• 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.

Picking the Right Binocular (mini-reviews) (1 Viewer)

Joe H

Well-known member
United States
I started bird watching this year due to my wife’s life long interest in the sport. As I got more involved I started to suspect that maybe my trusty 30 year old Bushnell 7x35 wide-angle “quik-focus” porros were in need of an upgrade. I bought a pair of Swift HHS 8.5x44 based largely on the internet reviews (especially the one on BetterViewDesired.com). I tried the Swarovski 8.5x42 in a couple of local sporting goods stores (among many others) and found them to be about the best to my eyes. The 8x42 Zeiss Vicory IIs were second choice based primarily on their weight, feel and price - the view to me was every bit as good. Not wanting to spend a fortune on a new hobby (I should have abandoned all hope) I bought the Swifts to bridge the gap until I figured out what I really needed in a primary binocular. I hoped the Swifts were indeed 95% of the Swarovski. They proved to be quite good in terms of view, and excellent in terms of field worthiness (water and fog proof, rugged, light, fairly compact and easy to use, even with one hand). They were my only bins for about four months but they had two noticeable flaws to my eyes. First they did not have a particularly wide Field of View (FOV), 336 feet at 1000 yards, and I beleive this was reduced by my glasses somewhat. Secondly, my pair had a very pronounced difference in focus between the center and the edge of view. I could look at a tree and see the top and bottom in crisp focus, but the middle was fuzzy. If I corrected the focus to get the center of view crisp, the edges were lost and my usable field of view was reduced even more. When panning along a horizon, this was especially noticeable. I also found them to be a bit too large for every day use.

So I started my search for the “perfect binocular.” Interestingly, the process taught me more about myself than binoculars. For instance I never knew my eyes saw in two different magnifications. While very minor, my left eye sees things ever so slightly larger than my right. Also, I learned that my right eye sees a noticeably dimmer view than my left. I’ve always been aware that my left eye had a more “cool” or purple cast, but during this process I’ve come to realize that it is actually neutral and that my right eye sees things with a warmer or slightly orange tint.

I also learned that my glasses have a big impact on how binoculars work for me. The difference in close focus on some binoculars changes by up to a foot when I take off my glasses. Infinity settings and edge curvature also change depending on if I do or don’t use glasses. Since I always use glasses when bird watching, this was an important aspect in selecting bins that worked for my (admittedly bad) eyes with my glasses. I point out all this to emphasize that my impressions may not apply to anyone else - it is always best to look through the exact binocular you plan to buy.

Most importantly I learned a little about bird watching. I learned early on that I could get more IDs by studying a good field guide than by using a nicer set of bins (not that I still didn’t intend to buy better glass). In my admittedly minor experience, most of my birds were “found” by hearing them first, and locating them in my binoculars only after my ears pointed me to them. I got to the point that I could identify a Boreal from a Black-capped Chickadee before I saw them by their calls. I love being in the woods and almost always combine birding with some other sport (bicycling, canoeing, skiing, or hiking). Waterproof and fog proof was an absolute must. I could not cross country ski with my Bushnells inside my coat and use them for more than a few moments before the insides would frost up. If I left them outside my coat, the focus would freeze. I have small hands and short fingers so the size of the binoculars actually made a considerable difference to me. I came to prefer bins with a large field of view, probably because those old Bushnells had a claimed FOV of 578 feet at 1000 yards! They certainly don’t manage that with my glasses, but it is a big, if somewhat fish-eyed view. I’m less likely to spend a lot of time along the shore so 10 power was never a real consideration. I learned that the internet has far more current and detailed information on binoculars than any book or magazine. This excellent site and the one mentioned above were two of the best that I found. Along the way I purchased a pair of the excellent Zeiss 8x20 Victory compacts but my wife adopted them almost immediately (if anyone is interested, I posted a review of these in the “Compromise Binoculars“ thread). I did learn from that process that compacts are perfect when bird watching was secondary to some active sport, but their limitations wouldn’t let me use them as primary optics. So with all that new found knowledge I set out to buy my “last pair of bins.”

I wanted a waterproof, small and light binocular with a large field of view. I was willing to pay for an exceptional view and have a personal preference for European optics. It was actually an easy choice for me; I ended up with the Swarovski 8x32 ELs almost by default. The new Zeiss FL 8x32 was not yet available nor was the Leica Ultravid 8x32. If I had to make my decision today I’m sure far more time pestering the local dealerships would be required!

As it was, my main competition was the Ultravid 8x42 with the leather cover. It’s still waterproof but less protected from nicks and dings. It was the top choice of an Eagle Optics rep I spoke with here in AK (he preferred the 10x model for shore birding), due to its lighter weight than the armored models. The view was excellent but it wasn't any smaller or lighter than my Swift. The Leica Trinovid 8x32 was a serious consideration but it was fairly heavy and didn’t fit my hands that well. I was also a little leery of spending a large sum on dated technology. I’m not sure if that was a fair assessment but I really would have been interested to see an Ultravid in that size (I don’t think they were even rumored to be coming out when I was doing my research) . Since I liked the Swarovski 8.5 EL so well I tried out the smaller 8x32 as soon as one was available here in Anchorage. This was just what I was looking for - the 8.5 version was great but is quite a big set of optics. The field of view on the mid-sized EL is fantastic! It’s billed at 420 feet and even with my glasses I can get a nice clear view of all of it. There is some linear curving at the edges (probably the 8x42 Ultravid or Zeiss Victory II had the least of this distortion to my eyes of any of the various types I tried). The very edges can be out of focus when the center is crisp, but this is almost unnoticeable compared to the Swifts (in this regard, the Victory IIs seemed to have the flattest view, but their FOV was not as wide as the mid-sized Swaros). In terms of light gathering, these things let me view later into dusk than I could with naked eyes. I would put them on par with my Swift 8.5x44s but I have not compared them in the field to other full sized models. In stores, even in dim areas, my eyes could not tell much of a difference in this aspect. For instance, a 10x32 Trinovid, looked very slightly dimmer, but I couldn’t see any difference in brightness between the 8x and the 10x32 Swarovski ELs. The Zeiss Victory II was definitely brighter, but only by a very small margin - not enough for me to sacrifice the lighter weight and great handling of the mid-sized EL. Much has been said about the slow focusing of the 8.5s, but the 8x32s went from six feet to infinity in just shy of one and a half turns.

One thing not often mentioned is the direction of the focus. My Swaro and Zeiss focus in the same direction. My Swift is set up in the opposite direction. Because I had been using the Swift primarily, this caused me to focus in the wrong direction initially when a brief view of a bird presented itself. This is certainly not a big issue I’m sure, but if I was putting together a set of binoculars that I planned to use interchangeably (compact, mid and full sized) I’d try to see that they all focus in the same direction.

Another minor point about the 8x32 ELs that I have not noticed on other binoculars is that the eyepiece lens is not convex, but concaved. This may have something to do with the wide angle view, but an additional advantage is that the eyepiece glass is very easy to clean - right out to the edges.

The overall impression I have is that the 8x32 EL is a great all-around binocular. The build quality is top notch, the handling is superb, and the view is excellent to my eyes. I’ve only had them about four months but they have been used pretty much daily, taken on several planes, stored in an unpressurized cargo hull at 29 thousand feet, bounced around in all manor of vehicles, hiked through some torrential rains - no mechanical problems of any sort to report.

I should point out that I tried many different binoculars during this process. I have no idea how many of them were cherry models or beat up show room demos. All of them were darn good optical systems and all of them would have given me all the view required to identify birds in the field if I had done my homework with the field guides. I believe the 8x32 EL was best for me due to my combination of personal preferences and perception of their view. I’m not saying it was the best binocular though. I think at this price range they are all excellent - it’s up to us to try them out to see which one works best for our needs and our eyes.

I hope this long-winded review will be of some value to anyone else trying to learn enough to confidently spend upwards of a thousand dollars on new binoculars. I would have been much less comfortable in the process if it weren’t for great sites like this to help me out. Thanks!

Joe H
 
Not long-winded at all Joe; an excellent read again IMHO.
Hopefully there will be some rather more incisive comment on your post along soon...

Norm
 
Hi Joe,

Thanks very much for the review.

I've briefly tried the 8x32 EL. They are very nice.

I'm waiting until I can try the Zeiss 8x32 FL. I'm not sure if I'll go with an 8x32 or an 8x42 FL. I've been surprised how easy on the neck the 10x42 FL is compared to my 8.5x42 EL. Maybe the Zeiss strap design has something to do with the comfort. The difference in weight only about 2 oz.

So far, the Zeiss 10x42 FL is just about perfect for my briding needs. I tried it briefly (lots of clouds floating by) last night for looking at the stars. The images were very good. The sweet spot / edge shaprness was not a problem. At first I thought the 10x was a little much to hold steady but when I switched to my 8x5x42EL the stars were dancing just as much but I prefered the view through the the 10x42 FL, at least in that brief trial.

Rich
 
Last edited:
Norm and Rich,

Thanks both for your kind words. I should have mentioned that the type of neck strap has a big influence on the comfort of a binocular. It may be so obvious but it does seem to get lost in comparisons involving fractions of an ounce. I have not considered aftermarket straps as the Swarovski strap is excellent. The Swift strap was good but the wide portion was so long I cloud not shorten it to my preferred length. Had I decided to keep it as my primary bin, I would have needed an alternate strap.

If you haven't seen the site yet, http://www.worldtwitch.com/optics.htm seems to be poised to do some comparative testing between the EL, FL and Ultravid in 8x32. There are some great options available in high end bins and more on the way. Seems like the hardest part is waiting for the big optic companies to get all of the models out on the market.

One thing is certain to me, if your eyes tell you the view through the 10x42 FL (or any other model) is best after some serious testing, be happy and don't worry about the next great innovation.

Joe H
 
Last edited:
Joe H said:
Norm and Rich,

Thanks both for your kind words. I should have mentioned that the type of neck strap has a big influence on the comfort of a binocular. It may be so obvious but it does seem to get lost in comparisons involving fractions of an ounce. I have not considered aftermarket straps as the Swarovski strap is excellent. The Swift strap was good but the wide portion was so long I cloud not shorten it to my preferred length. Had I decided to keep it as my primary bin, I would have needed an alternate strap.

If you haven't seen the site yet, http://www.worldtwitch.com/optics.htm seems to be poised to do some comparative testing between the EL, FL and Ultravid in 8x32. There are some great options available in high end bins and more on the way. Seems like the hardest part is waiting for the big optic companies to get all of the models out on the market.

One thing is certain to me, if your eyes tell you the view through the 10x42 FL (or any other model) is best after some serious testing, be happy and don't worry about the next great innovation.

Joe H


World Twitch? What the heck name is that for a site? Or is it World T Witch?

I don't worry about the next great innovation. But, if something better comes along I don't mind upgrading, if I can.

Rich
 
Last edited:
Good question!

My wife assures me a common nickname for bird watchers is "twicher," (I'm not sure if it is considered polite or not). Thus world twich is the name for a site dedicated to bird watching around the world. The site does have some excellent trip reports from seriously out of the way locations.
 
Joe H said:
Good question!

My wife assures me a common nickname for bird watchers is "twicher," (I'm not sure if it is considered polite or not). Thus world twich is the name for a site dedicated to bird watching around the world. The site does have some excellent trip reports from seriously out of the way locations.

Thanks Joe.

Rich
 
Joe,
Excellent review! Keep up the great writing, it is very much appreciated!
The only part of your posting I took exception to was this:


I’ve only had them about four months but they have been used pretty much daily, taken on several planes, stored in an unpressurized cargo hull at 29 thousand feet, bounced around in all manor of vehicles, hiked through some torrential rains - no mechanical problems of any sort to report.

I personally would NEVER put a pair of my precious binoculars in checked luggage or allow them to bounce around in a vehicle... I care way too much for my expensive optics to treat them that way. Perhaps your binoculars don't mean to you what mine mean to me... but it still seems somewhat abusive to me. I would carry my binoculars onto a plane even if it meant having to check everything else in to the cargo hold, and when riding in vehicles they are ALWAYS around my neck or stowed safely in the back seat in their case, wrapped in my coat.

Not to get on your case or anything - just hoping you will treat them better in the future! ;)

Best wishes,
Bawko
 
Atomic Chicken said:
I personally would NEVER put a pair of my precious binoculars in checked luggage or allow them to bounce around in a vehicle... I care way too much for my expensive optics to treat them that way.

Are you objecting to the storing of binoculars in an unpressurised area, or the throwing around of luggage?

I would never put an expensive item in luggage because it often goes astray and theft of contents by baggage handlers is not uncommon. I believe that police at Hethrow Airport recently uncovered an operation to systematically steal from luggage. For the same reason I never send items of value by uninsured post, since a significant proportion of parcels disappear.
 
Joe H has done a very nice job of making a search for the "right" binocular. One of the obstacles is that few dealers let me leave the store for a look. Two vendors in New York City actually do, but their selection is not that broad. One of them let me walk out without an escort, which truly surprised me, but he got a sale on a Zeiss for the courtesy.
However, I really like to test a glass against the night sky. Looking at stars tests a binocular at its limits. A recent night time comparison of an 8x42 inexpensive binoculars and an 8x40 Zeiss showed the latter's superiority, rather clearly.

Joe H found what he was looking for and perhaps he will agree with me that in the end personal needs and desires may have trumped all among the high end binoculars.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur Pinewood :brains:
 
Last edited:
Just a few quick comments (it's a 50 degree sunny Fall day in Alaska). I must agree with Bawko and will try not to be a regular user of Swarovski's warranty system! The plane was a small government job so baggage theft wasn't an issue; I didn't know the luggage was unpressurized until we were in the air - had I known, I would have brought them in the cabin too. I must say I've never used the hard case that came with the Swaro and probably won't - normally I wrap my bins in a shirt or whatnot and pack it in whatever carry on I have. I do take care not to toss them around needlessly but I don't fret over them either.

One of the great things about mid sized bins is that they'll fit in the glove box of a car and mine often do. If I'm on a dirt road (still quite a few unpaved roads up here) I usually put them on the passenger's seat. I do keep the lens covers in place in case a quick stop should send them flying, but this hasn't happened yet. The rubber armor seems to grip seat coverings quite well. My old Bushnells put up with similar use for about 30 years and true enough, something is loose in the right side (but they still seem to work about the same). The Swaros are built quite a bit more robustly than the Bushnells so I suspect they'll hold up much better.

Arthur, you are so right. I'm so darn satisfied with these bins that I don't immediately run over to the optics section of every sporting or outdoor shop I visit anymore. There is a nice family owned store here in town (Mountain View Sporting Goods) that has a great selection, very good prices, and they regularly suggest to optics customers to take them outside for more looks - amazing really. Their price for the 8x32 was competitive with the internet and their patience and service got them my sale. My wife will get a set of the new FL 8x32s from the same shop for the same reason. Thanks all for the feedback.
 
Joe H said:
My wife will get a set of the new FL 8x32s from the same shop for the same reason. Thanks all for the feedback.

Joe,

Can you inform us of why your wife is interested in the 8x32 FL?

As far as I can ascertain, in the UK, among those who do not watch birds, "twitcher" is fairly derogatory, often used for rude bird watchers, who trespass and make nuisances of themselves. Among bird watchers it seems to mean those who are obsessed with adding birds, especialy rarely seen species, to their life lists.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur Pinewood :egghead:
 
Last edited:
You guys who are still using neck straps need to make the switch to bino suspenders. I use Crooked Horn Outfitters model, but most every optics company makes a similar model with their logo on it. They all seem to go for around $20.00 and they all seem to be of about the same general quality. Once you use a suspender system you will never use a neckstrap again. All the weight is distributed across your shoulders rather then your neck.

ranburr
 
Arthur,

Thanks for the information on the phrase, "Twitcher." Here in Alaska I've only heard one or two people use it, usually in jest, and usually when they were making fun of me for adding another bird to my list. Your second description seems to fit most closely to the local use up here.

As for my wife's choice of the 8x32 FL, she's been birding all her life. Her parents are so good at bird identification (at least in Australia, where they live) it's downright spooky. They've always used high-end Zeiss binoculars so my wife has a personal preference for the brand for that reason. She's been using the Zeiss 8x20 Victory as her primary bins but concedes my 8x32 Swarovskis are better all-around bins. She prefers smaller binoculars so I suspect the 8x32 is the largest I could get her to carry on a regular basis.

So in short, I steered her to that model based on her brand preference, her desire for a smaller bin, and because I know she likes a wide field of view. Of course, it helped that she was happy with the look of the new FLs. Looks may not be a significant factor to the true gear heads who study the spec sheets, but it matters to her and I'm happy to invest in up-to-date technology I know she'll enjoy. Of course we'll spend some time squinting through a pair once they get in the stores up here, but I'm fairly sure Zeiss will have a worthy addition to the current crop of top-end 8x32s. I hope that helps.

Joe
 
Joe,

If it isn't too much trouble, could you kindly post a review of your comparison of your Swarovski 8X32 EL and your wife's new Zeiss FL 8x32 once you buy them for her? I'm sure I'm not the only curious one here... ;)

Thanks in advance,
Bawko
 
Bawko,

I'll be happy to. We're probably going to wait until Christmas (or until the FL and Ultarvid 8x32s hit the stores here), and there is the remote possibility that my wife may decide the view through the Leica is better. Whatever the case, I'll certainly share our impression after we have them long enough to make an impartial assessment. I doubt I'll be so bold as to proclaim one or the other "best," but I'll tell you which one we liked best in the various categories: view, handling, build quality. Take care.

Joe
 
Warning! This thread is more than 20 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.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top