I agree that reverse porros are normally a great value optically but they are awkward. Although very compact for a reverse porro, even my recently acquired 7x26 Elite suffers from difficulty to pocket. Plus it has the dreaded "poor hang angle" (no jokes) with the location of the strap rings. Oh and the strap the comes with it - ostentatious. Optical ghetto. The alphas will simply be more refined - it's the non-optical elements which also contribute to the refined experience. Speaking or "poor hang angle", the LXL suffers as well so word to the wise.
-
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.
Pocketability of LXL vs Victory vs Conquest 8x20s (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Jeff Landry
- Start date
Alexis Powell
Natural history enthusiast
I think it is fair to say that the Zeiss Conquest is the smallest and lightest, and the Nikon is the largest and heaviest. The Leica Ultravid, Leica Trinovid, Zeiss Victory, and Swarovski models are all intermediate in size and weight, and the differences among them are not significant. Note that the Leica are available in rubber armored and in leather/faux leather versions; the latter are both slightly more compact and somewhat lighter in weight.
For me, the goal for a small bino is to be as small, lightweight, and unfiddly as possible. Being light is as important as being small because it effects how securely the bin must be stowed while hiking and messing with other equipment. When hiking, I like to wear my 8x20 Zeiss Victory or Leica Ultravid (leather/faux leather version) on a neck cord. I then tuck the bin in a large front shirt pocket, or, if I'm wearing a backpack I hook the end of one barrel into an elastic band affixed to one of the backpack straps at chest height, or to the "sternum strap" of the backpack. In that position, it is available at a moment's notice but is otherwise out of the way.
I like the Zeiss Victory and Leica Ultravid leather version equally well for their very small (essentially identical) size and light weight (and their superb optics, long eye relief, and very close focus). Both hang flat. Both are easy to set up quickly because the Zeiss has a single hinge and the Leica Ultravid has positive stops in its hinges such that one side can be immediately unfolded all the way before even looking through the bin, then the other side unfolded in similar fashion as the single hinge on the Zeiss to set the IPD. Those who like to hold their bin in their left hand and/or focus with their left hand may not like the right hand bias of the Zeiss Victory.
I'm not a fan of the Zeiss Conquest; it has inferior optics, is very fiddly due to lack of positive stops in the hinges, a poor neckstrap design (doesn't attach/hang well, can't be replaced easily), and it just doesn't seem as fine a product as any of the other choices.
I own, and have heavily used two generations of the B&L 7x26 Custom Compact. It is a fine bin, but I find it does not perform as well as the others against the light, and it is considerably more bulky. If I want something bigger than 8x20, I go to a small 8x32.
--AP
For me, the goal for a small bino is to be as small, lightweight, and unfiddly as possible. Being light is as important as being small because it effects how securely the bin must be stowed while hiking and messing with other equipment. When hiking, I like to wear my 8x20 Zeiss Victory or Leica Ultravid (leather/faux leather version) on a neck cord. I then tuck the bin in a large front shirt pocket, or, if I'm wearing a backpack I hook the end of one barrel into an elastic band affixed to one of the backpack straps at chest height, or to the "sternum strap" of the backpack. In that position, it is available at a moment's notice but is otherwise out of the way.
I like the Zeiss Victory and Leica Ultravid leather version equally well for their very small (essentially identical) size and light weight (and their superb optics, long eye relief, and very close focus). Both hang flat. Both are easy to set up quickly because the Zeiss has a single hinge and the Leica Ultravid has positive stops in its hinges such that one side can be immediately unfolded all the way before even looking through the bin, then the other side unfolded in similar fashion as the single hinge on the Zeiss to set the IPD. Those who like to hold their bin in their left hand and/or focus with their left hand may not like the right hand bias of the Zeiss Victory.
I'm not a fan of the Zeiss Conquest; it has inferior optics, is very fiddly due to lack of positive stops in the hinges, a poor neckstrap design (doesn't attach/hang well, can't be replaced easily), and it just doesn't seem as fine a product as any of the other choices.
I own, and have heavily used two generations of the B&L 7x26 Custom Compact. It is a fine bin, but I find it does not perform as well as the others against the light, and it is considerably more bulky. If I want something bigger than 8x20, I go to a small 8x32.
--AP
lilcrazy2
Well-known member
I have owned a Bushnell Legend 9x25 compact roof for the past 8 years, and in a fit of now seeming insanity, I bought a pair of Zeiss Victory 10x25 B T* compacts. The Legends are phase coated, whereas the Victory's had additional dielectric and T coatings. After 2 days of extensive indoor and outdoor testing, I came to the following two conclusions:
1. The Victory's were slightly better than the Legends in terms of brightness, sharpeness/resolution - but only by about 5%. Stray light and edge sharpness was equal.
2. The Victory's are a MONUMENTAL WASTE OF MONEY! PERIOD.
I would imagine any of the better compact phase coated roofs such as the Leupold Olympics or Carson XD's would probably perform optically about the same, but for a lot less money.
Just my 2 cents worth.
tom
1. The Victory's were slightly better than the Legends in terms of brightness, sharpeness/resolution - but only by about 5%. Stray light and edge sharpness was equal.
2. The Victory's are a MONUMENTAL WASTE OF MONEY! PERIOD.
I would imagine any of the better compact phase coated roofs such as the Leupold Olympics or Carson XD's would probably perform optically about the same, but for a lot less money.
Just my 2 cents worth.
tom
I have owned the Nikon, Zeiss and Leica Trinovid and have used most others besides the Swaro (left out as they are usually substantially more coin).
I prefer the Zeiss overall but all three are very close and it comes down to your preference. I got a VERY good deal on my Zeiss and that tipped it for me.
Dave
I prefer the Zeiss overall but all three are very close and it comes down to your preference. I got a VERY good deal on my Zeiss and that tipped it for me.
Dave
elkcub
Silicon Valley, California
Hi Phil,
As I mentioned in our PM the Leica BL appeals to me aesthetically a bit more, but the functional (and critical) difference in my case is 2mm more eye relief. Still, I can get along with the Swaro because I can use them without glasses due to the 2.5 exit pupil.
It's a tough choice, but Swaro is still a contender for many.
Ed
Ed thanks for the comparison. Like you I feel they are very close. I just like the feel of the swaro better.
