2013 Vortex Razor HD 10x50 and 12x50 !!! (1 Viewer)

Thanks, I have them paid for and ordered at a local shop here in Phoenix.

As soon as I get them in I will post my first review with the EL SV 12s as a baseline.

Racethesunset said:

Thanks, I have them paid for and ordered at a local shop here in Phoenix.

As soon as I get them in I will post my first review with the EL SV 12s as a baseline.

Click to expand...

I've got several 10x50 and one 12x50 all porros and was thinking about picking up a 10x50 or 12x50 roof. I spent several days with a 10x50 EL courtesy of my local Swarovski dealer and was very impressed. The ergonomics were superb and the view was also fantastic....but the view wasn't any better than my Fujinon or PIF 10x50s and either of the porros could be had for about 1/4 the cost of the EL.

I recently purchased a Viper HD for my son (6x32) and was so impressed that I ended up getting one for myself so I know Vortex is putting out sone top notch products. I'm very eager to see your review on the Vortex Razor as I'm considering either the Razor or EL when I purchase a roof in the 10x50 or 12x50 configuration.

Steve

Race, look forward to your assessment :t:

This is how the 12x50 specs (US units, well - mostly!)|| shape up on paper:

Binocular: ......... Swarovski ......Vortex ......... +/- .......... $ per
Cost: ................ $2759 ........... $1290 ........ $1469
Fov@1000yds: ... 300ft ............ 285ft .......... 15ft .......... $98/ft
ER: ................... 19mm .......... 15.5mm ...... 3.5mm ...... $420/mm
Close focus: ....... 9.2ft ............. 10ft ............ 0.8ft ......... $1836/ft
Weight: ............. 35.2oz .......... 28.7oz ........ 6.5oz ........ $226/oz
Dim. (HxW): ...... 6.8x5.3" ........ 6.8x5.1"

Ok, a little bit silly, but it puts things in perspective!
I would think if the ER suits, and the IQ is within cooee, AND the direction of focus to infinity agrees with you, that those extra dollars are getting harder to justify (likewise, the Celestron Granite 12x50 [ED] is within spittin' distance of the Vortex too).


Chosun :gh:

Is there anything in a 12X Porro worth consideration other than the SE ?

bh46118 said:

Is there anything in a 12X Porro worth consideration other than the SE ?

Click to expand...

I don't know for the purposes of the comparison.

If there are other 12s that are worth adding to this, let me know and I'll try to pick them up. I liked the EL SV as a baseline, but dont want to exclude either. I am by no means an optical guru but will do my best to compare based on this forum's examples which have been very helpful to me to date.

Update: shop says Vortex shipped them Monday. Any day now!

Today, after a month of waiting, I played with the 2013 Vortex Razor HD 12x50s, and wanted to share my experience (first time reviewer... kid gloves folks!).

For context, I spend a few weeks per year in the open and expansive back country of the southern Rockies, and currently run Swarovski EL 12x50s in hand or on a tripod for extended wildlife glassing sessions. Depending on the geography, I may only bring the 12's, or wear a complimentary 8x32 around the neck (this year it will be the 8x30 Habicht). In the past I have enjoyed SLC 15x56s, EL 10x42, and Viper 15x50s for the tripod experience. With that, I will try to be as objective as subjectively possible.

My initial impressions of the new Razor HD 12x50s are as follows:

For physicality, the finish is identical to the newer Razor HD 10s that dropped last summer. At 29oz and change they are smaller and more portable than my previous roof prisms (aka 'big eyes') by a wide margin, and comfortable around the neck. If the view complimented the weight variance, I was hoping / planning that these would be the ultimate backpacking set, at a half pound lighter than the ELs and easier to hold perhaps. More on this later... The barrels are oddly shaped, starting out narrow like a 30mm objective might and expanding to the full 50mm size. They are well balanced my hands, easy to hold. While sizing the binoculars to my eyes, I noticed that the image appeared perhaps overly jumpy - once aligned this did not happen again. The focus wheel is very smooth end to end. It focuses a little quicker than the EL, and is less grainy, so I tended to overshoot targets a bit. The eye cups are comfortable, plenty of space for my longer eye lashes. They are flexible, which is helpful for extended viewing day after day.

Typing on a phone here so excuse the multiple posts.

For the view, I am again impressed by Vortex, although they didn't have that Dennis WOW factor for my eyes. I compared side by side the $13XX Razor HDs and $27XX ELs using knots in trees, distant rock outcroppings with a variety of shades, moss, and algae, and other desert objects. I compared both with and without an Outdoorsmans tripod system. Centered, I think that the resolution is almost as detailed - not quite at the edges, but close in the middle 40%. There appeared to me to be well controlled color on the Razors, and minimal glare looking towards the sun. With glare present, I could make out minute characters on a distant fence post using both sets, and the resolution in the smallest grains of wood were comparatively excellent on axis. As I looked around the imageAt the edges they displayed more obvious purpling and CA (correct term?) between light and dark objects. The image color overall is cool, with highlights a hair brighter than the ELs but not necessarily in a beneficial way. The level of light did not seem as natural as the ELs, but was still very good. This could have been due to the limited FOV, which stuck out to me as an area begging for improvement. In fact, that to me is the one and only area that kept me from really enjoying the optical experience - perhaps this is a personal preference.

Overall, I feel that the Razor HDs are a fine set of optics. They are a great multipurpose set - light enough to wear around the neck, and best suited for zeroing in on the subject. I have steady hands and can say that they can be controlled hand held, although they really shined in the tripod. For my purposes of open country glassing, the narrow FOV and the lack of clarity at the edge were a tad too restrictive. I was hoping to pull a thousand bucks out of my ELs, but alas, won't be. Nevertheless, I appreciate the quality for the price of these things. If nothing else, they are great for their resolution, apparent brightness, and weight weenies that want to consolidate optical sets in the field.

Racethesunset said:

Today, after a month of waiting, I played with the 2013 Vortex Razor HD 12x50s, and wanted to share my experience (first time reviewer... kid gloves folks!) ..... With that, I will try to be as objective as subjectively possible .....

Click to expand...

:t: I "like" the honesty of the stated aim! Thanks for posting your thoughts Race.

Before we delve too much further - could you please confirm the direction of focus to ∞ ??

Your comments on the Fov are interesting, as if you crunch the numbers, the Swaro has a 5.7° (100m @1km) TFov = 68.5° AFov, and the Vortex has a 5.4° (95m @1km) TFov = 65° AFov. All in all only 5% less. I always feel that a 60° AFov (wide field) is the absolute minimum that I could tolerate, 65° AFov is usually enjoyable, and 70° AFov (extra wide field) if you can get a quality view, is very nice indeed, and really the point that the "walk-in" experience starts for me.

Those less than Swaro-edges of the Razor must have something to do with your subjective experience (without entering Looksharp's PFov minefield! which I might expect to be better based on the slim-waisted-barrels, although perhaps those proud eyecups knock that back a bit .....). I think you explained well, the "something" less "natural" about the view in comparison to the Swaro's - being a combination of a whole lot of objective parameters, and subjective (individual eyes) factors. It seems Swaro is top-of-the-pops with regards to coatings technology, and the whole way it marries up in concert with the rest of the design to give the view that indefineable "something". In the end all that matters is what you see. I take it that the Eye Relief was sufficient for you?

The colour fringing you describe at the edges is "lateral CA" - with the Razor's APO (even though henry doesn't like that term) triplet ED objective, the longitudinal CA in the centre of the field should be near as, perfectly controlled, and contributing to a real "sharpness" and "clarity" to the view. As far as not having that Dennis WOW factor - most won't be too put off - since that definition's likely to change two weeks from now anyway!

I know Typo's a fan of the Razor HD's sharpness in x42mm's, and your comments seem to echo that. The Vortex should have an easier time in the 50mm market, since there's no Zeiss Conquest HD competitor to steal the thunder at much better value to boot. Good to see a quality, lightweight, 50mm offering for the "weight weenies" ..... not everyone is a hairy-chested "extreme" birder! :-O


Chosun :gh:

Juan, thank you for the comments and apologies for the delayed response.

I honestly did not even notice the focus wheel direction during my day with the Razor HD 12's. I should have taken more time to analyze the differences, compared them in low light, and used a vision chart like others have recommended.

Subjectively, the Razor's FOV was more noticeable to me than other differences (light control, edge sharpness, handling, focus wheel direction) for some reason, even though its only 5% less than the SVs. I think this could because of the multipurpose role that the 12x50 configuration fills. Put another way, if you only have one binocular with an already constrained field of view, 15 feet is more significant.

More recently, I briefly compared the Razor HDs, SLC non-HDs, Conquest HDs and SVs in the 10x42 configuration, and FOV did not impact my opinion one way or the other. Rather than FOV or AFOV, edge sharpness and highlight brightness were the most distracting differences, such that I walked out disappointed at the lack of quality field flattener options out there, and wondering whether or not these companies account for big box store lighting during coating development. But I digress.

Chosun Juan said:

:t: I "like" the honesty of the stated aim! Thanks for posting your thoughts Race.

Before we delve too much further - could you please confirm the direction of focus to ∞ ??

Your comments on the Fov are interesting, as if you crunch the numbers, the Swaro has a 5.7° (100m @1km) TFov = 68.5° AFov, and the Vortex has a 5.4° (95m @1km) TFov = 65° AFov. All in all only 5% less. I always feel that a 60° AFov (wide field) is the absolute minimum that I could tolerate, 65° AFov is usually enjoyable, and 70° AFov (extra wide field) if you can get a quality view, is very nice indeed, and really the point that the "walk-in" experience starts for me.

Those less than Swaro-edges of the Razor must have something to do with your subjective experience (without entering Looksharp's PFov minefield! which I might expect to be better based on the slim-waisted-barrels, although perhaps those proud eyecups knock that back a bit .....). I think you explained well, the "something" less "natural" about the view in comparison to the Swaro's - being a combination of a whole lot of objective parameters, and subjective (individual eyes) factors. It seems Swaro is top-of-the-pops with regards to coatings technology, and the whole way it marries up in concert with the rest of the design to give the view that indefineable "something". In the end all that matters is what you see. I take it that the Eye Relief was sufficient for you?

The colour fringing you describe at the edges is "lateral CA" - with the Razor's APO (even though henry doesn't like that term) triplet ED objective, the longitudinal CA in the centre of the field should be near as, perfectly controlled, and contributing to a real "sharpness" and "clarity" to the view. As far as not having that Dennis WOW factor - most won't be too put off - since that definition's likely to change two weeks from now anyway!

I know Typo's a fan of the Razor HD's sharpness in x42mm's, and your comments seem to echo that. The Vortex should have an easier time in the 50mm market, since there's no Zeiss Conquest HD competitor to steal the thunder at much better value to boot. Good to see a quality, lightweight, 50mm offering for the "weight weenies" ..... not everyone is a hairy-chested "extreme" birder! :-O


Chosun :gh:

Click to expand...

Chosun:

I am wondering about this post, have you any experience with the optics you
are referring to ?

If not, your gibberish, is just that. Not much. |8||

Jerry

Jerry - Yes, all bar the latest iteration Razor's in 50mm guise (obviously), although I am familiar with previous generation 50mm's, and current 42's (sadly their CCW to ∞ focusing direction is something I can't live with - especially for over a G) :-C

For some reason, I find a greater Afov more necessary to be "comfortable" as the magnifications go up (probably due to residual mental spatial awareness - some sort of genetic survival mechanism related to the TFov and the field capabilities of evolved human vision - this magnified caper has been around for less than a blink of an eye in anthropological terms), so I can fully understand and comprehend the sentiments of someone as put forward by Race for example. :cat:

I have experience with everything from 45° Afov bins to 80° ones (although I find those at the extremes of that range more anachronisms and curios - hence my statement of preferred Afov's ..... YMMV!)


Chosun :gh:

Nice review.
I guess no one expect Razor equals sv 12x50 which supposed to be king of 12x. It seems they still perform very well consider their price.

Wish to see more detailed reports.

Very interested in 10x50 as well. Anyone had ordered one ?

Winwin, here are a few snippets from Typo who eyeballed the APO Razors recently at the Birdfair, Rutland, UK ......

"The Razors obviously shine, but the CA on the 12x50 was pretty bad". http://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=2801417&postcount=6

Quite suprising really, given the design and materials, though Race reported CA at the edges, earlier on this thread (post#28), "As I looked around the image at the edges they displayed more obvious purpling and CA (correct term?) between light and dark objects". ..... perhaps eye placement is fairly critical on the 12x ? with eyes not entirely free to roam ?? needs more confirmation by more peeps having a squizz .....

Typo was quite impressed with the 10x though ...... "The Razor 10x50 was really very good. It felt lighter than the listed 797 grams and well balanced in spite of it's length. In fact I thought I'd picked up the 12x initially the detail was so good ..... " http://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=2801597&postcount=12

I thought a few more folk might have given these a try by now, since there aren't many quality x50mm options, unless you head into the price stratosphere ...... :cat:



Chosun :gh:

Chosun Juan said:

Winwin, here are a few snippets from Typo who eyeballed the APO Razors recently at the Birdfair, Rutland, UK ......

"The Razors obviously shine, but the CA on the 12x50 was pretty bad". http://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=2801417&postcount=6

Quite suprising really, given the design and materials, though Race reported CA at the edges, earlier on this thread (post#28), "As I looked around the image at the edges they displayed more obvious purpling and CA (correct term?) between light and dark objects". ..... perhaps eye placement is fairly critical on the 12x ? with eyes not entirely free to roam ?? needs more confirmation by more peeps having a squizz .....

Typo was quite impressed with the 10x though ...... "The Razor 10x50 was really very good. It felt lighter than the listed 797 grams and well balanced in spite of it's length. In fact I thought I'd picked up the 12x initially the detail was so good ..... " http://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=2801597&postcount=12

I thought a few more folk might have given these a try by now, since there aren't many quality x50mm options, unless you head into the price stratosphere ...... :cat:



Chosun :gh:

Click to expand...

It is true that there aren't too many $1000 options around for x50mm. I am using the Razor HD 10x42 with satisfaction and the new 12x50 looks interesting.

Just'd like to read more comments regarding the CA issues.

Andy

Sorry to revive an older thread, but I was just curious if anyone has tried the Razor HD 12x50 and if so, can you share your thoughts on them?

cnick6 said:

Sorry to revive an older thread, but I was just curious if anyone has tried the Razor HD 12x50 and if so, can you share your thoughts on them?

Click to expand...

I reported after BirdFair last year I found the CA disappointing on the 12x50, and it was still disappointing last Friday. The 10x50 on the other hand I think is very good.

David

Vortex Razor HD 12x50 RZB-2104 Update

Not going to give a lengthy review here but just wanted to share a few comments regarding the Vortex Razor HD 12x50.

First of all, this is an exquisite piece of engineering. It's beautifully designed. Fit and finish is first rate and this feels like much more expensive $2500 binocular. Having held a couple of Leica and Swaros now, I believe its physical design is right up there with the best.

The initial shock is the weight. For a 12x50 these feel like a 8x32. They're super lightweight. They're so lightweight they almost feel like a toy binocular.

Another great feature is that most of the body feels like a typical 8x42. Only the very ends are larger to support the larger objectives. The feel of the binocular is pretty amazing.

Optically, they are incredibly sharp and bright. The edge sharpness goes to about 90-95%. The image returned on a 12x power binocular is absolutely first rate. I compared this exact model to a 8x42 Conquest HD, Swaro EL 10x42, Leica Trinovid 10x42 and a Leica Geovid 8x42 HD-B. I used a painted image against a white wall and all passed the 'sharp' test. The images was approximately 20m away and under a massive skylight in sunny skies. I think the Geovid was probably the sharpest of the three but I honestly couldn't see any difference between the non-Geovid models. [EDIT: I later tried the Meopta/Cablea Euro HD 12x50 model and it seemed on-par with the Geovid in terms of sharpness.]

These are marketed at hunters namely due to their low-light capability. I haven't done a lot of significant testing in low light but when using them near dusk they seem very good. Compared to other binoculars I have, they definitely stand out even compared to my 20x56 Nikon M5.

Typo mentioned a possible issue of CA. After several days of testing, I was able to reproduce a moderate amount of CA even under practical conditions. This CA *only* appears when slightly outside the sweet spot. The CA is still extremely minor when compared to the overall image quality. Under 98% of most viewing conditions, the average end user wouldn't notice. Only when viewing high-contrast with well-placed lighting will you reproduce the CA.

Another criticism of the Razor HD is its price point. Some could argue that it's not worth the money especially given the moderate CA. If I were Vortex then I would consider dropping the price slightly; however, for a 12x50 model the price point is fair considering the available competition. There are not a lot of "quality" 12x binoculars on the market. There are a few at around $2500 and then the price drops to the $1000-$1300 range. After that, it's down to the $600 level. The price ranges are nicely layered at 50% increments.

I think the average consumer would probably find the Vortex Viper HD 12x50 a very good value. I think most would see the finer details of the Razor HD 12x50. Is it worth double the price? That's the debate. Another question: is the Razor HD as good as a $2500 binocular? I believe this is more of a personal issue. I would be willing to bet that the average consumer wouldn't see any differences between the Razor HD and the higher-end models. Obviously, there are exceptions but most probably wouldn't be willing to pay double the price for that extra quality.

For me personally, the Razor HD is a high-end binocular and I'm not sure I could justify the extra cost of a $2500 binocular. There are still a few models that I haven't seen personally but I'm very satisfied with the Razor HD.

I can highly recommend the Razor HD 12x50 especially if you're seeking a one-time purchase for a do-it-all binocular.

Since 2 years I own a Viper HD 6x32 and that's really a great glass. Therefore I consider to get a larger size in the same serie, or a Razor.

According to the specs the 10x50 has the same 16,5mm eye relief as 10x42. That's strange. The 50mm model is longer than 42mm model(=the focal length of the objective is longer). This means that for the same magnification the focal length of the eyepiece will be longer, which usually results in a longer eye relief. And it's even more strange because the APOV of 10x50 is smaller than 10x42. The eye relief of 10x50 SHOULD be several mm more than than the eye relief of 10x42.

However, I know by experience that the stated eye relief of binocular is often not correct. For example Zeiss claims the same 16mm eye relief for all the models in Victory FL serie, and that's definitely not correct.

Anyone who have compared Razor 10x42 to 10x50, if they really have the same eye relief? Higher APOV usually demands a larger eye lens and I really doubt that the eye lens of 10x42 is larger than 10x50.

I wear glasses, but normally find anything 15mm or better is fine. I've only tried the x32s and x42s in the Viper HD range and do remember a couple of models were very generous on eye relief. All the Razor HDs were good for me, but it was the 10x50 that was my pick from the range. It had the weight and feel of an x42 but better EP and a absolutely first class view. If I remember rightly I did twist out the eyecups a millimetre or two. Hope that helps.

David