Vortex Razors (1 Viewer)

Guys,

I had been involved in a binocular discussion in another forum and had the opportunity to buy and evaluate the Vortex Razor bins. I know previous threads touched upon them but didn't really cover their qualities because of a problem originally with the focusing mechanism. I am going to copy/paste my thoughts on them thus far.



The overall build quality seems very good. All of the fit and finish is excellent. There is no play in the rotating eyecups or central hinge however, the latter is just a bit looser than I would prefer.

The design is very good as well. My hands fit comfortably around the barrels. The open bridge design gives the impression of a much lighter weight binocular. The eyecups have a very nice multi-click stop mechanism that allows them to be adjusted in very small increments. In addition those increments are nicely labeled on the side of the eyecup so as you twist them out the graduations are revealed. There is also a set of flared eyecups included in the packaging. The rubber armor seems more than sufficient at protecting the binoculars from any type of dents or dings. The diopter adjustment is found by popping out the focusing knob and is also of the click-stop design.

Negatives at this point, and take this with a grain of salt as I am being a bit picky...

- though nowhere near as bad as I have seen mentioned in other posts the focusing knob is a bit stiffer than some of the other binoculars I have owned. I think this is somewhat of a perceived stiffness though if that makes sense. I believe this is the result of two issues. One, the size of the focusing knob and the angle with which my finger comes off the barrel and rests upon it. If the focusing knob was a bit smaller I do not think it would be as much of an effort. Two, the texture of the knob itself. The knob is coated with a series of very small, pointed "nodules". They are by no means uncomfortable and offer very good traction but they give the effect of something rough on the tips of my fingers and this could be contributing to the perception of a less than desirable focusing tension.



- the previously mentioned central hinge tension. I would prefer it a bit stiffer so it is more difficult to collapse.



- the rubber armor has a somewhat unpleasant odor

Ok, I had some time this afternoon to give the 8x42 Razors a bit of an optical examination.



Two BIG THUMBS UP!



Outstanding in every regard I can think to comment on.



Field of View:


Exceptional, class leading, superb...are just a few words that come to mind. At 410 feet they pretty much equal my Meopta Meostars and better the Zeiss FLs by 5 feet.



Edge Sharpness:



Same set of adjectives. The edge sharpness is a bit better than both the Meopta and the Leica Trinovid I currently have in my possession. I would say it is roughly equal to that of the new Swaro SLCs and ELs and just a hair less than that of the Nikon Premier/Venturer/HGs.



Color representation:

Very neutral and very similar to the Leica Trinovids in their vividness of colors.



Brightness:

Excellent brightness levels. I have yet to check it in low light conditions but I have a difficult time believing it is going to disappoint.



Color Fringing:

I was unable to detect color fringing against several high contrast objects including a crow against a blue sky and the highly reflective top of one of my bird feeders. I can pick up slight color fringing in both cases, especially around the edges, on both the Trinovid and the Meopta but not the Razor. Vortex advertises this binocular as having extra low dispersion glass and it shows.



Apparent sharpness:

With very neutral color represenation this binocular displays very sharp images and a nice sweet spot of focus from very good depth of field.



I really do not have anything negative to say about this binocular's optics. In fact, this might be, arguably, the nicest image I have had the privelege to look at from a premium roof prism binocular. There isn't any annoying levels of astigmatism or edge distortion, no "almost artificial" color representation and definitely a very low level of color fringing.



In my opinion this binocular isn't a Swarovski EL knockoff. It is a direct competitor. For all of you folks that trust my fairly limited experience I would suggest trying these binoculars out. I think many of you will be genuinely surprised at what $700 will get you.

Frank:

Nice review. Thank you.

I have the Vortx Viper 10X42, and am very happy with them.

Lew

Sounds good. I found a few 8x30s I was interested in (but settled for something a bit less), but this is the first candidate for 10x42 in the somewhat affordable range.

I am glad you two enjoyed it. I was thoroughly enthused after trying this bin and it isn't just the usual "new bin excitement". These are really nice binoculars that I think compare directly to the big three at what amounts to half the price or less. I do wish I had an 8x42 FL, EL or Ultravid on hand to compare. All I can say is that they seem to offer the best of both the Meoptas and the Trinovids that I do have on hand without either of the negatives.

On a side note, I was able to detect some chromatic abberation late this afternoon. When scanning tree branches at sunset I picked up the slightest tinge of secondary color (almost maroon/red in this case) around the outer 1/3rd of the image. The width of the color band was particularly narrow and I did have to search hard to pick it up. No color fringing was noticeable for the center 2/3rds of the field of view.

FrankD said:

In my opinion this binocular isn't a Swarovski EL knockoff. It is a direct competitor.

Click to expand...

OK Frank, how much are they paying you? Just kidding. Seriously though, this is a strong claim, and not one anyone has thus far been willing to make about roof prisms in this price range, so I hope your review stimulates others to evaluate these. These are interesting binos, not so much for their double-hinge design as for their excellent FOV and eye-relief specs in an 8x. For me, it is easy to believe that a Japanese or Chinese made roof in this price range could be as good as the top Euro brands. After all, it wasn't so many years ago that the top roofs, whether European or Japanese (Nikon, Bausch & Lomb), could be purchased for around $800. Since then, the Euro-made stuff has almost doubled in price with little change in quality/design (and for reasons only indirectly related to quality/design) whereas roofs in general, that is mid-priced roofs, that is Japanese and Chinese roofs, have improved in quality for a given price. That said, though I believe it might be possible for a $700 roof to be as or nearly as good as the high-end/priced roofs, so far it hasn't happened, so I'd like to hear more about the Vortex Razor (and any other branded models with the same optics).
--AP

Frank,

On a scale of 1-10, how would you compare the Razors with the Elites? If you can, please rate the optics separately from non optic features. By the way, do you know if the focus on the sample you have was improved. Last year there were quite a few complaints about this feature of the Razors. Thanks.

Just went to a local gun/knife show over the weekend. There was a vendor exclusively selling Vortex. He told me Vortex/Eagle Optics are the same company.. Is it true? I am trying to figure out why they have two distinct brands. Also, the vendor told me Audobon is just a rebadged eagle optics binoculars, which is in turn contract manufactured in far east. hmm.. those complicated relationship just made me dizzy. :stuck:

Sheltered Wings is a company that make the brands Eagle Optics, Vortex, and the Audubon binoculars. They have different brands probably for horizontal expansion (bigger market share).

eetundra said:

Sheltered Wings is a company that make the brands Eagle Optics, Vortex, and the Audubon binoculars. They have different brands probably for horizontal expansion (bigger market share).

Click to expand...

Thanks for the information.. I guess sheltered wings market those 3 brands for different demographic groups and geographic locations..

eetundra said:

Sheltered Wings is a company that make the brands Eagle Optics, Vortex, and the Audubon binoculars. They have different brands probably for horizontal expansion (bigger market share).

Click to expand...

Just saw this one..

http://www.wisconsin.bbb.org/commonreport.html?bid=32001423, so Sheltered Wings a.k.a Eagle Optics according to BBB

It is all marketing. Some Vortex names appeal to hunters, but then they stuck the Stokes names under Vortex also. All this seems to point out that you can market even small numbers to even smaller market groups.

Cameraland New York is selling SHOT Show demos for under $500.00 shipped in the U.S.

Doug offers the absolute best prices and customer service, and they only deal in USA warrantied goods (No grey market).

Here's a link for anyone interested:

http://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/771728/an/0/page/0#771728

OK Frank, how much are they paying you?

Click to expand...

Alexis,

I was wondering if someone was going to say that. I know my comments do sound fairly promotional but I have a difficult time describing the bins in question without displaying some enthusiasm. In truth I had much the same reservations about buying them that most of the rest of you do.

"What type of resale value would a pair of no-name Vortex binoculars have should I decide to sell them a few months down the road?"

"What if they don't measure up and I have to go through the hassle of sending them back and waiting for the money to be credited to my account."

"I am sure to find something I do not like about them because I am a bit pickier than other folks in terms of what I prefer in a binocular."

These are the thoughts that were going through my head prior to the purchase. I do tend to agree with your comments. It really was just a matter of time before a Japanese or Chinese made binocular (exclude Nikon for now) was developed with exceptional optical performance for a very reasonable price.

The one area where these might fall a bit short of the ultra-high end bins (FLs, Ultravids, ELs) is in the brightness level. The perceived level of brightness in these bins is very good. I think they are directly comparable to the Meoptas (though the Meoptas might be a hair better in low light conditions). If I remember correctly the Meoptas had a tested light transmission rate of around 86% and change. The Swaro ELs and Ultravids were right around that same percentage while the Trinovids were around 82%. If I had to hazard a guess I would think these would fall between the Trinovids and the Ultravids in terms of brightness mostly because of the silver coated prisms.

The close focus is also good but not exceptional at about 9 feet. I know you enjoy closer focusing binoculars so in that regard this bin may not meet all your needs but I would love to see you give one a try and then hear your impressions on it. In fact, I would love to hear from some of our other "residents" if they were up to giving these a try.

ehrodz,

I do not think I am exagerating at all when I say that the Razors are a serious step up from the Elites optically. Please do not take that as I am downplaying the quality of the Elites. I like the Elites both optically, mechanically and especially cosmetically. My only real complaint with them is that the image appeared a bit "soft" in some instances. I think they would sell much better if they sold for about 2/3rds of what they are currently priced at. It would be interesting to see how Bushnell's new "open hinge" $400 binocular performs.

To answer your questions....


Overall Build Quality:

Very good for both models. Each has one or two small traits that I think could be improved upon.

Design:

Excellent in both cases. The Elites could be a hair longer physically to accomodate better hand positioning but the shorter length does make them more compact overall. I think the Razor has more little "additional touches" like the incremental click stop eyecup and diopter adjustments that are much more function.

Optics:

I think this is where the Razor is ahead of the Elite noticeably. The Razor's image appears much sharper with possibly better depth of field (cannot say for sure as I do not have an Elite on hand to compare but the Razor's is very good). Contrast is very good on the Elites but excellent on the Razors. Color representation appears more neutral on the Razors and the level of edge distortion is also lower on the Razors.

As for the focusing, as I mentioned in my original post, the focusing is a little stiffer than my Meoptas for example but not difficult by any stretch of the imagination. I believe this is not so much the result of the focusing tension so much as the size and texture of the focusing knob. I do not think this is a sticking point for buying these bins any longer. Whatever they did to rework the focusing mechanism must have worked.

Buster,

Yes, the secret is out. I purchased mine from Doug for that price. I had them the next day without paying shipping.

Frank, could you please measure the distance between the two bridges/hinges? I want to buy a pair for a biologist in Brazil, and the guy has the largest hands i've ever seen.
There is one more "ring of fire" that the Razor has to pass through: performance under difficult light, such as viewing birds in shade against sunset or sunrise light. I remember counting songbirds at sunrise in the desert with a ClassicC T*P*. I missed half of the birds because the binoculars blacked out in the lower half of the field of view when looking at the base of sand dunes against the low sun. Needless to say, they went on the back seat and i used a Nikon 10x35. Any comments on reflexions and stray light in those Razors? I bet that Vortex can redesign that focus knob and make it 3 mm larger and put some deeper grooves into it.

I assume the eyecups are 40 mm?

Luca,

The distance from the edge of one hinge to the other is approximately 2.25 inches. The diameter of the eyecups is 38 mm.

As for how it handles reflections, I did notice a bit of flare, in comparison to the Meopta, when looking down a hallway with the lightbulb about 8 feet away and at an aproximate 45 degree angle. It wasn't enough to destroy the lower half of the image but I did notice it more so in the Razors than in the Meoptas. I was thinking of looking to see how far in the objective lenses were inset into the barrels but didn't do it at the time.

Seriously though, this is a strong claim, and not one anyone has thus far been willing to make about roof prisms in this price range, so I hope your review stimulates others to evaluate these.

Click to expand...

Alexis,

I forgot that I wanted to comment on this. I found one other review so far of these bins that mirrors my own. The user's name is "Rifle Dude" from over on opticstalk and here were his comments on the Vipers from a few months ago....

recently purchased a Vortex Razor 8 X 42. To say I'm pleased with it is a huge understatement! I also own a Kahles 10 X 42 and Leica Trinovid 8 X 50. I realize that reviews of optics are highly subjective, but I can honestly say that judging by my samples of each binocular, the Vortex Razor's optics is SIGNIFICANTLY superior to the Kahles, and fully the equal of the Leica to my eyes! Yet, at ~ $700 retail, it's about half the price of the Leica! The image quality is exceptionally sharp and high-definition, with vibrant colors, slightly more neutral color rendition than the Leica, and yet, it's every bit as bright as the Leica, despite the exit pupil disadvantage. Field of view is an enormous 410' @ 1000 yds, and depth of field is expansive, pretty much on par with the Leica. I noticed a slight loss of image sharpness at the extreme edges of the field and only a slight spherical aberration, but in both cases, no more so than the Leica. I noticed no discernable chromatic aberration, even when looking at high contrast images in bright sunlight. I've had plenty of time to do extensive head-to-head comparisons between the Razor and the Trinovid in all light conditions, looking at small distant details like signs, and I was able to resolve text at the same maximum distances with either binocular. I've had both out on recent hunts, scanning the woods early in the morning and late in the afternoon, looking at deer and birds. I honestly can't say conclusively which binocular is optically superior to the other, which says a lot for the exceptional value of the Razor. Basically, if you like the balance and feel of the Swaro EL, you'll like the same characteristics of the Razor, as it's a very similar design, with similar weight and physical size. The only negative I can find with the Razor is the focus adjustment is a little stiff, but Vortex told me they've smoothed up the adjustment on the later Razors. The Razor also features an unconditional lifetime warranty. I've emailed their people on several occasions prior to purchase, and they've been very responsive, friendly, and patient in answering my many questions. They seem to be totally committed to good customer service. In short, although I've never seen any of their other products, I can highly recommend the Vortex Razor binocular. Though the Kahles is a good binocular, I thought it was the best value going until I picked up the Razor. I know it isn't an entirely fair comparison to compare a 10 X 42 glass with an 8 X 42, but again, the Razor's optics were MUCH brighter and sharper! It is honestly the best sub-$1000 binocular I've seen at any price. I can't say how it stacks up against the Leica Ultravid / Swarovski EL / Zeiss FL / Nikon LXL class binos, as I've only looked through these briefly in stores, but I'd put the Razor up against anything in terms of "performance : price" ratio, and I honestly can't see how the flagship glass from the "big 3" could possibly be significantly better. I'd venture to say the Leica Trinovid can't be too far behind these alpha class bins in performance, and the Razor is every bit as good as the Trinovid, maybe slightly better IMO! I have absolutely nothing to gain by saying this; I was just so pleased with my purchase, I thought others should know about the exceptional value these binoculars represent.

Click to expand...

I just wanted to add a bit to this thread as my experience with the Razors continues. These bins exhibit noticeable curvature of field around the outer 1/4 of the image. I am able to bring the outer area into focus with a little adjustment of the focus knob. This effect is predominantly noticeable when panning.

In addition, I mentioned something in one of the Razor threads about the size of the bins' apparent field of view. It continues to be my impression that the Meoptas with paper specs to match the Razors exhibit a larger apparent field of view effect and I am not exactly sure why. I haven't pulled out the tape measure to check to see if both bins actually offer the same field of view at a given distance but I am inclined to. If anyone has any thoughts on why I am left with this impression I would appreciate hearing them.

Thank you.

Frank,

Put an eyepiece from Meopta to one eye and an eyepiece from the Vortex to the other. With a little manipulation you should be able to bring the two fields together side by side which will show you which has the larger apparent field. Field width specs are often wrong.

Henry

wow, cool test, will try with some pairs

I tried it with a 8x40 porro and a 8x32 roof, had to hold the porro vertically
Had no yard stick, but the claimed 429ft and 393ft fov turned out to be virtually the same, as far as I am concerned.