Steve C
Well-known member
This is the majority of a review I posted on another optics forum..I hope it will be of some use here.
Vortex Fury 6.5x32; Review and Comparisons:
I sometimes wonder about the value of these sorts of comparisons, seems they always ask as many questions as they answer. One thing that should be kept in mind is that this is a comparison based on samples of one. One pair of eyes, mine, and one of each of the binoculars listed. I have no idea how “average” any of these binoculars are. My eyes are 60 years old. I do not need glasses other than for reading, where I use a 1.50 glass. If it’s farther than 4’ away, I can see it just fine. I am right eye dominant, and my right eye is weaker than my left. I typically need a small amount of negative diopter on my right eye, usually no more than -1.0.
B&L Custom 7x26, Yosemite 6x30, Swift 7x36, Fury 6.5x32, Viper 10x42, and Monarch 8x42.
7x26 6x30 7x36 6.5x32 10x42 8x42
Exit pupil 3.71 5.00 5.14 4.92 4.20 5.25
FOV 374 420 374 445 319 330
weight 12.0 17.0 21 22 23.4 21
HXW in 3.75 x 4.0 4.6 x 6.3 5.0 x 4.5 5.3 x 5.4 5.8 x 5.3 5.7 x 5.0
Eye relief 16.0 mm 20 16.0 21 16.5 19.6
Close focus 7.0 ft 16.4 5.9 4.9 5.1 8.2
Size and ergonomics:
The Fury is a noticeably bigger binocular than the Swift, and smaller than the Viper. It is larger than most typical 30-32mm binoculars and more compact than the typical 42mm frame. The objectives in the Fury are centered in the housing with a spacer not seen in either the Viper or Eaglet. If you do not need all the size reduction you can get, the size of the Fury is just about perfect.
It feels smaller than the Viper, but big enough to be comfortable. I actually prefer the ergonomics of the compact design of the porro Yosemite. That is an extremely easy to hold binocular, with minimal shake. The Custom 7x26 is a nice glass, but it is too cramped to hold for very long. It is most used when I need to go small. The Viper and Monarch have the same feel. Both are comfortable binoculars with the traditional roof binocular feel. The Eaglet, while smaller than the Fury, is still very comfortable in my hands. The eyecups of either Vortex are more comfortable to me than the rest of the binoculars. I also really like the extended eye relief of the Fury. I use it with the eyecup fully extended. The oculars are just enough further from me that the exterior of the lens does not fog in cold weather. The eyecups of the Vortex binoculars are also more comfortable for me.
I have only two slight nits to pick with the Fury. The strap attachments need to be rotated to closer to 3:00 and 9:00. The binocular on a strap or harness will shove the objectives into your chest and force the oculars away. The others hang much better. The rain guard of the Viper is also much better than the Fury.
Field of View:
I have said before that I will take center field resolution and brightness over field of view. I hold to that view. While I still do not object to the 374’ FOV of the Eaglet, it does not take an optics scientist to see that the Fury takes in a noticeably larger chunk of territory. It’s not so obvious close in, but asserts itself over distance. I really have to look to see much difference between the Yosemite and the Fury.
I can already hear the calls for “now if they can just get their act together and get us 500’!!!” It seems to me that if really large fields of view were easy to get while maintaining enough eye relief for those who need eyeglasses, then they would already be on the market. I think it a reasonable assumption that wide FOV would have advanced along with optical improvements. If somebody knows differently, chime in!
Field of view is in large part a function of ocular design. The oculars of the Fury are twice the size of the Eaglet. It seems to me that if we insist on ever bigger FOV, then the binocular will have to get ever larger and who knows what the cost might be. The Fury is exceeded in FOV (to my limited knowledge) only by the $1,900 Zeiss 7x42, and then only by five feet. Fanciers of FOV should rejoice here.
Image quality:
If you were handed an unmarked sample of either the Fury or Eaglet, I seriously doubt that anyone outside of a very serious optics user, would ever guess that the magnification was “only” 6.5 or 7, or that the binocular didn’t cost at least $1,000. The Yosemite is astounding considering the price, again if you were handed an unmarked sample you would likewise assume they were more powerful than 6x and cost considerably more than they do. The difference in overall image quality between the three is almost too small to see. The Custom 7x26 compares pretty well to the others, except it is not quite as bright. The Monarch will not quite play in the same league as the rest.
Brightness and Resolution:
On a bright sunny day the Fury is the brightest binocular, with the Swift in an almost too close to call second and the Yosemite third in a near photo finish. On a dull, flat gray, dreary overcast day there is no discernible difference between the three. All are brighter than either the Monarch or the Custom, and the Custom is brighter than the Monarch. Twilight performance for the Fury, Eaglet and Yosemite is almost too close to call, but the Fury stays brighter till the end of light. All will work, just fine thank you, until well past legal shooting hours. The Fury has a slightly warm cast to the image, the Yosemite seems pretty neutral, and the Swift tends to be ever so slightly cool. The Swift is a definite winner in center field resolution and is better at distance. This is may well be a difference in magnification as much as anything else.
Field of View and view quality:
There is some softness around the outer edge of the field in both the Fury and Yosemite. That’s kind of hard for me to quantify, for when I look for the edge of the sweet spot, the edge fuzziness tends togo away. My dominant eye wants to rule the proceedings and I can get a slight barrel separation effect if I pay much attention to the edge of the field. This may well be why I prefer center field image to a wide FOV. With the Fury and Yosemite there is sort of a peripheral realization that it exists, but I give it no credence since it does not annoy me. The Sweet spot on these two (to me anyway) is at least 80% of the field, if not more. Others will see this differently. The Swift is almost all “sweet spot”. I get no sense there is any edge fuzziness when I use it. Color fringe and CA control was very good, but the Swift is a little better than the Fury. The Yosemite has a tendency to give a little flare, especially if you are panning under the sun. Part of this I think, is my need to have the eyecup screw out a little more. An extension I fabricated from a bicycle inner tube pretty much cured the flare, but it is still there to a greater extent than the others. As a matter of interest, my Yosemite has a close focus of 10’. This Fury will close focus to 3’ if you are content to use only one barrel. The barrel separation effect happens for me at 6’. My Custom will close focus only to 10’. The others are pretty much as advertised.
All three binoculars give a very relaxed, strain free view. I use what I think of as the “just relax” test. Surely it is not an original idea, but it works. After seriously using a binocular for several minutes, simply command your eyes to relax. With a binocular that is not too well suited to you, it will be enlightening to find out just how much you were frowning or squinting as you looked through it. All of these pass the test for me. The depth of field of the Fury, Eaglet, and Yosemite is outstanding.
Magnification Differences:
Most of my life I have been a supporter of 8x magnification in binoculars. That began to change when I got the Custom. It will resolve better at distance than the Monarch. I really can see no practical indication that the 7x of the Swift gives me a smaller image than any 8x I have been able to compare it to. If I set the Monarch and the Swift up on a good solid side by side, I can begin to see a slight difference for the 8x in image size if the distance is greater than two miles or a little more. I also can detect no noticeable practical difference, at any distance, in the image size between the Fury and the Eaglet. When I let some other eyes look through the Monarch, Fury, and Swift every one thought the Monarch had the least magnification (I covered the focus dial). When I compare the Yosemite to the Fury and Eaglet I can begin to detect that there is a smaller image size at 6x. Not much, but it exists. This may also be a function of the way a porro binocular presents its image.
I really would be ever so content to use either the Fury or the Swift as a one only all around binocular. At 6-8x I feel that whatever binocular has the best resolution will win the “what is that” contest. Others will perhaps not agree. However, the Yosemite, Fury, or Swift really works best for me as part of a 1-2 punch with my 10x. The Yosemite, Fury and Eaglet are far superior to a good 10x in conditions of mirage. They will give good service when a 10x will literally make you seasick. The Yosemite is particularly good in heavy mirage. I hunt mule deer in high desert country and mirage is an ever present problem.
All of these binoculars will pick out the wire strands in a fence at 800 yards. As the light dims, the Yosemite will loose them first. All will find my neighbors’ horses in the sagebrush and juniper at a Google Earth measured distance of 3.1 miles. All will resolve the guy wires on two large telecommunications towers on a mountaintop at a Goggle Earth distance of 5.25 miles. There are some smaller towers there that even the 10x will not find the wires. Looking at the horses, the Viper begins to clearly demonstrate the advantage of the 10x glass (as long as conditions are right for the 10x).
There is a particularly target rich environment around here this time of year. The waterfowl migration is in full swing. A FOV full of Snow Geese will test any binocular to the limit of its capacity to resolve details and to control color fringing and CA. The same can be said for looking for the odd Blue Goose in a large flock of White Front Geese.
Build quality and warranty:
Vortex wins this one hands down. The Vortex binoculars are just well built. The diopter locks solidly into position and won’t move without conscious decision and deliberate action on part of the user. The same thing can be said for the eyecups. The Vortex stays where you put it. The Swift will not, it is too loosely hinged (remember samples of one). I have to use o-rings to keep the eyecup in place. The Fury is hinged much more rigidly at the center hinge. It will stay where you put it. Well, maybe if you fall off your horse it might move. Unless I moved it during normal use, nothing moved on either Vortex. The Vortex also requires more of a conscious effort to move the focus wheel, so in normal use it tends to stay put. Vortex didn’t bat an eye when I returned the first sample. Bang, done, no questions asked. I contacted Swift the other day and they are a bit of a pain in the neck to talk to. I finally was told that upon receiving a binocular that after the decision was made for repair or warranty I could count on at least three weeks. I could live with the eyecups, but I really want the hinge tension tightened.
Overall I think Vortex has hit a walk off shot with this binocular. It represents a real value in roofs considering what you get for $300. You will spend a ton of extra money to improve it very much. The Yosemite likely represents the real value in the binocular world today. The Swift is a very good binocular and is smaller and more compact than the Fury and does have a little better center field resolution. It also has a quicker focus than the Fury, one turn vs. 1.25 turns.
However, if I were going to buy a binocular today it would be the Vortex. That sort of surprised me, for the Swift is a somewhat more expensive binocular. It almost feels like I’m being disloyal to an old friend. The build quality, plus the service and the added benefit of the wider FOV, along with the end of the light brightness edge, would make me go with the Vortex. I think I will very likely get a 6.5 Fury. After an extended time, I’ll sell whichever one I don’t use, or consign the other to spare/loaner application. That is the current role of the Monarch.
Vortex Fury 6.5x32; Review and Comparisons:
I sometimes wonder about the value of these sorts of comparisons, seems they always ask as many questions as they answer. One thing that should be kept in mind is that this is a comparison based on samples of one. One pair of eyes, mine, and one of each of the binoculars listed. I have no idea how “average” any of these binoculars are. My eyes are 60 years old. I do not need glasses other than for reading, where I use a 1.50 glass. If it’s farther than 4’ away, I can see it just fine. I am right eye dominant, and my right eye is weaker than my left. I typically need a small amount of negative diopter on my right eye, usually no more than -1.0.
B&L Custom 7x26, Yosemite 6x30, Swift 7x36, Fury 6.5x32, Viper 10x42, and Monarch 8x42.
7x26 6x30 7x36 6.5x32 10x42 8x42
Exit pupil 3.71 5.00 5.14 4.92 4.20 5.25
FOV 374 420 374 445 319 330
weight 12.0 17.0 21 22 23.4 21
HXW in 3.75 x 4.0 4.6 x 6.3 5.0 x 4.5 5.3 x 5.4 5.8 x 5.3 5.7 x 5.0
Eye relief 16.0 mm 20 16.0 21 16.5 19.6
Close focus 7.0 ft 16.4 5.9 4.9 5.1 8.2
Size and ergonomics:
The Fury is a noticeably bigger binocular than the Swift, and smaller than the Viper. It is larger than most typical 30-32mm binoculars and more compact than the typical 42mm frame. The objectives in the Fury are centered in the housing with a spacer not seen in either the Viper or Eaglet. If you do not need all the size reduction you can get, the size of the Fury is just about perfect.
It feels smaller than the Viper, but big enough to be comfortable. I actually prefer the ergonomics of the compact design of the porro Yosemite. That is an extremely easy to hold binocular, with minimal shake. The Custom 7x26 is a nice glass, but it is too cramped to hold for very long. It is most used when I need to go small. The Viper and Monarch have the same feel. Both are comfortable binoculars with the traditional roof binocular feel. The Eaglet, while smaller than the Fury, is still very comfortable in my hands. The eyecups of either Vortex are more comfortable to me than the rest of the binoculars. I also really like the extended eye relief of the Fury. I use it with the eyecup fully extended. The oculars are just enough further from me that the exterior of the lens does not fog in cold weather. The eyecups of the Vortex binoculars are also more comfortable for me.
I have only two slight nits to pick with the Fury. The strap attachments need to be rotated to closer to 3:00 and 9:00. The binocular on a strap or harness will shove the objectives into your chest and force the oculars away. The others hang much better. The rain guard of the Viper is also much better than the Fury.
Field of View:
I have said before that I will take center field resolution and brightness over field of view. I hold to that view. While I still do not object to the 374’ FOV of the Eaglet, it does not take an optics scientist to see that the Fury takes in a noticeably larger chunk of territory. It’s not so obvious close in, but asserts itself over distance. I really have to look to see much difference between the Yosemite and the Fury.
I can already hear the calls for “now if they can just get their act together and get us 500’!!!” It seems to me that if really large fields of view were easy to get while maintaining enough eye relief for those who need eyeglasses, then they would already be on the market. I think it a reasonable assumption that wide FOV would have advanced along with optical improvements. If somebody knows differently, chime in!
Field of view is in large part a function of ocular design. The oculars of the Fury are twice the size of the Eaglet. It seems to me that if we insist on ever bigger FOV, then the binocular will have to get ever larger and who knows what the cost might be. The Fury is exceeded in FOV (to my limited knowledge) only by the $1,900 Zeiss 7x42, and then only by five feet. Fanciers of FOV should rejoice here.
Image quality:
If you were handed an unmarked sample of either the Fury or Eaglet, I seriously doubt that anyone outside of a very serious optics user, would ever guess that the magnification was “only” 6.5 or 7, or that the binocular didn’t cost at least $1,000. The Yosemite is astounding considering the price, again if you were handed an unmarked sample you would likewise assume they were more powerful than 6x and cost considerably more than they do. The difference in overall image quality between the three is almost too small to see. The Custom 7x26 compares pretty well to the others, except it is not quite as bright. The Monarch will not quite play in the same league as the rest.
Brightness and Resolution:
On a bright sunny day the Fury is the brightest binocular, with the Swift in an almost too close to call second and the Yosemite third in a near photo finish. On a dull, flat gray, dreary overcast day there is no discernible difference between the three. All are brighter than either the Monarch or the Custom, and the Custom is brighter than the Monarch. Twilight performance for the Fury, Eaglet and Yosemite is almost too close to call, but the Fury stays brighter till the end of light. All will work, just fine thank you, until well past legal shooting hours. The Fury has a slightly warm cast to the image, the Yosemite seems pretty neutral, and the Swift tends to be ever so slightly cool. The Swift is a definite winner in center field resolution and is better at distance. This is may well be a difference in magnification as much as anything else.
Field of View and view quality:
There is some softness around the outer edge of the field in both the Fury and Yosemite. That’s kind of hard for me to quantify, for when I look for the edge of the sweet spot, the edge fuzziness tends togo away. My dominant eye wants to rule the proceedings and I can get a slight barrel separation effect if I pay much attention to the edge of the field. This may well be why I prefer center field image to a wide FOV. With the Fury and Yosemite there is sort of a peripheral realization that it exists, but I give it no credence since it does not annoy me. The Sweet spot on these two (to me anyway) is at least 80% of the field, if not more. Others will see this differently. The Swift is almost all “sweet spot”. I get no sense there is any edge fuzziness when I use it. Color fringe and CA control was very good, but the Swift is a little better than the Fury. The Yosemite has a tendency to give a little flare, especially if you are panning under the sun. Part of this I think, is my need to have the eyecup screw out a little more. An extension I fabricated from a bicycle inner tube pretty much cured the flare, but it is still there to a greater extent than the others. As a matter of interest, my Yosemite has a close focus of 10’. This Fury will close focus to 3’ if you are content to use only one barrel. The barrel separation effect happens for me at 6’. My Custom will close focus only to 10’. The others are pretty much as advertised.
All three binoculars give a very relaxed, strain free view. I use what I think of as the “just relax” test. Surely it is not an original idea, but it works. After seriously using a binocular for several minutes, simply command your eyes to relax. With a binocular that is not too well suited to you, it will be enlightening to find out just how much you were frowning or squinting as you looked through it. All of these pass the test for me. The depth of field of the Fury, Eaglet, and Yosemite is outstanding.
Magnification Differences:
Most of my life I have been a supporter of 8x magnification in binoculars. That began to change when I got the Custom. It will resolve better at distance than the Monarch. I really can see no practical indication that the 7x of the Swift gives me a smaller image than any 8x I have been able to compare it to. If I set the Monarch and the Swift up on a good solid side by side, I can begin to see a slight difference for the 8x in image size if the distance is greater than two miles or a little more. I also can detect no noticeable practical difference, at any distance, in the image size between the Fury and the Eaglet. When I let some other eyes look through the Monarch, Fury, and Swift every one thought the Monarch had the least magnification (I covered the focus dial). When I compare the Yosemite to the Fury and Eaglet I can begin to detect that there is a smaller image size at 6x. Not much, but it exists. This may also be a function of the way a porro binocular presents its image.
I really would be ever so content to use either the Fury or the Swift as a one only all around binocular. At 6-8x I feel that whatever binocular has the best resolution will win the “what is that” contest. Others will perhaps not agree. However, the Yosemite, Fury, or Swift really works best for me as part of a 1-2 punch with my 10x. The Yosemite, Fury and Eaglet are far superior to a good 10x in conditions of mirage. They will give good service when a 10x will literally make you seasick. The Yosemite is particularly good in heavy mirage. I hunt mule deer in high desert country and mirage is an ever present problem.
All of these binoculars will pick out the wire strands in a fence at 800 yards. As the light dims, the Yosemite will loose them first. All will find my neighbors’ horses in the sagebrush and juniper at a Google Earth measured distance of 3.1 miles. All will resolve the guy wires on two large telecommunications towers on a mountaintop at a Goggle Earth distance of 5.25 miles. There are some smaller towers there that even the 10x will not find the wires. Looking at the horses, the Viper begins to clearly demonstrate the advantage of the 10x glass (as long as conditions are right for the 10x).
There is a particularly target rich environment around here this time of year. The waterfowl migration is in full swing. A FOV full of Snow Geese will test any binocular to the limit of its capacity to resolve details and to control color fringing and CA. The same can be said for looking for the odd Blue Goose in a large flock of White Front Geese.
Build quality and warranty:
Vortex wins this one hands down. The Vortex binoculars are just well built. The diopter locks solidly into position and won’t move without conscious decision and deliberate action on part of the user. The same thing can be said for the eyecups. The Vortex stays where you put it. The Swift will not, it is too loosely hinged (remember samples of one). I have to use o-rings to keep the eyecup in place. The Fury is hinged much more rigidly at the center hinge. It will stay where you put it. Well, maybe if you fall off your horse it might move. Unless I moved it during normal use, nothing moved on either Vortex. The Vortex also requires more of a conscious effort to move the focus wheel, so in normal use it tends to stay put. Vortex didn’t bat an eye when I returned the first sample. Bang, done, no questions asked. I contacted Swift the other day and they are a bit of a pain in the neck to talk to. I finally was told that upon receiving a binocular that after the decision was made for repair or warranty I could count on at least three weeks. I could live with the eyecups, but I really want the hinge tension tightened.
Overall I think Vortex has hit a walk off shot with this binocular. It represents a real value in roofs considering what you get for $300. You will spend a ton of extra money to improve it very much. The Yosemite likely represents the real value in the binocular world today. The Swift is a very good binocular and is smaller and more compact than the Fury and does have a little better center field resolution. It also has a quicker focus than the Fury, one turn vs. 1.25 turns.
However, if I were going to buy a binocular today it would be the Vortex. That sort of surprised me, for the Swift is a somewhat more expensive binocular. It almost feels like I’m being disloyal to an old friend. The build quality, plus the service and the added benefit of the wider FOV, along with the end of the light brightness edge, would make me go with the Vortex. I think I will very likely get a 6.5 Fury. After an extended time, I’ll sell whichever one I don’t use, or consign the other to spare/loaner application. That is the current role of the Monarch.
