ZEN ED and Swift Audubon 804R comparison (1 Viewer)

I recently came across an absolutely mint Swift Audubon 804R 8.5x44 Mark II HR/5, Type 4b (2) binocular. This one was made in 1999. I’d been intrigued by this binocular for a long time, but always wondered how something that had an advertised weight of 38.5 oz could have possibly have been tagged with a featherweight label. This HR/5 eliminates 10 oz of that weight. It is still big, but very manageable. This big binocular has always been regarded for its outstanding optics, large size, and the relative ease with which it will fog up. I’ve been on the lookout for the ED version of this binocular for a while, but have not seen one for sale for several years. At any rate this is a classic, high quality binocular with a considerable fan base and some collector interest.

A comparison with the much discussed new kid on the block, in the form of the ZEN ED seemed worthwhile. For one thing the ZEN is certainly on everyone’s mind right now and the Swift is a well known, solid, high quality, classic optic.

So, how do they compare? Well there is the obvious porro vs. roof differences. Aside from that, the obvious thing is the ED glass in the ZEN and lack thereof in the Swift. The weight is similar, 28.5 oz for the Swift and 27.5 for the ZEN. They specify a similar fov, 430’ for the Swift and 426’ for the ZEN. The Swift is completely retro in appearance being a big blocky leatherette covered porro. It is wider than the ZEN is long.

Focus characteristics:
The ZEN has a 1 3/8” (35mm) diameter focus wheel which operates in 2 ½ revolutions. Two revolutions are used going from the close focus distance of 6’ to 30’. ¼ Revolution goes from 30’ to infinity, and there is ¼ revolution past infinity. This is likely the big handicap of the ZEN. It likely won't be real handy as a Butterfly binocular. Both focus clockwise to infinity.

The Swift uses a 1 3/16 (30mm) diameter focus wheel that operated through 1 ½ turns, ½ turn goes from the close focus distance of 12’ to 30’, ½ turn from there to infinity and ½ turn past infinity. The design of the Swift is such that the thumb can be used from underneath the wheel to manipulate focus. This gives the user some latitude on how to hold this big binocular. I personally much prefer the focus of the big Swift.

Color Fringing:
Using a white speed limit sign with black lettering with the afternoon sun shining on the sign was the fringing target. The ED glass does give the ZEN a slight advantage. I can get fringing in the ZEN only when the lettering is just out of focus on the close side. The Swift shows a little more, and on both the close and far focus in relation to the target. Apparent fringing when the lettering is in sharp focus is not noticeable. Both are much better than the only other ED glass I have, the Vortex Viper 10x42.

Color rendition:
Both binoculars are superb but the ZEN seems slightly better in color reproduction. The colors are a bit sharper in the ZEN, but both are good. The Swift seems to have a tad bit warmer color bias than the ZEN. The differences will not be evident without the binoculars being side by side.

Image Quality:

Using the old NEED test from BVD, the sharpness of the images are too close to call. The detail seen with my eye can be read just 8 x further away with the ZEN and 8.5 x further with the Swift. This shouldn’t be too surprising since the resolution specs are 3.2 arc seconds for the ZEN and 3.5 for the Swift. So this feature is a tossup.

There is a nice sharp image that in both looks a lot like you have just walked up closer to your subject for a better look. The ZEN is perhaps a bit brighter and has a bit of a yellow bias, while the Swift looks a bit reddish in its bias. Both of these binoculars give an easy view that seems to produce very little strain. The Swift has an obvious advantage in depth of field. When focused on an object about 200 meters away, the Swift is basically in focus from 30meters on out, while the ZEN is focused from 40 meters on out. There is more focus movement in the Swift in the deep field than there is in the ZEN.

The Swift seems to have a larger field of view. For instance both the ZEN and my Promaster look to be dead equal, while the Swift is a bit larger. I don’t know what is what, but if the Swift is correct at 430’ then the ZEN is around 410’. If the ZEN is right at 426’, the Swift is closer to 440’. That is nothing to notice unless you go looking for it.

The Swift has more softness at the edge of the field, but you have to be looking directly at the edge to notice it. The ZEN has a clear edge here.

So the old classic and the new contender are pretty close. I’m glad I got that old Swift, and it was a bargain at the price I gave. There is one just like it now on auction that is currently at $50.00 more than I paid for this one. It will definitely see some use.

Very good comparative review here Steve. Thank you.

I have always wondered about this bin as I have read some very positive reviews of it here and elsewhere. Hearing that the Zen ED compares favorably to it is very reassuring.

...and don't tempt me with that $50 more offer. I have had my eye out for one of these for some time as well.

Although I like roof binoculars style in general, the swift Porro in your picture sure is pleasing to look at. That's what classic is all about.

Read about it in detail here:

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=42944

Bob

That's how I knew what I was bidding on, and how I have avoided bidding on versions of the 804 that didn't interest me. That would be a good read for anybody interested in buying an 804. Right now on the auction site there is an Audubon 804 model 1c from about 1970 that is being offered as the same variant I bought, the HR/5 type 4. That 1c is maybe 30 years older than the 4b. Forewarned is certainly forearmed.

Steve C said:

The Swift seems to have a larger field of view. For instance both the ZEN and my Promaster look to be dead equal, while the Swift is a bit larger. I don’t know what is what, but if the Swift is correct at 430’ then the ZEN is around 410’. If the ZEN is right at 426’, the Swift is closer to 440’. That is nothing to notice unless you go looking for it.

Click to expand...

Steve,

In comparison to My Meopta 7x42 the Zen FOV felt about 10ft narrower than the MeoStar. If the Meostar is 411 ft then the Zen is more like 400 ft.

The first few seconds behind the Zen felt a little narrow (but this is compared to the Meoptas so... maybe it's not so narrow)

Cheers

oleaf said:

Steve,

In comparison to My Meopta 7x42 the Zen FOV felt about 10ft narrower than the MeoStar. If the Meostar is 411 ft then the Zen is more like 400 ft.

The first few seconds behind the Zen felt a little narrow (but this is compared to the Meoptas so... maybe it's not so narrow)

Cheers

Click to expand...

Now that you bring this up, I remember you posting similar information. I guess, I should check a little further. I remember checking the Promaster at what I think was 411' (vs 393' listed). But I neglected to write that down. At that level of fov, it is certainly wide enough for me. I also remember no apparent difference in the fov between the ZEN and the 8x42 Meostar (411' spec) I compared it to and as I stated above the ZEN and Promaster seem to be the same, so a double check seems to be in order. I think my ZEN ED 8x43 is certainly over 400', but might be a bit less than 426'. Or the Swift could still be wider than 430'. I really do not know what sort of variation in fov is typical.

My EL8.5x42 says 7.4 degree on the focus wheel. So it is about 393ft. When I compare it to ZEN, I can see ZEN is definitely wider. I didn't bother to actually measure (not sure how). Looking at the roof line of my neighor's house at about 80-100 yard away, I can see about extra 2 tiles with ZEN. I did this by viewing through one barrel only since I noticed the apparent FOV number can be distorted if I play with IPD and view through both eyes. It is well over 400 ft if EL's number is correct.

OK, here's how it works out. Promaster ELX ED is 408', ZEN ED is 425', and the Swift 804 is 440'. That's from measurements at 10 yards. It is cold windy and spitting snow and I'm getting over the cold from hell, so I may have been able to be a bit more precise, but this seems awfully close to what is observable when just out using the binoculars.

It also has been my understanding that the type of distortion each binocular employs around the edge of the image can also contribute to the appearance of a larger field of view.

Case in point, if field curvature is at a certain level in relation to the depth of field of the binocular (ie, the edge of the field of view is at about 10 feet and in focus in comparison to the center of the field of view at 15 feet) then you might get the impression that the field of view is wider. The opposite might also then give a similar perceptual experience. I think one of the reasons the Meopta gives the impression of a wider field of view is because of the field flattener element. Since the entire field of view is flat with such a wide sweet spot the image appears, to my eyes, to be much wider than the 411 or so feet listed in the specs.

Just a thought.

Steve C: Thanks for that interesting comparison... more so because I had a similar idea when I bought the Hawke 8x43ED recently, putting it up against some of my favourite binoculars, a Swift 8.5x44 HR/5 Audubon (1998), a Zeiss 8x50BGA Octarem (1987) and, just out of interest, a Swift 10x50 HR/5 Kestrel (2000). I use all of them with the ocular rubbers right down, giving a 'big view'. The Hawke impresses by its bright, crystal clear and 'easy' image, aided no doubt by its ED glass, yet the porro's seem to have greater depth, as you say. Sharpness, to my eyes, is about the same for all four: the Zeiss has a restful view, but more 'creamy' than white; the Kestrel beats the Audubon simply by its 10x giving a closer view than the 8.5x; the Hawke's a comfortable all-rounder. Focus action is best on the Kestrel (butter smooth) closely followed by the Zeiss (a bit stiffer) then the Audubon (slightly more loose) with the Hawke as tail-end-Charlie ('slower', not quite as precise to focus accurately, needs 'to and fro' rotation). All focus clockwise to infinity (I like that) and the Hawke wins hands-down for close-focus (about six feet) but needs lots of focus twirling to get there. I like them all, for different reasons. I couldn't bear to part with my old Zeiss, and I've long been an admirer of Swift Audubon/Kestrel, but the Hawke, whilst not perfect, is a quantum leap in high quality/affordable roof prism binoculars.
Porro's have been seen as better bargains than roofs for as long as I can remember, but the advent of Chinese ED roofs seems set to change our views, optically and financially.

Thanks for the detailed review! I have that exact model of Audubon as well as the variation that immediately preceded it. I find very little difference between those two--the 4b2s might be a hair brighter--and both are very close optically to a pair of Zen EDs I borrowed.

I'm thinking there must either be a good deal of item-to-item variation amongst these bins or eye-to-eye variation among the viewers, because when I compared the above group of binoculars to my 8x32 SEs, the Nikons beat the others individually and collectively like rented mules. They're all about equal in brightness in dusk conditions, but the Nikons plainly resolved more detail and rendered colors more vibrantly. The difference was not at all difficult to see.

I use the Audubons as my car binoculars because I'm able to use covered parking on a daily basis and I don't want to subject my SEs to that environment. I use and like them, but my particular pairs don't deliver the nth degree of resolution I see through the SEs (or my FLs, which are brighter than any of them). When the Chinese introduce models dielectric prism coatings to their ED bins, though, look out.

Falcondude, what do you like better view wise, your swaros or your zens?

buddymydog said:

Falcondude, what do you like better view wise, your swaros or your zens?

Click to expand...

I like them both. I used ZEN more often simply it has more eyerelief than 8.5x Sawro. Optical quality wise, I find it is pleasant to look through both of them. As I know very little about optics, I didn't spend much time to look for every detailed difference. I don't think and expect it can beat Swaro. At Sawroski EL's quality level, anything close to it is an achievement.