• 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.

Hawke Frontier ED 8x36: another 36mm Chinese ED (1 Viewer)

IMO the view through the 8 x 43 is more comfortable and (outweighs) the size and weight disadvantage over the smaller Hawke and Zen Ray. I have decided to keep them.

Hawke Frontier ED 8 x 36 and Zen Ray 7 x 36 ED2 will shortly be for sale.


Great review. Are you saying 8x43 is better than 7x36 ED2? I have a 10x43 ED2 in order. Not sure what to expect when put them side by side.
 
Anyone care to update this thread?

Particularly keen on hearing how any 8x36 users are getting on with these glasses in the field and how they might compare to the larger 8x42 model.

Please no comments about the Zen models, I'm only interested in hearing about the Hawkes!!

Matt

Good question, having just bought another pair of 10 x 43's today I am now deciding whether to go for another 8 x 43 or the 8 x 36.
 
I've not seen these mentioned here.

HA3770/74 8x36

FOV 459 feet at 1000yards (i.e. 8.6 degrees) or 140m @ 1km (i.e. 8.0 degrees if I got the math right). Clearly one of these is wrong. My guess is the latter is correct.


Agree that one is clearly wrong. I was curious as to how the discrepancy might have arisen, so I crunched some numbers.

Suppose, as Kevin suggests, the latter - 140m@1km(=1000m) - is correct. If we were to convert 140m to feet we get 459 feet. But what Hawke appear to have failed to do is convert 1km (or 1000m as is more usual) to yards. So they are effectively giving 459 feet @ 1000 m when they should be giving 420 feet @ 1000 yards.

Alternatively, if they started with imperial measurements and converted badly to metric, then if 459 feet @ 1000 yards is correct, the metric equivalent should be not 140m @ 1000m but 153m @ 1000m.

I have no idea which of these is correct. Though I'd be inclined to go with Kevin on this. Edit Denniswaugh's evidence confirms this.

PS Great review Dennis. You are a better writer than you give yourself credit for!. Good comments Kevin, especially re the "blueness" of the ZR.
 
Last edited:
This seems to be a common error ... see the new Celestron 8x30 thread where they commit the same error but at least in that case they give an FOV in degrees (so there are two sets of numbers for one outcome and only one for the other).

The other thing to keep in mind is "what unit set does the company prefer?". In this case that heuristic would suggest the metric numbers are right (they're in the UK) unlike say Celestron where the US still uses imperial units.

Why everyone doesn't specify FOV in degrees is a mystery especially as the designers will have that number ;)

That said it says 420 feet on the bin (that could be wrong but it usually takes a marketer out of the loop!). See Dennis Waugh's photo

http://www.birdforum.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=224609&d=1256028971

So the real number is most likely 420 feet @ 1000 yards: that's roughly arctan(420 / 3000) = 7.96961039 degrees.

And I see Hawke have flashified their web site (so all the usual info disappears from Google!).

http://www.hawkeoptics.com/us/binoculars/frontier_ed/index.php
 
Anyone care to update this thread?

Particularly keen on hearing how any 8x36 users are getting on with these glasses in the field and how they might compare to the larger 8x42 model.

Please no comments about the Zen models, I'm only interested in hearing about the Hawkes!!

Matt

Matt,

I received my 8x36 last night and have had an hour to play with them in the garden this morning (wet and dull), comparing them to my Nikon Sporter 8x36's and SLC 10x42's.

My initial thoughts are that there are a very nice pair of bins and excellent value for money. The image and ergonomics are excellent, they are very comfortable to hold and the image falls only slightly short of the SLC's.

Brightness:

Nikon < Hawke < SLC

Hawke much brighter than the nikon and falls only slightly short of the SLC

Edge sharpness:

Hawke < Nikon < SLC

I was expecting more from the Hawkes than this, but it be should noted that the Hawkes have a much better field of view (140m) compared to the Nikon (122m) and edge sharpness only drops off in the bit you don't get in the nikons (if you know what I mean!).

Centre sharpness

Nikon < Hawke < SLC,

Like brightness, Hawke significantly better than Nikon and only slightly short of SLC.

CA - simply looking at roof edges against bright(ish) sky,

Nikon < SLC < Hawke

Hawke showed very little CA at all, much less than the SLC which only show a little off centre. It is a dull day though and probably not the best test of CA.

Field of view

SLC < Nikon < Hawke

No surprises.

Ergonomics

Nikon < SLC < Hawke

I love the weight and feel of my SLC's, they feel solid and sit in the hands very well. However, I think that the Hawkes edge this slightly; they don't have that 'solid' feel but are just a little more comfortable in the hand and lighter. I get the feeling they will be much more comfortable to hold over long periods. The eye cups are also very comfortable - not quite as good as the SLC's, but they have a half-way stop position which is perfect for my eyes and they seem to stay in place well.

Eye relief

SLC < Hawke < Nikon.

The nikons have massive eye relief - I don't know what the figures are but they are the only binoculars that I have ever tried (and I've tried out most at the Birdfair) that I need the eye cups twisted all the way out.

Focus mechanism

Hawke < Nikon < SLC

The focus on the Hawkes is the slowest of the three, and it has the most play, possibly 2mm of turn before it starts focussing. I think that this would hardly notice if it wasn't for the fact that the Nikons and SLC's are so direct and positive. It is very smooth when turned slowly, but when focussing very quickly there is a slight roughness to the mechanism.

Accessories

The only disappointing thing about the Hawkes are the accessories. Nothing really fits together properly - objective covers too loose (they'll get lost in the field), eye pice covers too tight (a fiddle to get them off in a hurry), neck strap too long (I'm 5'10 - not that short - I've got it as short as possible and they still sit just above my stomach). Even the case, which I think is an excellent design is too small to use with the eye-cups in the 'half-up' position and there is no chance of getting the strap in.



Image-wise, the Hawkes knock the socks of the Nikon sporters, but I guess that's to be expected, the nikons are an old design and can be had for about £70 at the moment. They come very close the the SLC's in each category (better for CA) but some how those little differences do add about to a noticeably different overall image. When I look through the Hawkes I get a very very good, very pleasing image, through the SLC's there's all that plus a little bit of wow!

If I didn't already have the SLC's, the Hawkes would be more than adequate, I certainly wouldn't shell out the extra £800 or so needed for them. But as I already have a pair the SLC's are still my faves - the Hawkes won't replace them but make a very nice addition. The nikons get relegated to the boot of the car and for use by the missus!

Overall -

Likes; Image, field of view, lack of CA, ergonomics - actually everything about the unit itself

Dislikes; The accessories - shame really, my guess is that generic designs are used to keep costs as low as possible.

Bear in mind that I have only had an hour or so to play with these so my opinions may change with time - hoping to have a full day with them tomorrow. Also, I'm not an optics guru in any way - this is my first real review on a forum - and my opinions are purely subjective but hopefully they are (reasonably) useful to someone.
 
Matt,

I received my 8x36 last night and have had an hour to play with them in the garden this morning (wet and dull), comparing them to my Nikon Sporter 8x36's and SLC 10x42's.

My initial thoughts are that there are a very nice pair of bins and excellent value for money. The image and ergonomics are excellent, they are very comfortable to hold and the image falls only slightly short of the SLC's.

Thanks for this, Perry Grin!!

I've only handled a couple of pairs and still undecided, like you I also noticed the slow focus and as I've taken to birding woodland lately it would become quite bothersome...probably not such an issue at long range viewing.

Did you note a different in depth of focus between your SLC and Hawke, ie how much fine focusing is needed to keep the image at optimal sharpness?

Matt
 
Did you note a different in depth of focus between your SLC and Hawke, ie how much fine focusing is needed to keep the image at optimal sharpness?

Matt

The depth of field seems slightly better on the Hawkes but I've not noticed a huge difference between the two. Though I do tend to use the focus quite a lot anyway, rocking back and forth hunting for best focus! From what I understand, the SLC's have a pretty good FOV as far as 10x go. So far I've only been using them to view birds at the bottom of the garden on feeders, I'll have a better feel for these things when I take them out for the day and use them in anger - hopefully tomorrow.

I'll post how I get on later.

Perry
 
Matt,

A quick update on depth of field - the Hawke seems to be very good, only minimal focussing was needed to keep the image in optimal focus when panning around looking at finches.

I am very happy with my purchase so far!

Perry
 
Great review. Are you saying 8x43 is better than 7x36 ED2? I have a 10x43 ED2 in order. Not sure what to expect when put them side by side.

Since I posted the review, I now own a "revised" 7x36 ED2 and a pair of Nikon HGL 8x32

For me the "revised" 7 x 36 are much better than the first model regarding the issue of glare.

Central resolution is excellent and hardly any noticable CA. The only issue I have with this and the other Chinese ED bins I own is the size of the sweet spot.

For me the Nikon offers a better compromise in this area, being almost sharp to the edge. The Nikon is not quite as sharp in the center and CA is slightly more noticable but overall I can live with it.

The 7 x 36 has a very wide FOV but I personally dislike the fall off and distortion towards the edge of the field.

I still prefer the view through the Hawke 8x43 over the 7x36.

I have ordered a pair of ZenRay 10x43 ED2 and will comment when they arrive.
 
Both my ZEN 8x43 ED1 and 7x36 ED2 have about 80% sweet spot to the edge. But with much larger FOV of 7x, the image snaps in focus much easier. I also notice the depth of field is better with 7x. Not sure if it is because of 36mm or lower magnification, or both?

Do you get a chance to compare the Hawke 8x36 and "revised" 7x36 ED2? I have the first batch of 7x36 ED2 and really like it. Curious if I can really tell the difference.
 
So the real number is most likely 420 feet @ 1000 yards: that's roughly arctan(420 / 3000) = 7.96961039 degrees.
I'm way out of my depth here, but shouldn't it be:
2*arctan(210/3000) = 8.00834588 degrees?
Not that this degree of implied accuracy is appropriate.
Just noticed - you did say "roughly". You are clearly ahead of me.
I leave this post just in case anyone else is interested in the maths.
I daresay the "small-angle approximation" is appropriate,
making things much simpler:
(360/2pi)*(420/3000) = 8.0214... degrees
 
Last edited:
I'm way out of my depth here, but shouldn't it be:
2*arctan(210/3000) = 8.00834588 degrees?
Not that this degree of implied accuracy is appropriate.
Just noticed - you did say "roughly". You are clearly ahead of me.
I leave this post just in case anyone else is interested in the maths.
I daresay the "small-angle approximation" is appropriate,
making things much simpler:
(360/2pi)*(420/3000) = 8.0214... degrees

You are right (half the field then double the result so you really get two right angled triangles) is the correct way to get an accurate results.

My method was just a quick approximate method that works OK at smallish angles so I could put the numbers directly into Google Calculator to copy and paste the results here. Hence the excessive precision too.

The difference in the results is under 1% so I think its worth the trade off.

The main issue here was just to get the ball park to within a few percent which is as good as we need for bins!
 
My method was just a quick approximate method that works OK at smallish angles so I could put the numbers directly into Google Calculator to copy and paste the results here. Hence the excessive precision too.

The difference in the results is under 1% so I think its worth the trade off.

The main issue here was just to get the ball park to within a few percent which is as good as we need for bins!
I suspect we could both agree to settle at 8 degrees ;)

I learned something from all this; I hadn't realised Google would do trig functions. I hadn't even realised Google would recognise "pi". Clever stuff.
 
I suspect we could both agree to settle at 8 degrees ;)

I learned something from all this; I hadn't realised Google would do trig functions. I hadn't even realised Google would recognise "pi". Clever stuff.

That's handy to know. I've been reading this and other fov related threads and wondering where my scientific calculator is. Haven't used it for about 5 years. NMaybe I don't need it after all.
 
FYI, google units conversion also helps a lot ... but it can't do it in the middle of some arithmetic.

e.g. try a search for

arctan(420/3000)

and you get the result in radians

arctan(420/3000) in degrees

gives you the result convert to degrees.

Google can do all sort of unit conversions which is handy when talking about different units on this forum.

try

420 feet in meters

or

1000 yards in furlongs

the latter is "1000 yards = 4.54545455 furlongs" ;)
 
Oh, Wolfram alpha does lots of stuff that Google isn't doing. Sort of Mathematica plus semantic web search plus graphing (though that's Mathematic too ...).

Very handy for odd stats or data or a more complex bit of maths especially if you want them graphed.

e.g. search for sunrise Jan 18 2010

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=sunrise+Jan+18+2010

will give you sunrise and sunset data for your location (it tries to figure out where you are).

But I fear we have drifted off topic! ;)
 
Tried the Hawke EDs today, 8x36 and 8x43. Very impressed. Great clarity and colour, did not see any CA looking at twigs against an overcast but bright sky.
8x43 a bit big for my liking, wouldn't want to lug them around all day, 8x36 much better.

Did not really notice sharpness dropping at the edges, I look through the middle bit! Close focus very good.

Did not like focus wheel, was smooth with no slack, but took an age to get on the subject. If anything it was too tight taking quite a lot of effort to turn, maybe it will loosen in use. Hated the crappy flappy lens covers, would lose them straight away.
Will definitely consider the 8x36 as a replacement for my ageing Optolyth Alpins.

Cheers
Tom
 
Warning! This thread is more than 14 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