatever level of challenge the H/P glass provides.

I haven't seen the Hawke, but am relying on Frank D's assessment of the strong similarity between the two. I feel fairly safe here because it seems to me Frank and I tend draw the same/similar conclusions on optical quality. But Jim, you are right, I cannot offer a direct Hawke/Viper comparison.
 
Steve C;1315380The real optical difference is that an 8x Promaster will show a touch more detail "way-out there" than a 10x Viper.[/QUOTE said:
I can't believe that is true. Only awful quality 10x underperform 8x w/respect to resolving power, and the Viper is a better than average model.

--AP
Click to expand...
 
Steve C said:
Alexis

I really do not give two hoots whether you believe it or not. It is what it is.
Click to expand...

The intent of my comment wasn't to call attention to my state of mind, but rather that your claim is an extraordinary one that is not generally true of even very cheap binoculars. Only the very worst 10x perform as poorly you claim the 10x Viper does in this respect. Furthermore, I don't know how a binocular could show more detail "way out there" without also showing more detail up close as well, unless your observation is simply that the binocular is yellow/amber color biased and thus filters out some of the blue light associated with haze that becomes visible with distance.

--AP
 
Last edited:
Alexis

Since when is it an extraordinary concept that beter resolution can trump higher magnification?

I have posted numerous times here that I amire the Vortex Viper. I have never stated that it is a poor performer. Now, here you are making the statement I have relegated it all of a sudden to cheap binocular status. I didn't say it was a poor performer. I said the Promaster is a better binocular than the Viper. That does not all of a sudden make the Viper a cheap performer. It isn't.

I also didn't say that the 8x Promaster image was bigger than the image of the 10x Viper. It is clearer and sharper. Maybe you equate detail to size. At some point, yes you can get only so much with resolution, whereupon magnification needs to jump as well.
 
Steve C said:
Since when is it an extraordinary concept that beter resolution can trump higher magnification?
Click to expand...

If referring to the actual resolving ability (boosted resolution) of the binocular, sure. But if the issue is amount of detail that can be seen through the binocular (issues of glare etc aside), which is what we've been talking about here, it is of course possible, but I've not known it to be true in practice in the arena of birding binoculars. I've not seen lower resolution demonstrated in a 10x than an 8x except in the case of _very_ poor quality or defective binoculars. For example, my tripod mounted Leica 10x25 Trinovid delivers more visible detail than any of my tripod mounted 8x binoculars (and note that my corrected vision is much better than average). Of course I've seen many testimonials of higher overall image quality (due to greater DOF, lower shake w/hand holding etc) in 7x and 8x binoculars than 10x but that's another matter. I think the claim that excellent 8x binos can have higher resolution than good 10x binos is baseless and wrong. It has a certain "logical" appeal and could easily (and may already) have currency in the mythology of binocular adoration. There are plenty of good reasons to choose 8x binos over 10x, but getting higher resolution is not one of them. Likewise, thinking one can do so without sacrificing resolution is folly.

--AP
 
Last edited:
Steve C said:
At some point, yes you can get only so much with resolution, whereupon magnification needs to jump as well.
Click to expand...

Right, the point that the binocular is delivering more detail than the eye can detect, and every 8x and 10x binocular that is worth a darn (even very cheap porros) does this.

--AP
 
Alexis Powell said:
Right, the point that the binocular is delivering more detail than the eye can detect, and every 8x and 10x binocular that is worth a darn (even very cheap porros) does this.
Click to expand...

Although I agree with Alexis reasoning the resolving power of bins is closer to the limit than some people think.

A 1 arcminute (60 arcsecond) eye resolution (the "typical" value quoted in these arguments and apparently the on the US Army uses in specing bins too) means the bin must be better than:

10.0 arcseconds at x6
8.6 arcseconds at x7
7.5 arcseconds at x8
6.0 arcseconds at x10

Of course good bins do this but "very cheap porros"? I've seen surveyors measure for Alpha bins (IIRC!) of 4 arcseconds. That's only double the requirement (and for people with really good eyesight might only be just enough).

BTW the M22 spec was 9 arcsecond for a 7x50.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 15 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

C
Pentax ZD 8x43 WP
Replies
8
Views
3K
Ce2613
C
yarrellii
Let’s talk about eyecups (comfort, dimensions, preferences, etc.)
2 3
Replies
53
Views
8K
Patudo
P
G
A 14 night Cruise from Southampton to Norway and Iceland, 22/6/23 to 6/7/23.
Replies
3
Views
913
greer3
G
D
Extreme Nearsightedness--Focusing at infinity without eyeglasses
2
Replies
22
Views
4K
etc
etc
E
A KamaTech flub, a Tract Toric Schott HT review, and my 10x42 quest...
2
Replies
20
Views
6K
mskb
M

Users who are viewing this thread

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