• 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.

Need help selecting new binoculars. Swarovski? Leica? Zeiss? (1 Viewer)

. Thanks bfo.
Trolltunga looks like a good place for a base jumper, although I imagine the air currents might be against it.

Geiranger, from a height of about 4000 feet along the fjord was stunning. The scenery in Norway is the most beautiful I've seen anywhere. There are probably other places in the world with stunning scenery, but Norway is the best I've seen, and I've driven all the way up to North Cape.

What surprised me was that the lakes were frozen at about 4000 feet even in August . I don't suppose they ever melt, although they might do now with global warming.
 
Why no mention of the obvious choice - Swarovski 8.5x42 SV?...or are these massively more expensive? Warranted virtually for life, you can totally relax in your outlay.

Or the Swarovski EL 'Range'...with the computer guided laser.
 
Just bought a pair of 10x42 SLC's specifically for elk hunting, and I am not sure I could have done better at any price. However, the torture test of the Zeiss is very convincing as well. I don't think you could go wrong with either of those.
 
. Thanks bfo.
Trolltunga looks like a good place for a base jumper, although I imagine the air currents might be against it.

Geiranger, from a height of about 4000 feet along the fjord was stunning. The scenery in Norway is the most beautiful I've seen anywhere. There are probably other places in the world with stunning scenery, but Norway is the best I've seen, and I've driven all the way up to North Cape.

What surprised me was that the lakes were frozen at about 4000 feet even in August . I don't suppose they ever melt, although they might do now with global warming.

If you ever get a chance, take the train from Oslo to Bergen.

Absolutely breathtaking. There are no words to describe it.
 
Appreciate the advice, but Vortex is hard to come by in Norway. Price is also not very competitive. As far as I can see they cost more or less the same as Conquest HDs in the US. In Norway they are twice the price of the Conquest HD's.

Agreed, but the Vortex spotting scopes are good bang for the krone! :smoke:

HN
 
New member. I've been reading the binocular section quite a lot, but would still really like some "expert" advice before purchasing binoculars.

The binoculars will be used for hunting.

Important features must be: Ability to see game - A greyish reindeer aginst a greyish background in less than ideal (overcast, foggy, dusk/dawn etc) light conditions or a black bird (sorry, I know you guys just look at them) sitting in deep shadows whithin the branches of a tree. Hope you get the picture.

Matters less: Outer edge sharpness, focus wheel issues (yes, I have read very long threads about both the SLC and HT which more or less diminished into personal taste about focus wheels....)

What does NOT matter: Close focus

I've narrowed the selection down to a few candidates, listed below with approx. price for a new pair.

1. Zeiss conquest HD 8x42 ($725). Basic question: Are these up to the same standard as the "competition"?
2. Zeiss Victory HT 8x42 ($1850). Guess these are the best of the lot?
3. Swarovski SLC WB 8x42 ($1620). Are these up to Victory HT standard? Or are they closer to Conquest HD?
4. Leica Trinovid 8x42 ($1230). Optical quality closer to SLC/HT or Conquest HD?

Would really appreciate any advice or just general comments on this.

Wrong forum! You want to ask that question HERE

<B>
 
Bfo

It is understandable that some birders react negatively to hunters, but this is a binocular forum, and a good one to boot, so personally I choose to leave those issues aside and concentrate on binoculars here.

Answering the original question, there's not much in practical terms between the models discussed in this thread. They would all give an excellent image and plenty of detail. What was missing in your description of your needs is to what extent you are able to brace your binoculars when viewing, or to what extent they are genuinely hand-held. This makes a lot of difference, as when you can support the binoculars, you will get concrete benefits from magnifications higher than 8x. Then, a 10x42-50 model might be better for you than an 8x42, and the higher magnification will show you more detail more easily even in dusk and deep twilight, let alone in full daylight.

Then there is the option not yet mentioned of using an image-stabilized binocular. This is what I do for all of my birding except for the bit where I'm testing other binoculars, and for much of my other binocular use. Reason being that they show so much more detail than any normal hand-held binocular, no matter how good. They also show detail quicker and with more certainty. For instance, with stabilized binoculars it is easy to count the remiges of an eagle, and spotting immobile birds from treetops or foliage is greatly facilitated. So, overall, I'd recommend the Canon 10x42 IS L over all other options. In the following link, there is discussion on the benefits of stabilization in some detail: http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=297776

Hope this helps.

Kimmo
 
So, overall, I'd recommend the Canon 10x42 IS L over all other options. In the following link, there is discussion on the benefits of stabilization in some detail: http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=297776

Hope this helps.

Kimmo

Of course, the downside to bigger binoculars (50mm and above) and IS binoculars is that they weight more, and that you might run out of batteries or the IS may fail at an inopportune moment.

HN
 
I think that the downside of the Canon 10×42 L may be the weight and whether it will stand up to the abuse of the user running around energetically and perhaps banging it repeatedly. The Zeiss Conquest HD 8×42 seems to cope with this well.
I wouldn't think the lack of batteries is a problem, as even without batteries the Canon 10 x 42 L is top rate, and the user will likely have spare batteries on him.

However, I think that the Canon 10×42 L will outperform any 8×42.
 
Bfo

It is understandable that some birders react negatively to hunters, but this is a binocular forum, and a good one to boot, so personally I choose to leave those issues aside and concentrate on binoculars here.

Answering the original question, there's not much in practical terms between the models discussed in this thread. They would all give an excellent image and plenty of detail. What was missing in your description of your needs is to what extent you are able to brace your binoculars when viewing, or to what extent they are genuinely hand-held. This makes a lot of difference, as when you can support the binoculars, you will get concrete benefits from magnifications higher than 8x. Then, a 10x42-50 model might be better for you than an 8x42, and the higher magnification will show you more detail more easily even in dusk and deep twilight, let alone in full daylight.

Then there is the option not yet mentioned of using an image-stabilized binocular. This is what I do for all of my birding except for the bit where I'm testing other binoculars, and for much of my other binocular use. Reason being that they show so much more detail than any normal hand-held binocular, no matter how good. They also show detail quicker and with more certainty. For instance, with stabilized binoculars it is easy to count the remiges of an eagle, and spotting immobile birds from treetops or foliage is greatly facilitated. So, overall, I'd recommend the Canon 10x42 IS L over all other options. In the following link, there is discussion on the benefits of stabilization in some detail: http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=297776

Hope this helps.

Kimmo

I wasn't reacting negatively because he's a hunter, we've got some hunters on here who are also birders, but since his questions were specifically how the bins would work for hunting, it seemed that he might find more targeted answers on a hunting bin forum such as Optics Talk or 24hrcampfire where they even have reviews by hunting optics experts such as John Barsness as well as some hunters on BF. Steve C. and Frank D. are both big contributors on Optics Talk.

OTOH, I have read on more than one occasion where just the opposite has happened, i.e., hunters on those forums have referred to reviews or comments on BF because when it comes to sports optics, nobody is more obsessed with optics than birders since binoculars are not a means to the end as it is with hunters but the end itself.

Still, if I were looking for a bin for birding, I would come here, not Optics Talk since what birders find important in bins is not what hunters do as the OP stated with his lack of interest in close focus. There's more, while some birders bird all year around, not too many go out in 0*F weather to watch birds (except that "jerk" HighNorth ;)).

It's also dim in the winter, so low light performance is more important to most hunters than it is to most birders. Aperture is also more important to hunters than it is for birders, some birders use compacts as their main bins. Trying taking a compact out in late November to look for deer a half mile away on an overcast day. "Was that a deer antler or a tree branch or a floater in my eye?

When I visit Dick's Sporting Goods to try binoculars, most of the binoculars in the case are 10x. Most birders don't need or use 10x bins, but from looking at Dick's selection and reading reviews in hunting magazines, more often than not 10x is preferred by hunters, because they are generally looking at greater distances than birders.

Then there's different styles of hunting which require different kinds of bins such as stalking in the bush or hunting from a tree stand or blind. Hunters have experience with these differences, most birders do not.

While alphas are alphas are alphas, selecting the best tool for the job as a birder is different than selecting the best tool for a job as a hunter.

That was my point. You want to eat a good Italian dish, you don't go to Red Lobster. :eat:

<B>
 
Last edited:
I got a chance to try the older Swarovski SLC 8x42 Neu at an outing yesterday, and I must say: just marvelous view! The new SLC is even better than the old one, so I'd say take the SLC and never look back! ;)
 
I understand the Zeiss Dialyt 8x56 is still available, not a good birding binocular because of it's narrow field of view but it is regarded as a hunter's binocular.
 
I understand the Zeiss Dialyt 8x56 is still available, not a good birding binocular because of it's narrow field of view but it is regarded as a hunter's binocular.

There are some on this forum who would take issue with that perception.
In real life, the narrower field is amply compensated for by the ease of viewing.
 
There are some on this forum who would take issue with that perception.
In real life, the narrower field is amply compensated for by the ease of viewing.
All binoculars are a compromise and you make your own choice, personally I think a FOV of 110m at 1000m quite poor for an 8x full size birding binocular.
I suspect my 7x42 Zeiss Dialyt with a FOV of 151 m at 1000m equally easy to use (view) and better when scanning for birds. Therefore I would not agree with your comment amply compensated, but we are all different.
My compact 8x binoculars manage a FOV of 119m at 1000m.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 9 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