HT 8x vs 10x....which is the cherry? (1 Viewer)

Inquisitor said:

Amears and Dwever,

Thanks. While there will be consistent opportunity for more magnifcation to shine, the bulk of what I will be doing will indeed favor the 8x.

The real question I was trying to ask was which one of the two binoculars is "sweeter" within the HT lineup. You know how the 10x50 Swarovision is reported to be the one to pick with the EL line? I was trying to pick up on the same sentiment applied to these two binouclars.

And I have found it as it seems most of you would rather have the 8x HT.

Click to expand...

Did you get a Zeiss 8x42 HT yet? Let us know how you like it.

I've been trying to decide between 8X and 10X myself. Yesterday, I spent a few minutes in the backyard with my very old Leica 10X42 BAs and my newer (though still old) Leica 8X32 BAs. The 10Xs do have some minor problems with deteriorated coatings, so I need to take that into consideration, though generally the image is good nonetheless.

I watched a pair of Downy Woodpeckers at a good distance (maybe 200 to 300 yards) and tried to count the number of rows of spots on their wings. Honestly, I struggled to hold either pair of binoculars steady enough to get a good count. But I felt like I had a better chance with the 8X than with the 10X. The image through the 10Xs was larger, but any small movement of the binoculars was magnified so much that counting became very difficult. The 8Xs are smaller and lighter, but I don't think the main problem was hand shake due to weight. The bigger problem was the magnification of any hand movement. The 8Xs had a huge advantage there, even with the smaller images. The wider field of view was helpful too . . . I got the birds in view much faster and more reliably because of it.

I'm now strongly leaning toward getting a pair of 8X42s. I think the larger exit pupil (and improved brightness in darker conditions) will be a big upgrade over either the 8X32s or the 10X42s and probably more important than magnification.

(As a little bonus, while testing the binoculars I happened to train them on a distant gull which turned out to to have pristine white wing tips—from shape more like an Iceland Gull, but can't rule out Glaucous.)

soloflyfisher said:

I watched a pair of Downy Woodpeckers at a good distance (maybe 200 to 300 yards) and tried to count the number of rows of spots on their wings. Honestly, I struggled to hold either pair of binoculars steady enough to get a good count. But I felt like I had a better chance with the 8X than with the 10X.

Click to expand...

My experience mirrors yours but that is a LOOOONG way to count rows on a Downy with ANY 8 or 10 power bin! o

David in NC said:

My experience mirrors yours but that is a LOOOONG way to count rows on a Downy with ANY 8 or 10 power bin! o

Click to expand...

I guess I should start considering a range finder instead of regular binocs! Probably overestimated the distance a bit. Let's just say more than a football field . . .

I will say the bill length was a bit easier to assess at that distance with the 10x. But you can assess the bill length even if the binocular is moving a bit. Counting rows requires a lot more steadiness. So for some things, the extra magnification definitely helps.

Of course, to tell a Downy from a Hairy, all you really need is your ears . . .

I have 10X HT's and have always found them perfect for my birding. The HT excels in cloudy days, against the cloud background, in a forest or jungle etc...

yes the sweet spot is the 'sore spot, but as someone stated on this thread, they always focus in on the middle anyhow, right? So why do you need a huge sweet spot. But agreed...this is a sore point with the HTs but I would never trade them in for the benefits outweigh all.

The 10's are what I always use....some people have a difficult time with 10's but for me, if I am going to bird, why not get the added advantage of 2x over the 8x? Makes sense.

Good luck with your purchase, jim

lmans66 said:

if I am going to bird, why not get the added advantage of 2x over the 8x? Makes sense.

Click to expand...

You clearly don't get much wind where you live. Over here in the UK on the edge of the Atlantic, strong winds are common place and the vibration and buffeting can often cancel out a 10x advantage.

Lee

Troubador said:

You clearly don't get much wind where you live. Over here in the UK on the edge of the Atlantic, strong winds are common place and the vibration and buffeting can often cancel out a 10x advantage.

Lee

Click to expand...

I agree. After eight months with my UV 10x42 which is the most compact of the 10x42's, I mainly use if for watching waders and other water fowl over some distance. The 10x is great for watching birds from 50 meters and over. It does get quite shaky if there is a stiff breeze.

The 10x bins are not very useful in a wooded habitat. The main issue is the reduced DOF whereby I miss birds further behind. The second issue is keeping up with birds in flight with the narrow FOV. The 8x would be a best compromise. I use my Nikon EII 8x30 or the B&L Discoverer 7x42 for that.

If you are mainly into birding from shore or in wide open spaces 10x would make sense. If not 8x is the way to go IMO. It's always best to buy a 10x and a 8x to cover all bases. That way you'll sleep more peacefully at night B

I love my 10x HTs and have no trouble holding them steady.

The 8x42 and the 10x42 versions of any binocular model should be equally easy (or difficult) to hold steady, since they're basically the same size, weight, and shape. The 8x will always appear steadier, however, just because whatever shake does occur (and there is always some) will be magnified less. I think I hold my binoculars pretty steady, and find a 10x very useable, but the image through the 8x always appears more stable (albeit smaller) than through the 10x. The tradeoff between steadiness and size is always there. It's just a matter of personal preference which characteristic is more important.

[email protected] said:

Did you get a Zeiss 8x42 HT yet? Let us know how you like it.

Click to expand...

Yep...compared directly with an 8x SLC at home. It was a lot easier to make the choice than I imagined once I actually had them both in hand and away from the store. I simply placed them both on the patio table and followed birds around my yard. In no time at all I was reaching for the HT every single time and I had to make myself use the SLC for sake of a fair comparison. I also carefully took them out to where I could see longer distances as well.

Some notes:
This HT has the swankiest and smoothest focuser I have ever felt on any binocular. The SLC was indeed plagued with the common problems we all read about here. I also felt it too small and misplaced after using the HT. The larger and more forward focuser simply works for me. The HT does focus much closer and is almost too fast.

I came to realize that I hated the thumb grooves on the SLC body; wrong spot for me. The larger HT quickly felt better in my hands and the SLC gave me the impression of being a touch small and fiddly by comparison. I did think I could hold the HT a little steadier.

The eyecups on the SLC are much more comfortable but I get along with the HT eyecups just fine or at least well enough to not be a decision point.

I preferred the HT diopter settings. To me it was easier to look through them while making the adjustments and I have always sort of had a niggle with notched settings that force you into one slot or the other.

The accessories with the SLC are indeed nicer.

I will not try to invent new terms to describe the optics but simply say that I can confirm some of the prevailing thoughts floating around here.

Yes, the SLC is easier to look through and the HT is a little fussier about getting all lined up. The HT does seem marginally better with stray light. I felt like the eye relief was very similar but the SLC eyecups make it easier to use what is there. There is some speculation here that Zeiss measures eye relief differently and that does seem possible based on what my eyes felt compared to online specs.

I have -1 myopia and no astigmatism. I normally do not wear glasses when using bins but sometimes do when I get aggravated at taking my glassess off so much. Both bins work well in both settings for me.

Yes, the sweetspot of the SLC is larger. I would not say dramatically but very decisively if you look for it. I greatly overstated this point in my pre-purchase worrying stage. In real life it is not an issue to me. The astigmatism on the HT (does not focus out like curvature) is clear/mild enough to my eye that it is still very useable and somewhat mitigates the loss of sweetspot. I was very pleased with this finding. The reason I was so hung up on sweetspot size was that I once tried the FL 7x and found the small center to be startlingly clear but enveloped by a hazy curtain of astigmatism...to the point that it was looking at a frost framed picture within the fov. No such troubles are noted with my HT copy.

The SLC appears warmer and more contrasty to my eye. A couple of times I preferred it when throwing the bins up and having a quick glance but after swapping out to the HT and really looking at the target for a bit it irritated me. I much preferred brighter cleaner taste of the HT. No green monster noted, btw.

I do think the SLC color scheme makes some things like brown bushes pop a little more but to my eyes the depth of field is greater with the HT. I do not know if this is the slight offset or A/K prisms. The difference is subtle at most.

The HT has extremely little CA in the true tiny hyper sweet-spot but it is certainly readily found if you want to. I do think the HT bested the SLC a little in CA but the SLC did not really disappoint. Keep in mind that I have fought CA in my mind until I have given up. I see it in everything and have finally stopped fighting.

I suspect the HT might have had a smudge better resolution as I was consistently preferring it for detail work but by this time I had already made my mind up and my bias towards the HT was pretty strong. It should be noted that I thought I wanted an HT all along so ALL of my observations might be utter rubbish to the guy who wants a SLC. The SLC was very clear and sharp in a smaller package. I think it does do what it is supposed to do.

I think I agree with how Chosun describes the differences between the HT and the EL I used to have. The EL certainly had more of that fun crystal pop to them, like it had energy added to the picture. These HTs don't do that but are so stinking clear, clean, calm, yet well illuminated that I swear my blood pressure drops when using them. They are the best I have seen yet for having a glassless feel to the view.

I got the HT tripod adaptor and I am happy as a clam. It will take one heck of a binocular to make me cast these aside.