8x42 Vortex Razor HD - my thoughts (1 Viewer)

All,

A brief backstory: As some of you may know I recently underwent some medical hardships and sold off the majority of my higher priced optics, e.g. a 7x42 Zeiss Victory and 8.5x44 Kowa Genesis. I was pretty down about this but still had a few usable optics on hand so it wasn't the worst thing to happen. Well, my significant other has known I was interested in the Vortex Razor HD for some time and after a post by FrankD listing a trade-in model for $699 showed up here, she got with my family and I'm now the owner of the 8x42 Razor HD (current, single bridge edition). I've only had this three days and haven't had too much time behind the glass yet, but I thought I'd given some informal thoughts about it.

Central Sharpness - always the key thing for any pair of binoculars, I think, and the Razor impresses quite well. I'd put it around the level of the Swaro SLC-HD and Kowa Genesis, i.e. very high.

Chromatic Aberration - another big issue for my personal quirks. Overall I'd say this is exceptional - I can personally only induce it readily in the last 5% of the field. I'd say this is just under the performance of the FL, but better than the Swarovisions and Ultravid HDs/Trinovids I've tried.

Brightness/Color - Fantastically bright binoculars; I actually contacted EO (who then reached out elsewhere) and got a peak transmission of 94%. While I don't necessarily believe this value to be accurate, I would say they were as bright as the Swarovisions and noticeably brighter than the Trinovids. Allbinos reports that the Vortex Viper HD has a 89% transmission peak and I'd say these are probably in that 90-93% range easily. Color fidelity is very good, it appears similar to the Kowa Genesis in that respect. No overly warm or cool tones detected, but maybe a slight warm bias? Again, it would be very, very slight.

Edge Performance - A truly unimportant feature for me, but this has a very generous sweetspot. Not on the level of field flattened optics but not too far off. Certainly better than the Victory T*FL, but below the Swarovision. CA is most noticeable in the last 5% or so, as mentioned above. I don't notice any major darkening at the edge.

Subjective Viewing - Again, I've not had these for too long, but these are simply amazing binoculars, especially when considering non-optical qualities (e.g. weight, warranty, mechanical 'feel'). A slightly wider field of view (~410 similar to the HT/Meostar) would've been nice, but I think less of an edge effect is present in these. Overall they have a very "what binocular" feel to them - you are simply transported 8x closer. This is what I find most important for any binocular I've owned (the Kowas were very nearly there but far too heavy). Anyone looking for superb optics in a compact but sound package really needs to take a long hard look at these binoculars. I'd compared them in stores to the Conquest HD and Trinovid (non-HD) models and always thought they were noticeably superior.

I'll update this as I get more field time following waterfowl surveys and BBS work (and maybe a little birding for fun as well...). Let me know if you have any questions or want me to hit on any particular point.

Justin

Thanks for sharing Justin. I think they are terrific bins too, especially on the price vs performance scale.
I obtained the 10 x 50 version last year and find it exceptional for the price point (spending more than double
on a Swaro for a perhaps 10% gain if that is a clear example of the law of diminishing returns). I concur with your conclusion that the Razor HD offers a better overall package among similarly priced optics such as the Conquest HD and Trinovid. As you mention the lower weight is an additional bonus (even the 10 x 50's are almost half a pound lighter than the 10 x 50 model's from Swarvo & Leica!). The only other 8 x 42 models I'd be curious about comparing with the Razor HD would be the Kite Bonelli 2.0 (though not available in the states) and a Meopta Meostar 8 x 42 successor if there is one (which sounds like could at least be a year or more).

Cheers,
Jaymie

Thanks for your initial impressions Justin!

Can you tell me how they compare with the previous version of the 8X42 HD? Is it worth the upgrade?

Jaymie: I've not had much experience with the 10x50, but Typo has and speaks highly of it. If I had the money I'd probably look into purchasing it as I could use a 10x50 for certain applications.

Josh: I cannot unfortunately speak to a comparison between this and the former model. I'd assume somewhat better CA control and edge performance in this model, but ergonomics are going to be quite different (and for me, superior).

JE

The Razors have been lurking in my mind for a long time as something I should pay more attention to. I am wondering about the 10x42 model as it seems to have a nice field of view. Can anyone verify this in real life?

Hi Inquisitor, I have looked through the 10x Razor side by side with the 10x Conquest, Euro HD, and Swarovision and the difference in Fov was readily Apparent between them. I actually really like the 10x Razor and strongly considered it at one point in time but founding myself using 8x more consistently.

Jremmons,

I wish this forum had a "thanks" or "like" button I could hit so you would know I read and appreciate your response without making a new post.

I will keep my feelers out for opportunities to examine the Razors.

Inquisitor said:

Jremmons,

I wish this forum had a "thanks" or "like" button I could hit so you would know I read and appreciate your response without making a new post.

I will keep my feelers out for opportunities to examine the Razors.

Click to expand...

You can give the thread a good rating. Scroll up to the top of the thread and to the right above post#1 you'll see 'rate thread'. But, I don't think it reveals who gave what rating.

I tried the 8x42 Razor a couple of times at the store and loved it; ergonomics, focus, size/weight, optics all seemed very nice. I took it outside the nature store and looked through it for like 15 min...not too much time with it, but enough to seriously consider buying it at the time. Instead I ended up with the Ultravid+ 7x42, but I did strongly consider the Razor as I struggled between 7x vs 8x.

Inquisitor: Definitely take the time to view through them, they are exceptionally high quality optics.

GG: Thanks for sharing your initial opinions as well. So far I don't see what makes the Razor any less than a typical 'alpha' quality optic. I'll certainly report more findings as I get into more extensive birding later in the year, though.

J

My two cents: I have owned several Razors, both 10x42s and 10x50s.
I absolutely loved their handling, mechanics, optics as well as their accessories, with 2 exceptions:
-with the eyecups fully twisted out, I could not see the full FoV (vignetting); with the eyecups one stop down, I got slight blackouts (too much ER).
-the glare control left something to be desired.

Peter.

As has been posted before...I think the Razor is a mighty fine binocular. But the Viper is 97% as good optically as per Vortex, at half the price.

As has been posted before...I think the Razor is a mighty fine binocular. But the Viper is 97% as good optically as per Vortex, at half the price.

Click to expand...

I like the Viper, I really do, but the Razor is in another class: among others, it is much sharper, controls CA better, and has a visibly larger sweet spot.

Squamish,

Would you please give me the source for the 97 per cent figure?

squamish5 said:

As has been posted before...I think the Razor is a mighty fine binocular. But the Viper is 97% as good optically as per Vortex, at half the price.

Click to expand...

I can understand that opinion but I think the Razor does a few things noticeably better, specifically:

1) Larger FoV (very important)
2) Better control of Chromatic Aberration
3) Slightly sharper central view

However, the Viper is a very good binocular, though if I were to purchase one I'd go with either the 8x32 or 10x42 as the 8x42 has too narrow a FoV at that pricepoint, in my opinion.

I used the Razor several times in the past few weeks while doing other habitat management work and am particularly impressed with the brightness and central resolution. CA control is quite good as well but not there with the very best - probably roughly on par with the Swaro SVs I've tried. Edge performance and sweetspot size are quite good for a traditional, lack of field-flattening lens instrument, but I do wonder if this is because it has a slightly narrower FoV than the top of the line binos.

The-Wanderer said:

Squamish,

Would you please give me the source for the 97 per cent figure?

Click to expand...

you know the internet, one day I was reading that, and now I can't find it! lol

I'm probably guilty of claiming that one binocular or another had 95% or 97% of the performance of another at some time in the distant past and the temptation to say something similar is always present when trying to express relative performance. If only it was that simple to pin these things down.

I understand the appeal of those reviews that score individual paramters and come up with a final value or percentage. At best, it might reflect the predudices of the reviewer but it's nonsense to score a binocular in that way. If I get a binocular to review I'll try to measure a few parameters but most I just try in a store or at a birding show and form an opinion like most punters. For what it's worth I thought the effective resolution of the typical Razor HD 8x42 was about an arcsecond better than the Viper HD and then10x50 probably two arcseconds better, but that won't be any benefit to a user with average eyesight. I thought razor HD was also better on depth of contrast and colour rendition. However the implications of the recent "I don't like the green cast ...." thread is that a significant proportion of users are unlikely to spot these subtle differences. I think I can see a substantial difference between the Viper HD and the Razor HD but a proportion of users, perhaps even half, are unlikely to see any difference at all, making my opinion irrelevant to them. It's something you need to end up judging for yourself I'm afraid.

David

Spent some more field time in better (i.e. bright and sunny) conditions this week. I must say I am exceptionally pleased with these binoculars. Three things that really stand out are brightness, color fidelity, and sharpness.These are almost entirely neutral; I can't induce much of a color cast at all. For some people this is a negative but I actually like perfectly neutral colors. In terms of brightness, I don't see how these are any less bright than alphas and I'd argue they may actually be brighter than the Swarovision series I've compared them against (blasphemy, I know).