• 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.

Best Binoculars of 2013: The Cornell Lab Review (2 Viewers)

[email protected] said:
I agree. The ergo's of an EL roof are just better than an SE porro. I just enjoyed using my Swarovision more than the EII. I think for most people a roof has better ergos.
Click to expand...

I had a a similar experience at a lower price level this weekend.
I was comparing Vortex Diamondback 8x42s at $240 (at a brick-n-mortar store)
with some Pentax 8x40 porros they had for $90. Contrast is a special thing
for me. The Diamondbacks were very nice, but the view and the contrast
depth was intense on the Pentax. The sharpness was on par and the 3D
effect was stronger on the porros, although that's a given with the spacing.
There are a lot bigger, of course. I wonder if the price-multiplier holds
over most of the range. That raises a question....would the very top-end
be better in a porro? And....what if the Nikon 8x32 Premiere were entered
into the Cornell competition?
 
Last edited:
OPTIC_NUT said:
I had a a similar experience at a lower price level this weekend.
I was comparing Vortex Diamondback 8x42s at $240 (at a brick-n-mortar store)
with some Pentax 8x40 porros they had for $90. Contrast is a special thing
for me. The Diamondbacks were very nice, but the view and the contrast
depth was intense on the Pentax. The sharpness was on par and the 3D
effect was stronger on the porros, although that's a given with the spacing.
There are a lot bigger, of course. I wonder if the price-multiplier holds
over most of the range. That raises a question....would the very top-end
be better in a porro? And....what if the Nikon 8x32 Premiere were entered
into the Cornell competition?
Click to expand...
No. HaHa! The porro's like the Nikon SE are the best value at their price point but because they are not being updated due to lack of interest and sales in my opinion the top roofs have surpassed them. I sold my Nikon 8x32 SE and my Nikon 8x30 EII because I honestly prefer the optics and ergos on my Swarovision 8x32. Just like Allbinos ranking the Nikon SE would be in top 5 or so because it is good OPTICALLY but not the best anymore. The top roofs have everything including great optics, superior ergos, tougher, waterproof and dustproof and fogproof. Trouble is they are expensive. But the price is coming down for really superior roofs. If I was going to spend $600.00 for a Nikon 8x32 SE I would seriously look at the $600 to $1000 roofs because I think you are going to find them optically equal to the SE and better for all around use. I just bought a Zeiss Conquest 8x32 HD Demo for $675.00 and I will bet it will give the SE a run for it's money. If you can afford the $2k for a top alpha like the SV or HT and want only one binocular I don't think you will regret it.
 
But in the end, you would 'bet' that a $675 roof could beat a $700 porro...but you know for sure the $2000 roof beats the $700, if I read correctly. Interesting.
I wouldn't question the ergonomics in any case..

It might be that over $500 things are shifting. Under $500 we have several different
observations. It makes sense; all the compensatory methods add up.
 
eitanaltman said:
So we have come full circle? No more porros for Dennis??!
Click to expand...
I decided I like using the SV for birding more than any of the porro's I have had. I took the EII out the other day after using the SV for awhile and I really noticed for me it just didn't do it for me like the SV does. The SV works better close in and it handles better and I like the view I get through the SV. I bought the Zeiss Conquest 8x32 HD just to see if I like it. I get it Thursday so I will let you know what I think. I am going to try the new Nikon Monarch 7 8x30 also just for fun when they come in. It interests me because of the small size and light weight. I don't expect it to perform with the SV or Zeiss. I still say the SV is hard to beat. BUT I haven't looked through an HT YET!
 
OPTIC_NUT said:
But in the end, you would 'bet' that a $675 roof could beat a $700 porro...but you know for sure the $2000 roof beats the $700, if I read correctly. Interesting.
I wouldn't question the ergonomics in any case..

It might be that over $500 things are shifting. Under $500 we have several different
observations. It makes sense; all the compensatory methods add up.
Click to expand...
I will let you know Thursday when I get the Zeiss Conquest 8x32 what a $900.00 roof is like. I do know this. For me the SV outperforms the SE or EII. The big three are putting all their R&D into roofs so it is logical that the gap is going to widen between the alpha roofs and the porro's. Under $500 porro's rule but you start pushing $1000 and it is debatable which is best and at $2000 roofs rule. When Zeiss comes out with the 8x32 HT I am sure the gap is going to widen more. You know Zeiss is targeting Swarovski and they are going to put their best technology into this thing. The future is exciting just start saving your money because it is going to be expensive to get the best view.
 
I like using the HD 8x32's more but I'm not sure in the 8x32 SE doesn't have a slightly better image. I've decided to keep them so that I have both in my little collection.

The optical differences I can see are that the SE's seem to have a touch more contrast, are certainly warmer, and have sharper edges. The HD's are definitely easier to use and, for me, handle better. If I scored the SE's at 100, the HD's would be 98-99 optically speaking. That I was able to get the HD's shipped for $720 on a one day sale made them a no-brainer. Having them AND the SE's? Priceless.
 
CSG said:
I like using the HD 8x32's more but I'm not sure in the 8x32 SE doesn't have a slightly better image. I've decided to keep them so that I have both in my little collection.

The optical differences I can see are that the SE's seem to have a touch more contrast, are certainly warmer, and have sharper edges. The HD's are definitely easier to use and, for me, handle better. If I scored the SE's at 100, the HD's would be 98-99 optically speaking. That I was able to get the HD's shipped for $720 on a one day sale made them a no-brainer. Having them AND the SE's? Priceless.
Click to expand...
The SE's will have sharper edges than the Zeiss and Nikon's are always warm. Zeiss are always colder but probably have a sharper center.
 
I will let you know Thursday when I get the Zeiss Conquest 8x32 what a $900.00 roof is like. I do know this. For me the SV outperforms the SE or EII. The big three are putting all their R&D into roofs so it is logical that the gap is going to widen between the alpha roofs and the porro's. Under $500 porro's rule but you start pushing $1000 and it is debatable which is best and at $2000 roofs rule. When Zeiss comes out with the 8x32 HT I am sure the gap is going to widen more. You know Zeiss is targeting Swarovski and they are going to put their best technology into this thing. The future is exciting just start saving your money because it is going to be expensive to get the best view.
Click to expand...

That reasoning does explain both our experiences well.

I would wonder about the 'competition', but I read a history of binoculars recently,
and the alpha guys, Zeiss especially, have been competing manically for many decades.
It's quite an achievement for Swarovski to muscle in on the top.
So that makes perfect sense. I assume the advantage of all that would percolate down
through the price-points. I only noticed the performance edge hadn't arrived at $200-300 yet. People love the smaller profile across all prices, of course.

I did notice that while roofs at $250 were a softer focus, they were easier to look
through for 5 minutes. I'm wondering if there are other roof properties that make
them easy on the eyes. The roof binocs in question had very low brightness,
focus roll-off, and field flatness. Does that lower fatigue?
 
Its pointless saying any roof is better or equal to the EII or SE because the porro`s deliver an image no roof can exactly replicate, IMO that is !
 
OPTIC_NUT said:
That reasoning does explain both our experiences well.

I would wonder about the 'competition', but I read a history of binoculars recently,
and the alpha guys, Zeiss especially, have been competing manically for many decades.
It's quite an achievement for Swarovski to muscle in on the top.
So that makes perfect sense. I assume the advantage of all that would percolate down
through the price-points. I only noticed the performance edge hadn't arrived at $200-300 yet. People love the smaller profile across all prices, of course.

I did notice that while roofs at $250 were a softer focus, they were easier to look
through for 5 minutes. I'm wondering if there are other roof properties that make
them easy on the eyes. The roof binocs in question had very low brightness,
focus roll-off, and field flatness. Does that lower fatigue?
Click to expand...
All those features should make the binoculars easier on your eyes. A lot of technology is filtering down to the cheaper binoculars making them easier on the eyes. Of course I have found you usually get what you pay for and the alphas are even more comfortable.
 
Torview said:
Its pointless saying any roof is better or equal to the EII or SE because the porro`s deliver an image no roof can exactly replicate, IMO that is !
Click to expand...
The porro's deliver a DIFFERENT type of image than the roofs. I decided I liked the image of the SV better than the SE or EII. Its just a matter of personal opinion which you prefer. They are both excellent.
 
Last edited:
Given that the ZR Prime HD is said to be very similar to the Leupold McKinley HD, I'm somewhat perplexed by its overall score. I've yet to find anything in the $500-1000 roof market that improves upon the McKinley's optical performance, including the Conquest HD. Ergonomically I could see the Conquest being preferable to some, though.
 
jremmons said:
Given that the ZR Prime HD is said to be very similar to the Leupold McKinley HD, I'm somewhat perplexed by its overall score. I've yet to find anything in the $500-1000 roof market that improves upon the McKinley's optical performance, including the Conquest HD. Ergonomically I could see the Conquest being preferable to some, though.
Click to expand...
I found the Leupold McKinley HD very user unfriendly. That could be the reason.
 
As someone mentioned before, small sample error could be the reason for some of the lower than expected rankings of the less-expensive binoculars, due to less consistent quality control. For example, I bought a Kowa 6x30 from EO this summer, and was disappointed in the quality (poor collimation and an internal alignment issue in one tube). EO replaced it for me and the second example had neither of those problems, and I like it better than the two Yosemite 6x30s I've purchased as gifts.



jremmons said:
Given that the ZR Prime HD is said to be very similar to the Leupold McKinley HD, I'm somewhat perplexed by its overall score. I've yet to find anything in the $500-1000 roof market that improves upon the McKinley's optical performance, including the Conquest HD. Ergonomically I could see the Conquest being preferable to some, though.
Click to expand...
 
paul2013 said:
As someone mentioned before, small sample error could be the reason for some of the lower than expected rankings of the less-expensive binoculars, due to less consistent quality control. For example, I bought a Kowa 6x30 from EO this summer, and was disappointed in the quality (poor collimation and an internal alignment issue in one tube). EO replaced it for me and the second example had neither of those problems, and I like it better than the two Yosemite 6x30s I've purchased as gifts.
Click to expand...
I got the Demo Zeiss Conquest 8x32 HD's from Cameraland and they look almost new. I just have to say I see what all the praise is about. These are superb binoculars especially for the money. I paid $675.00(Shipped). They have to be the bargain of the century. They give up very little to my Swarovision's edge sharpness being the only thing and in some ways they seem a little BETTER! I am not getting rid of the Swaro's yet but these COULD replace them. They are that good. The eyecups are just a little short for the ER so you can't jam your eyes in them. But they are not bad at all. Pretty similar to the Swaro in fact. Case, strap and objective covers and rainguards are very nice. I didn't think I liked the objective covers at first being a one piece affair with an attached removable cord but after using them it actually works pretty good. Maybe it is better than tethered objective covers.
The optics are sensational on the Zeiss. They have a BIG bright sweetspot and they are incredibly sharp on-axis. I don't have the FL's to compare them with but from memory these seem better especially when it comes to contrast. These Zeiss have wonderful contrast. It makes the bird pop out of the bush and gives you an excellent 3D view. The ergonomics are great and these are solidly built GERMAN binoculars with a great feel to them. I agree with Cornell on these. These are the best bargain I have seen. They are really alpha quality for less than $1K. The edges are not bad being better than an FL in my opinion. CA is well corrected also I didn't notice any on-axis and very, very little at the edges. I think like CSG said Zeiss made these TOO good for how much they are charging for them. They are going to cannabilize their Alpha sales once people get wind of just how good these are. I HIGHLY recommend these. If the mid-grade Zeiss is this good I am sure there will be a Zeiss 8x32 HT in my future.
 
Last edited:
As good as one would expect for an 8x32 binocular with modern coatings, glass, and prisms. That's not their forte but I've been quite pleased with how they perform as astronomical binoculars too.

If you're buying bins for early and late in the day, try the HT 8x42's instead.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 11 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

W
Cornell's review of 8x32 compacts under $500
Replies
0
Views
894
winginit
W
Bill Atwood
Cornell Lab sub $600 8x42 review
2
Replies
28
Views
4K
rajas
R
V
  • Poll
Which pair of 8x42 binoculars to buy for around 150 euro?
Replies
5
Views
1K
Vyre12
V
C
Zeiss conquest 8x56 review
Replies
4
Views
325
Craig77
C
M
Rarity of technical binocular reviews
2
Replies
24
Views
3K
agus_m
A

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Back
Top