just bought some ultralites on a whim (1 Viewer)

Hello all.

I regret selling my little trinovid 10x25 a few months ago, since then had no bins.
While out today I found a very nice mint pair of swift ultralites 8x32.

To be honest I'm pretty impressed, they cost little and give very sharp views.

Anyone on here able to give me your views on them?

Never had swift before but there certainly well built.

I wonder how old they are?

Thanks all
Gaz

swiftgazuk said:

Hello all.

I regret selling my little trinovid 10x25 a few months ago, since then had no bins.
While out today I found a very nice mint pair of swift ultralites 8x32.

To be honest I'm pretty impressed, they cost little and give very sharp views.

Anyone on here able to give me your views on them?

Never had swift before but there certainly well built.

I wonder how old they are?

Thanks all
Gaz

Click to expand...

Hi Gaz,

Generally speaking, Swift binoculars are very competent, although I have seen a few exceptions.

If these are Model 763 Ultra Lite, they have a "Z" (Zeiss) body, a generous FOV of 436', and weigh only 19.6 oz. as shown in Swift's 2000 catalog. I would say the only shortcomings (there have to be some) would be the 15mm eye relief, and close focusing of only 15.3'. They are fully multicoated, however, and it appears that Pete Dunne, a well known birder, felt they were an outstanding buy back then. Suggested retail: $425 ($615 today), but I'm also sure they could be purchased for less.

Enjoy your birding.

Ed

Thanks for info, yes there the 763, I'm pretty happy with them but need to get out in the field to test properly.

OK, took then into work today as I work for a company y who repairs and services optics and checked the collimation,they were fine up and down but side to side were out, realigned them and now there spot on, they looked great before but now much crisper..
Always worth a check I'd say to get the most out of your optics..

Can't wait to take em out for the day now.

Pretty pointless post but it shows when you look through them sometimes they look fine but can be out, my eyes are very supcetible to miss collimated optics as well.

Cheers gaz

elkcub said:

...If these are Model 763 Ultra Lite, they have a "Z" (Zeiss) body, a generous FOV of 436', and weigh only 19.6 oz. as shown in Swift's 2000 catalog. I would say the only shortcomings (there have to be some) would be the 15mm eye relief, and close focusing of only 15.3'. They are fully multicoated, however, and it appears that Pete Dunne, a well known birder, felt they were an outstanding buy back then. Suggested retail: $425 ($615 today), but I'm also sure they could be purchased for less...

Click to expand...

I remember these well from the late 1990s. I like them a lot except the eye-relief wasn't so good for me as a glasses wearer so I went for the 8x42 model. Superb contrast (better than roofs of the time), and the resolution is as good as it gets (practically speaking) in the center of the view, so it totally delivers for seeing minute details as any good birding bin needs to be able to do, but very fuzzy with lots of field curvature and astigmatism in the periphery. Overall comfort on the eyes depends on individual preference for sweet spot size. As I recall, the close focus was better than spec but the field of view was narrower, though not entirely sure about the latter.

--AP

Thanks for your thoughts, I will get back tomorrow with a proper view on them once tested properly out in the field, but there are sharp and bright with good contrast, in the shop I compared them with some trinovids as that's what I use to have, and in the quick test even though there trinovids were 8x25 smaller objective, because of the quality I expected them to be better, but hand on heart these older swifts were much nicer views..

Someone else on BF bought a Swift 8x32 Ultralite a few years back and raved about it. I had the 8x42 model (i.e., the original Japanese version with the gray rubber armor, not two-toned rubber like the newer ones). They truly lived up to their name unlike their successors, which were Chunklite (28 oz.). I also had an 8x44 ED Ultralite. I liked the 8x42 better, because the ED version had too much pincushion.

I wish Swift would bring back the Ultralite series (made in Japan) with an 8x32 models. Although not illustrated, Swift apparently still makes the Chunky-style Ultra Lite Porros, but they wisely dropped the "Lite" from the name:

Swift Ultra Series

Brock

Thanks for your views, interesting, mine are Japan ones and grey rubber armour, I haven't used porros for year since buying roof prism ones a long long time ago.
They are nice to look through, how would you describe the views through porros over roofs? Something to me looks better but can't put my finger on it..cheers gaz

brocknroller said:

...they truly lived up to their name unlike their successors, which were Chunklite (28 oz.)...

Click to expand...

Brock, I seem to remember being surprised to learn, maybe from reading an interview with someone at Swift, that the "Ultralite" name was inspired by a claim to the brightness rather than the low weight of the original version.

--AP

If it helps, the name used in the 2000 catalog is "ULTRA LITE®" at opposed to Ultralite. It's anybody's guess whether "Lite" referred to weight or brightness, since all the models have multicoatings and seem rather lightweight. Well, except for the 9x63 Model 764 ULTRA LITE (no ®), shown on another page, which weighs 35 oz., has a 283' FOV, and 22mm eye relief. Maybe it's a "featherweight" in disguise. Anyway, on balance the brightness hypothesis has slightly more weight of evidence to support it.
Ed :smoke:

Ultralights and featherweights do seem to be related, at least in origin.
I have Swift Ultralights, Bushnells, and the favorite, the Tower(Ofuna) Featherweight.
Hallmarks are a smooth rock-steady focuser and the eyepieces that give the
very flat, crisp field. The ancester (or inspiration) seems to be the ~1970
7x35 Kowa Prominar Lightweight (which is light but not as light as the followers).
Or...maybe it's just in that pack.

The personal favorite is the Tower 7x35 Featherweight.

OPTIC_NUT said:

Ultralights and featherweights do seem to be related, at least in origin.
I have Swift Ultralights, Bushnells, and the favorite, the Tower(Ofuna) Featherweight.
Hallmarks are a smooth rock-steady focuser and the eyepieces that give the
very flat, crisp field. The ancester (or inspiration) seems to be the ~1970
7x35 Kowa Prominar Lightweight (which is light but not as light as the followers).
Or...maybe it's just in that pack.

The personal favorite is the Tower 7x35 Featherweight.

Click to expand...

Slight correction.... the Kowa Prominar is in the mid-late period
of the precision-field designs. The earliest example I see is the
B&L Zephyr, ~1946. Then came many brands of featherweights, the
Tower/Ofuna bantam style, Swift Triton 748s, etc.
So many little gems. The Towers are the lightest center-focus, the
Triton(narrows) the finest, Kowas the best of both worlds, all awesome.

My understanding is that the Ultralite Porros such as the 763 share a common origin with the old Celestron Ultimas and the current Vixen Geomas. The Main difference may simply be the armour. Here is the Vixen equivalent of the 763.... http://www.adorama.com/vx1511.html A very nice throw-back Porro. JB-56 Hiyoshi Kogaku (also the OEM for various Audubons as well as many other Swift models over the years).

They certainly look very similar, although the Swift 763 was advertised to have 3.6 oz more weight.

I'm curious if anyone has made a side-by-side comparison with the Nikon 8x30E. It might be an affordable alternative, or even an improvement?

Ed

I owned and used the ultra lite 8x32 for a few years,but i dont have them anymore..I agree with Alexis Powell's remarks...Sharp as it gets practically ..about 10-11 feet close focus.(better than specified)...good contrast and fairly good against front light and glare..eye relief was tight to use with eyeglasses ,but i used small flexible frames at the time and managed to see the entire fov..The color rendering was a bit greenish/warm,and i dont think of them as being specially bright..their fine resolution suffered quite a bit on low light compared with other binos i have used,and you could see this happening on the field as light fluctuated ..but on good light they really really pulled detail..They do seem to have a sharper image than the 8x42 version ,that i have also owned,but this might be a misconception caused by the fact that i owned the 820 audubon at the time ,and the 8x42 ultra lite lacked the extraordinary resolution that my pair of audubons had..
The 8x32 ultra lite also controls chromatic aberration very well,to the point of making me think that maybe ED glass of some sort might have been used in their objectives.I read at least one report of this fact in the context of some german top brand (zeiss or leica)collaborating with the Japanese manufacturer at the time,and with this model ,to be precise..
They offered the classid 3d porro view,but forced me to reajust diopter setting constantly with different focus distances..I managed to do this easily,and become second nature to the use of the binoculars..My current 8x32 roof doesnt require for this adjustment..i now use the kenko ultraview EX 8x32 OPDH II,a clon of the popular (,in this forum),sightron BS is actually ,that is actually comparable in general optical performance with the Ultra lite ,but honestly outperforms it as a birding glass almost in every area,even if the Ultra lite is a sharper bino.
All in all and to finish,the Ultra lite 8x32 is a super fine,PREMIUM porro,much better optically than the current generation of 8x30 yosemite clones.I think that their fair competitor would be the Nikon EII.I have read a comparison or two in the forum,and they seem to be very close in resolution and general view
They have been said to be the same binocular sold as the Celestron Ultima 20 years ago,and might be sold as the Vixen Geoma ,still in production, but the Swift grey rubber armor and paint job( including lettering)is unique and very very cool...there are good looking little fellows.
By the way,if anyone is interested, I just found all accessories and original box,even swift logo printed plastic bags ...they sold with premium case,the blue swift strap,and neat covers..price tag 264,95$

...I think that their fair competitor would be the Nikon EII.I have read a comparison or two in the forum,and they seem to be very close in resolution and general view...

Click to expand...

Thanks. I meant to say Nikon EII rather than E.

Ed

If you're hankering for that kind of performance and the Swifts are hard to find,
featherweights (or 'featherlights') from Bushnell, Adams Precison, Mayflower, Tower, and 'Emilia' are great.

Another Swift, the 7x35 Triton, Model 748, is actually even better, and in plentiful supply out there.
It isn't called 'featherweight'...the extra length and the high-precision/thick piston SS focuser add a bit of weight. But...wow.

The EPs in the featherweight family don't have big eye relief like the Bushnell Customs,
but they trade that for the flatness.

The Nikon 8x30 E is notable not so much for its flatness as for maintaining
that flatness over a breathtaking 460ft@1000yds.
Which is to say, these guys do not challenge the legendary Es on that score.
That's still a special achievement.

I'm finishing up on collecting the series. The feathers will recover their numbers,
but I never made a dent in the supply of Triton 748s. I got 3 good ones and
one with a cracked arm. Such is the auction.
The ultras you have to wait around for, but I prefer the coatings and focuser on the 748s.