• 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.

Sightron "Blue Sky" II 8x32 (1 Viewer)

Those are the optical similarities. There are also some differences...a few of which were noted in the All Binos review of the Kenko and Vixen models..

thanks for pointing out the All Binos stuff, what a great resource of objective bin reviews!

it's interesting to compare the Vixen Foresta to the Swaro EL 8x32 (upon which it is obviously based in look/feel).

the only major differences between the two in the scoring system are:

- Swaro EL has a much wider TFOV (8-degrees vs. 7.6)
- Swaro EL has a wider "sweet spot" (83% of FOV vs. 69%)
- Swaro EL controls astigmatism a little better and has a better transmission curve
- Swaro EL has slightly better close focus

in some areas (CA control, field curvature, and internal matting/reflections) the Vixen Foresta outpointed the Swaro. In most other areas (transmission, coma, collimation, and quality of housing/focusing) they were basically equal. The 90%+ transmission measurement is quite impressive.

if the Sightron is truly even better than the Vixen, that is really tempting...


Frank, a question: is there any difference in minimum IPD between the Sightron and the Vixen? According to All Binos the Swaro EL has an extra 3mm (55mm vs 58mm) of minimum IPD, and those last few mm could make a difference as to whether my wife can use them!
 
I cannot answer the question in regard to the Vixen model. I chose to return it after determining that the Sightron was better overall based on the characteristics I compared.....optically and ergonomically.

Minimum IPD for the Sightron is 55 mm.

I would love to compare the Sightrons to the ELs. I think they would compare very favorably in all areas. The ELs might have slightly better performance in terms of the size of the sweet spot but the difference would be negligible in my opinion. That is purely conjecture of course as I have not owned the 8x32 EL for several years. Still, it would be interesting to compare the two.
 
Last edited:
Optically:

From a general perspective these three binoculars are more alike than not. The share many of the same image characteristics in terms of the field of view, size of the perceived "sweet spot" and level/type of edge distortion. All three also seem to control CA to roughly the same level though I did not have an opportunity to compare them under extreme CA-inducing situations.
Frank
Again, thanx for the great reviews, and I have been following this thread with great interest in regards to the Sightron. In reading thru the Allbinos reviews I notice that they downgrade both the Vixen & Kenko for the rapid fall off outside the average sweetspot, and rate the edge performance somewhat less than average. I take it the Sightron shares these similarities from your comments??

Since I am a big fan of the 8x32 format, I have been on the fence over the Sightrons waiting for the reviews to shake out, and these comments on the falloff and edge performance are not encouraging me to take the leap. Can you shed a little more light on this area of performance?

Tom
 
be realistic -- what "bargain" binocular DOESN'T have fall-off in edge performance?

there are always optical compromises unless you are willing to shell out the $$$. That's one of the things that separates the "alphas", for that cost they can afford to correct more optical aberrations. The more money you have, the fewer compromises you have to make... Larger sweet spots, loss coma/astigmatism/blurring at the edge... that's the optical "gravy" you pay for with the alphas.

frankly, of all the compromises you need to make to bring good optics at budget prices, edge performance is one of the best ones to make. Who looks at the edge of the field? Frankly I'm just happy we have many good options now for $500-or-under where the transmission, contrast, and center field performance are virtually alpha caliber.
 
frankly, of all the compromises you need to make to bring good optics at budget prices, edge performance is one of the best ones to make. Who looks at the edge of the field? Frankly I'm just happy we have many good options now for $500-or-under where the transmission, contrast, and center field performance are virtually alpha caliber.

It's not really a question of looking at the edges, although you can with flat field bins like the EDG and SV (not so the SE because of blackouts). Instead, it's more a question of perceiving the edges. They're sharp and you notice, whether you're looking at them or not. Your brain notices and really likes it. How many times have you heard someone describe the view of an SV as "it's like there's no binocular there at all"? That's the feeling you get and once you've spent some time with it you won't want to go back--at least I don't.

But it's practical too: I was watching American White Pelicans feeding cooperatively this summer, maybe 20 of them and they filled the view, and how cool was it to just let my eyes wander over the whole lot of them, and all of them tack sharp. Just one example among many more.

That said, I could indeed give up those edges and still be happy--so long as the center is sharp (my sine qua non). I'm used to that view, too. But since (for now at least) I'm free to make the choice...well, the choice has been made.

Smoke 'em if you got 'em,

Mark
 
well, DUH... of course it's better to have sharp edges. The point is that (1) only the most expensive "alpha" bins are able to achieve this goal and (2) if you made a priority list of optical characteristics, that is one of the best things to give up when you make compromises on a "budget" design.

more broadly, it's silly for Tom to fret about edge performance as the thing that will hold him back from purchasing a $200 pair of bins, for the 2 reasons above. If that is your attitude... you're never going to be happy unless you are willing and able to spend the $$.
 
well, DUH... of course it's better to have sharp edges. The point is that (1) only the most expensive "alpha" bins are able to achieve this goal and (2) if you made a priority list of optical characteristics, that is one of the best things to give up when you make compromises on a "budget" design.

more broadly, it's silly for Tom to fret about edge performance as the thing that will hold him back from purchasing a $200 pair of bins, for the 2 reasons above. If that is your attitude... you're never going to be happy unless you are willing and able to spend the $$.

Well DUH, I am willing and able, and I did. Isn't that what I said? Smoke 'em if you got 'em.

I was responding to the notion that edges don't matter. They do. I explained my experience, that's all. And frankly, in my experience edges may NOT be the the first thing to give up. At the risk of starting a conflict, I might be inclined to say FOV is the first thing to go. I can get on a bird pronto with my little Olympus 8x25 reverse porros (FOV a measly 315' and hardly a stinkin' alpha), mainly because that's a question of how much you actually use the things. And guess what: the Olympus has an aspheric element in the eyepiece that gives a seriously flat field. I love the little duffer. Sharp as a freakin' tack it is.

Just my thoughts.

Mark
 
It is very easy to "dial in" edge sharpness with the focuser in the Swift 8.5 x 44 Audubon 828 which I own and presently use as my car binocular. It costs in the neighborhood of $2000.00 less than the 8.5 x 42 SV. Of course it doesn't have ED or dielectric prisms either and not near as wide a FOV. But it works and is a pleasure to use. When I hit the lottery I plan on getting a Swarovski 8.5 x 42 to use as my car binocular!|:D|

In my Bentley. :cool:

Bob
 
well, DUH... of course it's better to have sharp edges. The point is that (1) only the most expensive "alpha" bins are able to achieve this goal and (2) if you made a priority list of optical characteristics, that is one of the best things to give up when you make compromises on a "budget" design.

more broadly, it's silly for Tom to fret about edge performance as the thing that will hold him back from purchasing a $200 pair of bins, for the 2 reasons above. If that is your attitude... you're never going to be happy unless you are willing and able to spend the $$.

Well - silly me!

If you've read any of my other posts you may notice that like Frank, I buy and try quite a large number of bins of the low to midrange price, and have stated on numerous occasions that I do not look at the edges, and am not particularly bothered by some edge softness.

That being said, I do pay attention to how the bins transition from the sweetspot to the edges, and other more mundane categories such as types and severity of distorsion. Since Frank had made some comparisons of the Sightrons to the 8x32 Nikon SE's, I think my question on the edge fall off has some validity, as I don't see Allbinos remarking about fall off on the SE's. It struck me as odd that Allbinos seemed to go out of their way to point out the fall off on the Kenkos and Vixens, so I thought my question to Frank had some validity. Obviously from your remarks, you don't.

Frank and I have had some PM's previously on these bins, and I have been comparing the 8x32 Alpen Apex, 8x32 Alpen Ranier, and 8x32 carson XM-HD's I have picked up over the last couple of months. The 8x32 Apex's compare quite favorably to my Swaro 8x30's, and the Raniers are simply outstanding.

Still sitiing on the fence to see if I want to spring for the Sightrons to throw into the mix, which prompted my question.

Tom
 
I read a few of the new posts earlier this afternoon but did not have a chance to fiddle and respond until now.

I had only a brief amount of time this evening but I did take four bins out of the proverbial case and attempted to take some pics with each of them.

In order...the Sightron...the Bushnell Excursion 8x28...the ZR 7x36 ED2 and the ZR 7x43 ED3.

Before anyone goes crazy critiquing the pics, they were handheld and the best of several attempts. If I had some serious time I would repeat the procedure but with a universal digiscoping adapter, the timer on the camera and natural daylight. What you have to settle for now is the previously mentioned handheld shots with a typical room lamp and today's newspaper.

Have at 'em....
 

Attachments

  • sightron.jpg
    sightron.jpg
    60 KB · Views: 1,030
  • bushnell.jpg
    bushnell.jpg
    56 KB · Views: 867
  • 736.jpg
    736.jpg
    60.8 KB · Views: 842
  • 742.jpg
    742.jpg
    54.5 KB · Views: 855
Not a bad idea. Maybe I should have just posted them and then seen if anyone could figure out which was which. :)
 
Frank, how would I go about evaluating resolution w/computer? The Sightron is 8x and the ED2 & 3 is 7x. Of course I can't realistically compare digital enhancement, but that's all I've got.

That being the case for fun let's consider that I take the pics and turn them all CCW, so I can read the paper left to right. Then I take the Sightron and enhance the resolution seven times.

Knowing the resolution will degrade would I then compare the ED2/3 six times, the same seven or would I try to maintain some type of multiple factor and run w/eight?

Just speculating I'd think that the one less optical would deserve one less digital to level the resolution field.

How far off me rocker might I be?
 
Here are some more pics of the bins in question...under slightly better conditions.....

8x28 Excursion....Sightron 8x32......7x36 ED2's
 

Attachments

  • excursion.jpg
    excursion.jpg
    139.9 KB · Views: 709
  • sightron.jpg
    sightron.jpg
    126.4 KB · Views: 896
  • ed2.jpg
    ed2.jpg
    139.4 KB · Views: 772
7x43 ED3s....Yosemite 6x30 and HR WP 8x42
 

Attachments

  • ed3.jpg
    ed3.jpg
    122.7 KB · Views: 634
  • yosemite.jpg
    yosemite.jpg
    85.2 KB · Views: 635
  • cascade.jpg
    cascade.jpg
    108.2 KB · Views: 642
Nix,

I didn't mean not to answer your questions. I read it a bit earlier and have to admit that I had never really given it much thought. Maybe one of the others would be able to chime in on that issue. There is probably a great deal more to it than what I could come up with.
 
Not to worry Frank as it was partially tongue in cheek because I have no idea if you could even the odds a mite through digital enhancement of the varying power optical pics which I presume are dig cam pics.

But then, I started wondering because if you took them all at the same resolution then they should progress similarly w/exception of the differing power. I thought someone might know/pondered the same.

I'm not sure how much the pics degrade at higher resolutions nor do I know how well the software actually renders the resolution.

Regardless, w/o looking at the latest pics, I thought the Sightron pic looked fairly sharp.
 
Just glancing at a few, bearing in mind differing powers, I liked the resolution of the ED2 & Sightron giving an edge to ED2 because of the 7x. Then ED3 and the Cascade brings up the rear w/o a doubt. Didn't save any other samples and I flipped these pics twice to right them which isn't the best for retaining original resolution, but I did the same to them all.
I was disappointed in the ZR 7x43 ED3 pic comparatively speaking. I realize I'm not spending a bunch of time and this is but one example, yet to me the ED3 pic looks as if it was shot at a lower resolution than the other three that I saved. Is it just me or do I need to finish my java and take another peek?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top