• 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.

Sightron "Blue Sky" II 8x32 (2 Viewers)

no, the reason they are inexpensive is because they are discontinued and the 6.5x32 is the last model that's in stock anywhere. This is just blowout pricing.

I do not have any concerns because (1) the diopter flaw (from my understanding) which existed in earlier models was corrected a couple of years ago and (2) they have the unconditional Vortex lifetime warranty.

For the record, I didn't notice any issues with the diopter adjustment on mine but I've used them for all of 15 minutes total :)
 
For what this is worth, I had the Chuck Adams Bowhunter Excursion 7x36, the 7x36 Diamondback, and the Fury 6.5x32 at the same time. FWIW I still have the Fury. I was doing a bunch of looking at various more or less compact 6-7x binoculars at the time. The reason I bought the Bushnell was the fact that the fov at the time of introduction was listed as 488' (yeah 488') ;). That spec was everywhere, and I think that all stemmed from the fact that Bushnell listed it as such, and everyone else selling it took the Bushnell site at face value. When I got the binocular it had 408' @ 1,000 yards clear as a bell on the end of the focus knob. So I called Bushnell and asked which was the misprint. At first they said that the website was right, Anyway that led me to check it (it measured at 410' if I recall correctly) and eventually they eventually admitted somebody typed in 488' instead of 408'. Bushnell changed the spec on their site a few days later. The Diamondback said 411'. Now as far as I could tell the ONLY difference between the Diamondback and the Excursion was the style of enclosure. Every surface, angle, lens, prism, whatever...was as far as I could tell EXACTLY the same design. Even the lens tint and the way they reflected light was the same. The view was indistinguishable. I will not call a difference based on a couple of measly feet fov. I did much prefer the Excursion for ergonomics. However it went back in what was a long and tense battle with Bushnell. The eye cups of the Excursion almost required a pipe wrench to adjust and they only extended out to about 12 mm. They worked fine with sunglasses, but I'm not a glass wearer and they wouldn't work for me. Bushnell claimed there was nothing wrong with them...anyway I digress. I kept the Fury because it was a lot better than both, but larger than I had hoped. For $129 it is a smoking deal.

EDIT: Tom may be right about 426'. My experience was right at the time of the release of the Excursion 7x36 and they may have tweaked the spec a little later on to match the 8x36 version's 426'. I pretty much quit paying much attention to Bushnell after this. I will however, always remember 408 vs 488.
 
Last edited:
For what this is worth, I had the Chuck Adams Bowhunter Excursion 7x36, the 7x36 Diamondback, and the Fury 6.5x32 at the same time. FWIW I still have the Fury. I was doing a bunch of looking at various more or less compact 6-7x binoculars at the time. The reason I bought the Bushnell was the fact that the fov at the time of introduction was listed as 488' (yeah 488') ;). That spec was everywhere, and I think that all stemmed from the fact that Bushnell listed it as such, and everyone else selling it took the Bushnell site at face value. When I got the binocular it had 408' @ 1,000 yards clear as a bell on the end of the focus knob. So I called Bushnell and asked which was the misprint. At first they said that the website was right, Anyway that led me to check it (it measured at 410' if I recall correctly) and eventually they eventually admitted somebody typed in 488' instead of 408'. Bushnell changed the spec on their site a few days later. The Diamondback said 411'. Now as far as I could tell the ONLY difference between the Diamondback and the Excursion was the style of enclosure. Every surface, angle, lens, prism, whatever...was as far as I could tell EXACTLY the same design. Even the lens tint and the way they reflected light was the same. The view was indistinguishable. I will not call a difference based on a couple of measly feet fov. I did much prefer the Excursion for ergonomics. However it went back in what was a long and tense battle with Bushnell. The eye cups of the Excursion almost required a pipe wrench to adjust and they only extended out to about 12 mm. They worked fine with sunglasses, but I'm not a glass wearer and they wouldn't work for me. Bushnell claimed there was nothing wrong with them...anyway I digress. I kept the Fury because it was a lot better than both, but larger than I had hoped. For $129 it is a smoking deal.

EDIT: Tom may be right about 426'. My experience was right at the time of the release of the Excursion 7x36 and they may have tweaked the spec a little later on to match the 8x36 version's 426'. I pretty much quit paying much attention to Bushnell after this. I will however, always remember 408 vs 488.

Hopefully I'll be able to put them both to good use. For the pair at $229 I had a very hard time saying no. God save me from "good deals".
 
A little off the current discussion, but I was wondering what your thoughts would be on leaving the sightron in the cold for long times. Say 15 - 25 degrees F. I have some concerns with it obviously being made of some type of polycarbonate. Would the contraction/expansion cause any internal shifting.
@
John
 
There was a diopter flaw on the very first release of the 6.5x Fury. It popped out pretty quickly when Doug at CameralandNY let some out for review through 24 Hr Campfire. Vortex changed it, and the second and current one is seemingly just fine. I would not let diopter flaws worry me much.
 
EDIT: Tom may be right about 426'. My experience was right at the time of the release of the Excursion 7x36 and they may have tweaked the spec a little later on to match the 8x36 version's 426'. I pretty much quit paying much attention to Bushnell after this. I will however, always remember 408 vs 488.

Steve

My bad as I listed the FOV for the 8x36 Excursion EX which is 426 ft. The 7x36 shows 410 ft in the 2009 Catalog. I previously had the 8x36 and always remember thinking the 7x36 should be wider. Not a bad little binos and I loved the ergos, but they had some stray light and glare issues, that the Ultra HD's solved. Why couldn't they just put the Ultra HD optics in the EX frame.

I got my 6.5x32 Furys today but have been busy with company all day, and haven't taken them out of the box. After spending an hour yesterday with my new 6.5x32 Meopros, the Fury's appear to have their work cut out for them. Probably will spend the weekend doing some A/B ing along with some others and then ring in.

Tom
 
Tom'\,

I look forward to your comparisons of the Meopta and Fury. I've seen comments good and oh-so-so-so on them.
 
Tom,

I look forward to your comparisons of the Meopta and Fury. I've seen comments good and oh-so-so-so on them.
 
perhaps we should start a new thread for all of us new 6.5x32 Fury owners and comparo's to various others we have on hand (like the 6.5x32 Meopta, 7x36 D'back) and let the good folks of this thread get back to the Sightron :)
 
Hey you're right. I ordered a Sightron and I forgot.:eek!:

I'll compare the Fury 6.5 to the Eagle 6 when it comes but the Sig will arrive first. I'm really hoping the Monarch is no competition.
 
Actually my previous question about the Sightron came about as a direct result of reading the current discussion, which I am quite enjoying and probably would not have come across otherwise.

I use the Sightrons mainly as my hiking bin and it gets packed along with my camera equipment for photo shoots. Yet I want a bin I can keep in my car and have been hesitant to do so with the Sightrons because of the build material. When I came across this thread, I thought, hey these Fury's may fit the bill. The build quality, the Vortex warranty and the obviously decent view makes it very tempting. Yet my current situation is that I am saving my money to put a new roof on my house and would rather not spend anymore on bins right now, hence my question on the Sightrons. I also am wondering if that maybe the 6.5x will be sufficient as a car bin.

I am looking forward to hearing about the Meopta/Fury comparisons and the outcome of black crow's fourway shootout. These bin configurations intrigue me and I will be an owner of one, if not now, in the future.

John
 
.. I also am wondering if that maybe the 6.5x will be sufficient as a car bin...

My car bin is a 7x, but I'd imagine the answer to that question depends upon your primary use more than where you keep them.

7x works for me since mine has a HUGE fov, instantaneous ability to snap into focus for leaning out the window to see something fleeting, and they were <$100 so the outlay if lost/stolen isnt huge. The optics are not sightron or fury level, but that's OK in a "car bin" imo.
 
Steve

My bad as I listed the FOV for the 8x36 Excursion EX which is 426 ft. The 7x36 shows 410 ft in the 2009 Catalog.
Tom

My 7x36 Excursion Chuck Adams state 451 on the focus wheel.

410, 488, and now 451. hmmm. Changing specs or typo?



o:DNow back to your regularly scheduled SIGHTRON discussion!
 
Just jumped on the Fury bandwagon, while the gettin was good. Ordered a pair of 6.5x32's from Cameraland. Just couldn't imagine getting a car bin this good for the price in the near future and I'm really not to keen on leaving my Sightrons in the car. Thanks BrightIdea for the input. I hadn't really thought about it that way, but the qualities you mentioned are quite agreeable with my intended use as a car bin, even down to the price if stolen. Which I felt the Fury's would be worth the extra $30 dollars for me. My car now has a permanent occupant. Can't wait to give them a try.
 
Short of the SE, and arguably the Meopta, I have not compared them directly against any of the Alpha 8x32s. I would love to hear your thoughts on the issue when the time comes.

Just some quick observations after comparing the Sightron Blue Sky II 8x32 and the Nikon EDG 8x32 for three days.
The EDG is sharper but not by a great deal, The EDG is brighter and that is quite noticeable. I see more fine detail with the EDG. The EDG has that "picture window" quality to it's view and the Sightron seems cramped in comparison. That might be due in part to better useable eye relief on the EDG. Edge sharpness definitely goes to the EDG although the Sightron isn't bad. I like the way the Sightron represents color. It's warmer than the EDG and, to my eyes, very pleasant.
I give the ergonomic nod to the EDG because it's a little heavier and that helps to steady the image and thankfully it lacks those bulging "eyebrows" of the Sightron. The view through the EDG is just more comfortable.
None of the above was a surprise given that the EDG lists for around $2000 and the Sightron for around $200. That extra zero accounts for the subtle and not so subtle refinements in the EDG.
So, the Sightron comes a lot closer to the performance of the EDG then it has any right to given the $1800 list price differential and I might have decided to keep the Sightron except for one "fly in the ointment". The focus mechanism. My sample was stiff out of the box but useable. Once I got it outside it was another story. The focus wheel became very stiff and sluggish. Once the temp dips below thirty it's a real struggle to turn the focus nob, especially with gloves on. I took the Sightron to view a Common Chaffinch which has been spending time at a local feeder here in north Jersey. With the temperature hovering in the mid twenty's the focus mechanism became so difficult to turn that I had to remove my gloves and pre-focus the Sightron on the feeder.
This is a very nice binocular in almost every respect, especially at the $200 price point. However that stiff focus mechanism is probably a deal breaker for me.
 
Just jumped on the Fury bandwagon, while the gettin was good. Ordered a pair of 6.5x32's from Cameraland. Just couldn't imagine getting a car bin this good for the price in the near future and I'm really not to keen on leaving my Sightrons in the car. Thanks BrightIdea for the input. I hadn't really thought about it that way, but the qualities you mentioned are quite agreeable with my intended use as a car bin, even down to the price if stolen. Which I felt the Fury's would be worth the extra $30 dollars for me. My car now has a permanent occupant. Can't wait to give them a try.

I'll be very interested to hear your thoughts on the Fury vs. the Sightron. I've been very impressed so far with the optics on the Fury and, although they are not really not that "compact" they are a steal at the price and a perfect car bin.
 
My 7x36 Excursion Chuck Adams state 451 on the focus wheel.

410, 488, and now 451. hmmm. Changing specs or typo?



o:DNow back to your regularly scheduled SIGHTRON discussion!

Well, with my confidence level in Bushnell, I have no idea. My experience was as stated. They may well have changed the specs in later 7x36, but I really have no idea.

Set up a measuring tape precisely 30' in front of the oculars and see for yourself what your 7x36 measure. You will have to be able to see almost 54 inches of tape edge to edge across the field at that distance for the 451 to be right.

You could get a Sightron to compare the two and keep the thread relevant I suppose ;).
 
None of the above was a surprise given that the EDG lists for around $2000 and the Sightron for around $200. That extra zero accounts for the subtle and not so subtle refinements in the EDG.
So, the Sightron comes a lot closer to the performance of the EDG then it has any right to given the $1800 list price differential

This is where howard stern comes in and claims the EDG sucks anyway, so the cheap philipino optics of the sightron must be even worse.

The focus mechanism. My sample was stiff out of the box but useable. Once I got it outside it was another story. The focus wheel became very stiff and sluggish. Once the temp dips below thirty it's a real struggle to turn the focus nob,

The SII focus wheel is tight, and cold weather use was actually one thing I was interested testing w/ the SII. Thankfully (ha ha) the weather in NJ obliged us on that the past 2 days!! Yesterday (20degF?) I found mine to be stiffer in the cold but not overly so. Still quite useable. No need to include my thumb underneath for rotational assistance. I'd rather not have to chase warblers around with it, and my preference is definitely for less friction there, but it's still useable with one index finger. Plus, no warblers around here right now anyway (at least I dont think so!)

I recally Yosemite's were tighter in cold weather and that had me really worried about them. however they have loosened up a skootch since then. Maybe the same w/ the SII?

More thoughts on the SII...
The Theron LT that has been compared to the SII frequently has a much looser focus wheel. Its not sloppy at all, but its more on the side of the bushnell ultraHD & EX in that it requires less effort. This is one minor point which may have me favoring the Theron over the sightron at the moment. It's splitting hairs for sure.

Another slight edge for the Theron is that I seem to be able to get a more useable wide FOV with the cups down w/ the Theron, whereas the sightron I need to pull them out 2 clicks, and the FOV seems restricted by this.

I like the looks of the LT, but the diopter of the SII. The lens caps (both) of the LT, but the center sharpness (contrast? not sure) of the SII wins out.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top