• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Hawke 8x42 Frontier OH? (1 Viewer)

eitanaltman

Well-known member
I searched around quite a bit and couldn't find any mention of these Hawke binoculars, all I got was a bunch of discussion on the Frontier ED models.

Sounds like the OH = open hinge?

Anyone used these or have any feedback? They seem like a relatively compact 8x42 model, only 24oz, with all the right base specs (phase corrected prisms, fully multicoated, water/fog proof, etc)... but what caught my eye is the advertised 459' FOV. That would be (AFAIK) the widest FOV available in the 8x42 body style.

Anyone? The price is right at $239, curious to hear any opinions?
 
I wouldn't be surprised if that 459 turns into 420 feet. Call it intuition. ;)

I do remember reading about these before. I think they received a mediocre review either on here or on one of the semi-pro review sites on the web.
 
Hawke Frontier PC Open Hinge 10x42

I searched around quite a bit and couldn't find any mention of these Hawke binoculars, all I got was a bunch of discussion on the Frontier ED models.

Sounds like the OH = open hinge?

Anyone used these or have any feedback? They seem like a relatively compact 8x42 model, only 24oz, with all the right base specs (phase corrected prisms, fully multicoated, water/fog proof, etc)... but what caught my eye is the advertised 459' FOV. That would be (AFAIK) the widest FOV available in the 8x42 body style.

Anyone? The price is right at $239, curious to hear any opinions?
Hi Hawke OH seekers. While looking for 8x42, all this time later, I couldn't find much about these either but saw the 10x42 version of Hawke Frontier PC open hinge virtually new but with a broken box for £76. The focus mechanism on a pair of Leupold Yosemite had been jamming solid if left for a couple of days, and manufacturers had just confirmed a fault. So, instead of exchanging for Hawke 8x42 and paying the additional £90, I accepted the full refund which was kindly offered by Uttings and took a chance on the Hawke 10x50s.

It was dusk when they arrived but first impressions were very good, with a degree of contrast/brightness which almost seemed to turn the light up. This impression was confirmed indoors, where they provided fine detail in a watercolour which has been used for trying out binoculars before. In a fairly gloomy corner of the room the details seemed almost as clear as when seen close up with the naked eye, the best so far.

I have been on a buying spree for 3 binoculars as gifts and one pair to replace Nikon 8x32 SEs which I had never really been able to get on with. Out of four Bushnell examples (which seemed potentially quite good) three had serious flaws: two out of collimation and one on the limit of the dioptre adjustment, as well as the fault with the Yosemites, but this pair of Hawkes seem to be properly made and very well finished. Nice touches include the 'click calibrated' dioptre adjustment, which is central when adjusted, and the neat flip-down objective covers which are replaceable but semi-permanently attached.

With a pair of Bushnell Ultra-HD Legend 10x36 I discovered that I could hold 10x steady after all, and that the extra magnification provided a more satisfying view. The eye relief '15mm' was just right with glasses for me, instead of around '17mm' or '18mm' provided by various 7x or 8x models which required the eyepieces to be wound up a bit, and this was so with the Hawkes too.

The Bushnell Ultra Legends are away with Bushnell for the dioptre problem so they were not available for direct comparison but I got on fine with their smaller exit pupils while the (presumably slightly bigger) Hawke 10x c.4mm pupils seem, surprisingly, to be a little more problematic and so the angular adjustment of the barrels is more critical. Just as well that it is stiff enough to stay put. Closest focus with Hawkes is around 7ft which does require slightly less of an angle between the barrels but not as badly as some I have tried. The clicking dioptre adjustment ring records precisely the last point of adjustment, which is useful in order to get it just right.

In daylight the first impressions are confirmed and sharpness/contrast/colour discrimination give realistic views e.g. foliage and blades of grass appear distinct and clear, with sufficient depth of focus to include nearby objects. Highlights and textures show up well and blacks look 'black'. From memory this performance is at least as good if not better than Bushnell Ultras, which in spite of ED glass were not so good in dull conditions when a slight overall 'greyness' tended to be noticeable. With the Hawkes, although it is not often obtrusive, any straight vertical lines are badly affected by pincushion distortion, while focus is quite good nearly to the edges. The action of the focus wheel is a smooth 1.5 turns stop to stop, with only a small rough patch in the 7m focus zone, and no play.

I think the Hawkes are most attractive for their design and quality of construction, with expensive looking rubber and components and a nice bulge towards the objective ends of the barrels. The open hinge and area of sharp nobbles on the sides makes them easy to handle. They are compact enough at 14cms long and 11.5cms wide when adjusted and 750gms complete. Reckon they are pretty good all round!

Regards
Chris
 

Attachments

  • Hawke1.jpg
    Hawke1.jpg
    52.3 KB · Views: 213
  • Hawke2.jpg
    Hawke2.jpg
    55.3 KB · Views: 233
Last edited:
Thanks Veracocha

Back to earth at RSPB Pulborough Brooks and trying out their collection of well used examples, I preferred the Hawkes over various Vikings, including EDs, but RSPB BG.PC 8x32 c.£320 seemed a little crisper and perhaps a fraction brighter, while being considerably smaller and lighter in weight as well, but thought Hawke's 10x magnification brought out just that little bit more information. Porro RSPB ASW 8x40 c.£120 also compared well at 'only' c.£120, but neither looked as stylish.

PS
I haven't noticed chromatic aberration with other binoculars but, today with the Hawkes, a band of yellow appeared around siskins, chaffinch, goldfinch, and a greenfinch in a tree or on the neighbour's bird feeder against the cloudy sky.
- Isn't 'phase correction' supposed to deal with that?

Having recognised CA I looked again at Nikon Action EX 7x35, the only other pair at hand, and found they were much the same.
Otherwise, although the clarity of views with the Nikons has seemed at least as good as most recently tried, the colours and plumage of a cock chaffinch was distinctly better with the Hawkes so I am still quite impressed...
 
Last edited:
After nearly five months the 10x36 Legend Ultra HDs were returned by Bushnell - no change to the dioptre ring on the limit but now partly broken focus ring and eyepiece slightly at an angle and badly out of collimation so they replaced them with a new pair, fine.

The Hawkes are a bit heavier but nicer to use, in fact because of the larger exit pupil and because their mid size makes them easier to handle. Hawkes also have slightly wider field of view while 42 vs. 36mm objectives could partly explain why brightness is much the same. On sunny day CA was not obvious with either but reckoned Utra HDs had less.

Still very satisfied with the Hawke Frontiers 10x42 and have discovered that their size and build quality is right, and that 10x is my own preference. Still hanker for the clarity and contrast of the Nikon 8x32 SEs of old and have ordered Bushnell Elite 620142ED on their Japanese rep. here, to try against the (too small) RSPB BGC 8x32 benchmark at the nearest RSPB centre. I gathered that now there are also 'HD' versions...
 
Last edited:
Did not find the 10x42 Bushnell Elite ED were an improvement on the Hawkes, except less pincushion which is only noticeable with straight edges in the picture. Ok they were new but focus was not so smooth and light and did not find them quite as sharp in the centre; colour white not quite so outstanding and leaves not quite so shiny. Field was similar but Elite image just looked a bit bigger.

The main thing was that Elite ED has more ER so the eyepieces needed to be wound up a bit, not needed by moi with Hawkes; only 25gms more but noticeably heavier, bulkier and for some reason harder to hold still. Dioptre adjustment less precise than Hawke's brilliant clicking ring, and found the soggier-click adjusting lever (rarely to be used) got in the way of the focus finger. I think I prefer open bridge design...

Whatever the differences on paper, fit and ease of focussing counts so the the hunt is off again for now and did not get back to RSPB reserve after all |:d|

Would be more confident in recommending the Hawke Frontier OH if 10x42 is required, discontinued but still available. Otherwise, I find sizes 10x32/36 more bother because of the smaller exit pupil, but may still have to have RSPB 8x32 BG.PC for something smaller and lighter.
 
Just got the 8x42 version of Hawke OH from CleySpy for a daughter who will be here from Australia soon. As expected they give the same naturally coloured bright sharp view, but a bit more ER, and FOV 420ft instead of 330ft although that does not seem as much as a third more. With both the sharpness tails off only slightly and gradually towards the periphery, hardly noticeable in use. They do give a nice view for the price.

Two out of two gooduns compared to all the probs with five Bushnells, including two out of collimation and all with more or less sloppy focus wheels. Apart from the absence of play, the wheel on these Hawkes seems to have better bearings or shaft, so it doesn't move when pressed lightly up/down/side to side. They seem well made.
 
Last edited:
Warning! This thread is more than 11 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top