• 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.

Top-3 binos Vs mid-priced binos (1 Viewer)

M

mac2009

New member
Hi,
I'm brand new to this forum and I'm planning on buying new binos for a birding trip to the Andamans. So I'd like to ask the many experienced birders here a few questions:

1. I can afford to buy one of the top-3 binos (Zeiss, Leica, Swaro), but I'd like to know whether they are really worth the significant extra cost as compared to high-quality mid-priced binos (like Vortex Viper/Razor or some Pentax models). Where I live, I don't have the opportunity to try out these side-by-side with mid-priced binos to see for myself. I don't want to buy one of these purely because of their brand-name - I want to see some real difference in the image quality. Some sub-questions I'd like the answers to:

a) Are the differences between the mid-priced binos and the top-3 very plainly obvious when looking thru them or are they only measurable using standardized/scientific tests?

b) If visible while viewing through them, are the differences very subtle, so that they don't matter most of the time? For example, if these binos offer pretty much the same quality of optics as mid-priced binos most days under most lighting conditions, but would allow me, say, about 15 minutes of extra birding late at dawn/dusk, I would not consider the cost worthwhile. On the other hand, if they will allow a whole extra hour or two of birding, then I would consider that appealing.

c) I don't expect the price/performance to be linear, ie, if cost is 5x, I don't expect the image quality to be 5x - but is the image quality atleast 1.5x for a 5x cost (granted, this is all very subjective)? For example, if the Zeiss offers only a 5% better image than a Vortex Viper/Razor, I'm not convinced it justifies the 4x or 5x cost.

2. THe Vortex Viper has rave reviews everywhere including this forum. But when I tested it out at a local store, it wasn't able to focus all that sharply - focus wasn't bad, but not as good as I expected it to be. Is it just the specimen I tested, or has anyone else noticed this? I did notice that it was somewhat brighter than the Razor (surpisingly) - this despite the fact that the Viper was a 10x42 and the Razor was an 8x42!

3. I realize that most birders seem to prefer 8x42 or 10x42 and almost never a 10x50. All comparison reviews of binos I find on the web also only seem to review the 8x42 & 10x42 models of various brands. I'd like to know why that's the case. 3 reasons I can think of - weight, FOV & close-focus - seem to have largely been addressed in mid-priced to high-priced binos these days. For example, the 10x50 Leica Ultravid HD offers 352ft FOV (larger than that of the 10x42 part), is only about 35 ounces (8 ounces more than the 10x42 part) and has a close focus of 10.8 ft (only 1 ft more than the 10x42).
Besides the above reasons, are there any image quality issues with the 10x50 models of mid-to-high end parts compared to their 10x42 parts? I'd like to buy a 10x50 part because of the extra brightness it offers, but not if the 10x50 part offers relatively inferior image quality.

I'd really appreciate it if one (or more) of you experienced birders in this forum could answer the questions above.

Thank you for your time!
 
First of all, thanks for the well-defined questions. My girlfriend is on the Andamans at the moment, carrying her trusty Leica 10x42 BA, and I guess she will be fine with them.

mac2009 said:
1. I can afford to buy one ... but I'd like to know whether they are really worth the significant extra cost
Click to expand...
If you are a die-hard user, and are not only looking at the occasionally fly-by bird, I would definitely recommend one of the top 3 for the ease of view over longer periods, better resistance of the coatings against wear and tear, better contrast and brightness which pays off especially in difficult light circumstances (rain, fog, early morning, drizzle,...)
mac2009 said:
a) Are the differences between the mid-priced binos and the top-3 very plainly obvious when looking thru them or are they only measurable using standardized/scientific tests?
Click to expand...
They are, at least for me, not visible during good daylight. Don't compare them in a well-lit shop or during the day. I don't see a lot of difference just looking through them at e.g. a signpost some distance away, but the Swaro/Zeiss/Leica of this world is easier to point/focus/put in front of your eyes and focus quickly, follow a birds movement and re-focus, keep looking for minutes/hours at a bird or scanning the surroundings. They are a pleasure to look through, and I always found it to be harder working when looking through the mid-priced bins for longer than some minutes.
mac2009 said:
b) are the differences very subtle, so that they don't matter most of the time? For example, if these binos offer pretty much the same quality of optics as mid-priced binos most days under most lighting conditions, but would allow me, say, about 15 minutes of extra birding late at dawn/dusk, I would not consider the cost worthwhile. On the other hand, if they will allow a whole extra hour or two of birding, then I would consider that appealing.
Click to expand...
the differences are subtle and (for me) hardly noticed during the first minutes I compare them. But sooner or later, it may happen you notice the difference and regret you did not go for the real thing. That sooner or later is up to you. If you live in a sunny environment and are an occasionally user, it does not pay off to buy a Zeiss/Swaro/Leica. But if you are walking with those bins around your neck the whole day, and live in a country where it can rain anytime and a lot of days in winter are dull and overcast, or you go birdwatching in dark forests, it pays off. Expensive bins will only allow you those fifteen minutes (this depends on magnification and objective diameter more than on the price of the binocular!), but they also allow you the pleasure of a bright, vivid image during the rest of the day.
mac2009 said:
c) but is the image quality atleast 1.5x for a 5x cost (granted, this is all very subjective)?
Click to expand...
That is a very personal question. If you say you can afford a Zeiss/Leica/Swaro, and are ready to use them a lot, I would go for it.
mac2009 said:
2. THe Vortex Viper ...Is it just the specimen I tested, or has anyone else noticed this?
Click to expand...
I don't know about this one. Was the Razor sharp?
mac2009 said:
3. ...a 10x50... 3 reasons I can think of - weight, FOV & close-focus
Click to expand...
I happen to know a guy (die-hard birder) that really went for the Leica Ultravid 10x50 for exactly the reasons you sum up. They are excellent but a bit heavier than 10x42.

Good luck!
 
At the highend, it is almost never about the optics. Rather it's all about ergonomics and other user specific intangibles. A $400 Swift Audbon 8.5x44mm ED can deliver a worldclass birding optimized view, but many can't get on with its weight, large eyepieces, or useable eyerelief. That's why its important to try before you buy. Find a USA online dealer with a liberal return policy like eagleoptics.com and buy a couple pairs at a time to try until you find something you like.

A 10x bino can be difficult to hold steady for long periods. You may find you prefer a 8x or maybe even a 7x. A larger aperture will benefit you before sunrise or at sunset. During the day, your eye pupils will limit the amount of light delivered. At midday a 30mm bino can look as bright as a 60mm bino.

cheers,
Rick
 
Last edited:
Hi, it's mostly the overall package that makes the top 3 or 4 or 5 so attractive and expensive. Besides optics that is ergonomics and handling, build quality and warranty + service, details such as rainguards, straps, water repellent coatings etc. Also design and brand.image, which most say it's not important, but still adds up to the gut feeling that make up most buying decisions.
If price is not the most import criteria to you, I would recommend you to go for one of the top brands. You will be happy with it for many many years, and if a problem occurs, you can be sure it will be fixed without much trouble.

One important question that you should answer for yourself before caring about brands, is the configuration (10x50, 8x42 etc.). Other very popular configurations not mentioned by you are for example 7x42 for its ease of use and low-light performance, or the 8x32 as a compact all-rounder... Configuration is very much about your preferred situation of use (eg. many low-light situations or not, open country or forest) and personal preferences (weight, can you handle 10x, etc.).

Regards, Florian
 
Hi Mac2009,

personally I don't see the point in spending a lot more money to get a little bit more performance. Spend the rest of the cash on a scope or another holiday. Mind you, if I win the lottery big time I may change my views ;)

If you want almost as good as the top end for less money, have a look at Meopta. I have been using Meostar 8x32s on aweekly basis for the last months and I am still impressed by them whenever I look through them. (I have no connection to Meopta by the way, I just think they are very good value and an absolute pleasure to use).

As you are going on a birding holiday, I am assuming that you will be wearing your bins pretty much all day everyday. So I would say consider a 30 or 32mm size to cut down the weight on your neck. If you decide you do need a 40or 42mm because you will be doing lowlight birding then maybe a harness instead of a neck strap?

Have a great trip,
Martin.
 
Last edited:
From what you say, I don't think the additional money for an alpha would seem justified because the differences between them and the upper tier of more affordable bins are subtle. People spend for the alphas either because they can either appreciate that last nth degree of definition or because they want to be seen with an alpha glass, or they want the ruggedness and product support that comes with an alpha glass (or all of the above).

In my opinion, the more you use binoculars in the field the less you think about how much you spent on them and the more you think about how well they allow you to see what you need to see. IMO, the Leupold Golden Ring HDs, Meoptas and the Zen EDs push the alphas very hard in terms of performance, and Leupold sets the gold standard for product support.
 
Hi,

Regarding the relative value of the Alphas in comparison to some high performing mid-priced binoculars, there are some previous BF Binocular threds that give many different perspectives and much information about the binoculars you are considering.

Two that I would suggest that you might like checking out are (there are plenty others also, enough to make ones head explode in trying to pick out the "right binoculars") -

1. Leica, Swaro, Zeiss... Nikon?
2. Are Zen Ray 8x43 EDs Really that Good?

Les
 
Starting from the point where you say that you can afford top range bins:

If you are a less than brilliant / confident birder (like me) and are likely to be surrounded by 'experts' the top range bin gives you the confidence not to 'blame your tools' and make that determined effort to see what they see.

When non-birders look through my Swaros they always say: " '*^">* they're good aren't they". So there must be a noticeable difference even to the untrained eye.

The law of diminishing returns applies to so many things. I can't judge in %age terms the difference the bins would make to you but another way of looking at it is to divide the price difference by the number of times you are likely to use the bins and see if it's worth it to you. Don't go on holiday and think everyday: "If only...."

Good Luck
 
I have a pair of swaro 10x42 EL and they are fantastic and i dont find them too big or heavy to carry around all day. I dont have much experience of the mid range bins but you would never be disapointed with the Swaro's they were ten times the price of the ones i had before and there are more than ten times better.
 
If you don't mind spending the money on it, you might wait to see what the Swarovisions will be like. I suspect they might set the standard for 5 years at least, and will certainly be good enough to last 10-20 years without disappointing. Take care of them and they could be good for life.

That said, the mid-priced bins are really catching up. The Meoptas are winning accolades, for instance, though I haven't seen one yet.

I prefer mid-sized bins and I can say that my Pentax 8x32 ED, which doesn't exactly get rave reviews, is about 90-95% of my 8x32 FL. I've been surprised in fact to see just how well it holds up in comparison. Fact is, I could probably be happy with either, although that FL focus mechanism is a treat. It gets to the point where you see differences, yes, but deciding which is better gets to be somewhat subjective. Hence all the arguing (I mean discussion) you see here on BF.

By the way, I've yet to see anything that can beat a Nikon SE, if you want to track one down. That one's not so subjective. It's pretty obvious.
 
with the aggressive improvement on optical quality from those mid priced binoculars, the line becomes really blurry between mid-level and "alpha" glasses, except of the price itself. No one can answer for you how much more alpha you can buy with extra $1000-$2000 and whether it is worthy it but yourself. Like RJM recommended, get a few pairs from a retailer who allows you to return, like some Alphas from EagleOptics and a mid-priced one, like ZEN ED2 from zen-ray. Another option is Nikon SE. I am yet to get hold of one myself. But if you don't mind Porro (I am more like curious about Porro), that's another alpha beater too.
 
One more factor, at least for me, is that an alpha is every bit as easy to lose as a mid-range bino, and probably even more prone to be stolen. I had one pair of SE's stolen, and I'm glad they weren't swarovski's. I'm guessing the thieves at the airport are not as impressed with my Zen-Rays, and that suits me fine.
 
Mac2009,

Sounds like you're new to birding.

If you can afford the best then just buy a 8x32 EL or 8.5 x 42 and be done with it... go birding and forget about binoculars.

If you are new to birding buy a Viper and be done with it...go birding and forget about binoculars.

If you are interested in birding and not binoculars then buy any excellent rated $350 binocular and be done with it... and go birding and forget about binoculars.

The honest truth is there are differences between the Alphas and the great $350 binoculars but you will see the bird as it appears with either binocular. Are there differences between a top BMW and a Toyota Camery? Sure. Do they both get you there? Sure.

Binoculars will not make you a better birder. They are all just tubes filled with glass... not magic. Your brain will make you a better birder (along with birding)

Try some with you're own eyes and decide.

Whew... I feel better now.

Cheers
 
Last edited:
mac2009 said:
Hi,
I'm brand new to this forum and I'm planning on buying new binos for a birding trip to the Andamans. So I'd like to ask the many experienced birders here a few questions:

1. I can afford to buy one of the top-3 binos (Zeiss, Leica, Swaro), but I'd like to know whether they are really worth the significant extra cost as compared to high-quality mid-priced binos (like Vortex Viper/Razor or some Pentax models). Where I live, I don't have the opportunity to try out these side-by-side with mid-priced binos to see for myself. I don't want to buy one of these purely because of their brand-name - I want to see some real difference in the image quality. Some sub-questions I'd like the answers to:

a) Are the differences between the mid-priced binos and the top-3 very plainly obvious when looking thru them or are they only measurable using standardized/scientific tests?

b) If visible while viewing through them, are the differences very subtle, so that they don't matter most of the time? For example, if these binos offer pretty much the same quality of optics as mid-priced binos most days under most lighting conditions, but would allow me, say, about 15 minutes of extra birding late at dawn/dusk, I would not consider the cost worthwhile. On the other hand, if they will allow a whole extra hour or two of birding, then I would consider that appealing.

c) I don't expect the price/performance to be linear, ie, if cost is 5x, I don't expect the image quality to be 5x - but is the image quality atleast 1.5x for a 5x cost (granted, this is all very subjective)? For example, if the Zeiss offers only a 5% better image than a Vortex Viper/Razor, I'm not convinced it justifies the 4x or 5x cost.

2. THe Vortex Viper has rave reviews everywhere including this forum. But when I tested it out at a local store, it wasn't able to focus all that sharply - focus wasn't bad, but not as good as I expected it to be. Is it just the specimen I tested, or has anyone else noticed this? I did notice that it was somewhat brighter than the Razor (surpisingly) - this despite the fact that the Viper was a 10x42 and the Razor was an 8x42!

3. I realize that most birders seem to prefer 8x42 or 10x42 and almost never a 10x50. All comparison reviews of binos I find on the web also only seem to review the 8x42 & 10x42 models of various brands. I'd like to know why that's the case. 3 reasons I can think of - weight, FOV & close-focus - seem to have largely been addressed in mid-priced to high-priced binos these days. For example, the 10x50 Leica Ultravid HD offers 352ft FOV (larger than that of the 10x42 part), is only about 35 ounces (8 ounces more than the 10x42 part) and has a close focus of 10.8 ft (only 1 ft more than the 10x42).
Besides the above reasons, are there any image quality issues with the 10x50 models of mid-to-high end parts compared to their 10x42 parts? I'd like to buy a 10x50 part because of the extra brightness it offers, but not if the 10x50 part offers relatively inferior image quality.

I'd really appreciate it if one (or more) of you experienced birders in this forum could answer the questions above.

Thank you for your time!
Click to expand...



Get a Zeiss 8x32 FL or Leica 8x32 Ultravid HD or Swarovski 8x32 EL and you will be happy. In optics like most things you get what you pay for and yes the alphas are worth the difference. The one exception is the Nikon 8x32 SE and it is not waterproof. Check E-bay for deals.
 
Last edited:
Must second Dennis' recommendition. For sheer quality, compactness, and performance, the three alphas are superior. You might also look at the Nikon Edg, too. John
 
To put it in a different perspective, instead of following Dennis' and John's advice to go for the Alpha (say the Zeiss 8x32 FL), a person, for an equivalent expenditure, could purchase for $400 or less a very high performing pair of binoculars that optically are only marginally non-Alpha quality-wise and purchase 17 or so Leupold Yosemite 6x30's (or 25 or so Nikon Action 7x35's) and donate them to a worthy cause thus encouraging future generations of birdwatchers/nature lovers.

Les
 
Last edited:
sless13 said:
To put it in a different perspective, instead of following Dennis' and John's advice to go for the Alpha (say the Zeiss 8x32 FL), a person, for an equivalent expenditure, could purchase for $400 or less a very high performing pair of binoculars that optically are only marginally non-Alpha quality-wise and purchase 17 or so Leupold Yosemite 6x30's (or 25 or so Nikon Action 7x35's) and donate them to a worthy cause thus encouraging future generations of birdwatchers/nature lovers.

Les
Click to expand...

That is a very nobel idea but I think if one can afford an alpha binocular and they get an immense amount of pleasure observing birds and wildlife up close and using the best optics available and it makes it more enjoyable for them then I see no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to enjoy what many might consider an extravagance. I am not rich but I REALLY enjoy seeing those minute variations in the colors of bird and wildlife so I will scrimp on other things to get the best optics available. Also, in the long run if you buy a top quality pair of binoculars the build quality is such with the harder and more durabile coatings it can be once in a lifetime investment that might possibly be LESS expensive in the long run than even a mid-priced binocular. Plus we all know how Swarovski, Zeiss, and Leica stand behind their binoculars with their lifetime warranties. Twenty years from now if you need them repaired chances are they will be there to fix them. I don't begrudge anybody for buying an alpha binocular and I can totally understand it.
 
sless13 said:
Hi,

Regarding the relative value of the Alphas in comparison to some high performing mid-priced binoculars, there are some previous BF Binocular threds that give many different perspectives and much information about the binoculars you are considering.

Two that I would suggest that you might like checking out are (there are plenty others also, enough to make ones head explode in trying to pick out the "right binoculars") -

1. Leica, Swaro, Zeiss... Nikon?
2. Are Zen Ray 8x43 EDs Really that Good?

Les
Click to expand...

Yes, my Zen Ed2 in 10x is fabulous, not a nickle's worth of difference between it and my hunting buddy's Swaro EL. We've been comparing them for the past 4 days and he even says the same thing. The Zen is much brighter than my trinovid and my neighbor's SLC also. As someone mentioned here in this thread, a large increase in price gets you a minimal gain in optical performance nowadays. Yes, the Nikon EDG is fantastic also and is indeed alpha glass.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 14 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
which 10x42 : Nikon HG / GPO Passion HD / Maven B1.2 / Vortex Razor HD ?
2 3
Replies
43
Views
4K
Ratal
Ratal
L
Upgrade to mid-range price binoculars
2
Replies
26
Views
3K
Rufus1401
R
A
Best 10x42 binos under £200 in the UK
Replies
8
Views
977
Maljunulo
M
M
Bino Advice
2
Replies
32
Views
2K
MurphyLaw
M
S
Hello from Singapore, Binocular help
2
Replies
22
Views
1K
Chris Pringle
C

Users who are viewing this thread

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