8545 versus 8x42 ED2
I can't claim any of this is scientific, but here goes:
Physical characteristics: Despite the wider barrel on the 8545 and larger objective, the ED2 feels heavier, but not by a lot. The moulding of the rubber armouring is also finer - less like the 'croc skin' look of the ED1. The increased armouring density covers more of the barrel on the ED2 (from the inside to level with the edge of the thumb indents on the base, and to the logo on the top). It also feels slightly more protective than on the original.
The 8545 glass has a blueish tint at both objective and eyepiece; the ED2 is greenish, but the significance of this is lost on me.
The ED2 has a more cylindrical feel in the hand than the ED1; perhaps the 45mm objective is responsible for a more conical feel.
I can comfortably fit three fingers between the hinges on both models, and -being used to Vanguard's aggressive focus - i operate the focus wheel by using the nail of the index finger between the stipples.
At the eye, the weight of the ED2 is no problem - in fact, there is something comforting in its solidity.
Views I printed out a JPEG of a test chart and a separate sheet with a large circle on it, and viewed them from a distance of about 20ft. The sky was uniformly grey, but fairly bright - this is my 'perfect condition' for picking out CA problems, particularly using dark roofs etc.
The black-on-white barring of the chart almost pulsed when viewed through the ED1, which was a surprise. The ED2 didn't present this at all. The circle remained a circle at the periphery of vision (360 degrees) for both models, and a test against an aerial at edge of focus produced no pin cushion in either. I could make neither perform 'rolling ball' when panning left to right fairly quickly.
So now to the big differences. I can make almost any bin produce some CA, only failing on a Zeiss Victory HT 8x42. This, i have accepted, is something to do with me. In these conditions, i could get CA on the longitudinal plane quite easily on the 8545, but really had to work at it with the ED2, and this even then was a much, much narrower band, and right at the edge of vision.
Colour contrast and resolution was much more intense on the ED2; when i bought it, i (perhaps strangely, but there was a logic) compared it not only with my old ED, but also with a Zeiss Victory, Swaro SLC, a Vortex Diamondback and a Victory FL. While there's something unique about the Victory HT, i thought the ED2 was up there with the Alphas in these two regards, and still think so.
The field is much flatter than the original ED, and the in-focus zone much wider and clearer on the ED2.
However, the depth of focus is something i wasn't expecting. While using a nearby chimney pot as the focus, the top branches of a garden tree behind it was slightly out of focus on the 8545. With the ED2, not only the branches remained in focus, but also the top of a tree much, much further back on the water meadows behind the house.
I should add that on a quick walk earlier in the week along the River Waveney, i tested the half-light gathering by looking under some overhanging foliage, to reveal - in perfect detail - a morehen's head. I tested this against the naked eye, and wouldn't have seen it at all.
Like Typo, plastic connectors make me slightly nervious on lanyards; a suggestion is to wrap 20mm wide Velcro strips through the gaps above and below the two connectors. If you're never intending to take them off, cable ties work well too.
This has been a fairly quick and relatively non-technical overview, but all i can say at this stage is that the ED2 8 x 42 is one hell of a good set of optics for £399. I would also suggest a big 'hats off' to Vanguard to paying attention to what customers were saying about the original Endeavor: that the CA issue was holding back a really good product. They seem to have done this, but gone further, with improved clarity, brightness, colour contrast, resolution, a wider sweet-spot which seems to go almost 3/4 of the way to the edge, better 'focal depth' and a flat field, with no pin cushion i could see, and no rolling ball. They've got the balance just about right with these.
Some may find the FOV restrictive, but i don't, as i've experienced more problems with wider views than i have with a well-controlled narrow one.
I'm also a fan of fast focus. It took a short while to get used to it at first, but i find going back to more forgiving gearing equally difficult now.
Tomorrow - no more test charts, black-tiled roofs, aerials and trees: I'm going birding with them!
