[LW1959]

Hi to you all and thankyou sofar for the help.
Ive narrowed my search for a pair of bins to..

1) Hawke frontier 8x43 ED. £279.00p
2) Vortex Razor 8x42. £390.00p
3) Swarovski EL 8.5 x 42. £1020.00p

Yes there is a big price diff from no,s 1-3 im going to view them soon but would like some of your input on all three.
Which pair do you think is good value for the money they cost?
I did say in another post i could only afford £200.00-£300.00 But ive allways got the Credit Card
Hope to hear your thoughts.

[Kevin Purcell]

I think you should try all three! Seriously.

The Hawke is a very good start and I think for a lot of people it might be all the bin they need.

Vortex have a better warranty than the Hawke's (with a good No Fault coverage) and the Razor is well liked by many (though quite a few think the Viper is plenty, and is a bit cheaper so you might consider it too).

The Swaros are excellent and will be a optical step up from the other two (though how much depends a bit on you). If you get these you cut to the chase (what else could you buy to replace them?) but are they worth three times the Hawkes or 2.5 times the Razors? Only you can tell.

If you do think seriously about getting the Swaros I suggest you add similar Zeiss and Leica bins in there to get a feel for the differences in ergonomics between them. View wise I suspect they all so close to the "best you can get" that it's not a visual issue that separates the Alpha bins.

Before spending "loadsamoney" on the bin I suggest you try a few out so you can talk about the differences between the bins. That might help you make an informed (or at least a convincing) decision!

[J. Moore]

I would also add the Vortex Viper 8 x 42 to your list of binoculars to try. They are lighter than all three you list. They should also be faster focusing than 2, have better eye relief than 1, and be less expensive than 2 & 3. Not quite as good optically, but quite close IMO and very good overall. Vortex is also a more established company than 1, so there should be fewer worries about backing up their excellent warranty (as Kevin mentions).

Best,
Jim

[Tero]

The 8.5x has always appealed to me, but there are a couple of options there.

As far as the cost, you should buy what you can afford. It really does not pay to pawn them and to have to replace them if you lose them. Buy a pair you can afford to replace in the next 10 years. Once you get used to a certain level, it is hard to go down.

[bitterntwisted]

After the rave reviews that the Hawke Frontier EDs have been given (at £279), are the Vortex Vipers (£259) or even the Razors (£390) a match for them optically?

Obviously the Swaros (and their Leica/Zeiss counterparts) have the edge, but they are four times the cost. The Hawkes have effectively delayed my purchase of the Swaros for a while yet, having nearly convinced myself to splash out. I've ordered them as a waterproof, fog-proof, more robust alternative to my Nikon EIIs, figuring I can sell them again easily at a loss of under £100 which is pretty insignificant in the context of a £1000 purchase.

My saved cash will go towards a scope upgrade in the meantime, where a few hundred quid makes a much more significant difference optically.

Graham

[Kevin Purcell]

Originally Posted by bitterntwisted

After the rave reviews that the Hawke Frontier EDs have been given (at £279), are the Vortex Vipers (£259) or even the Razors (£390) a match for them optically?

As I've not directly compared them I can't say but even if the Hawke's are better optically (though I suspect they might be) there are plenty of non-optical issues (ergonomic, weight, warranty and so on) that might tip the balance for another users.

I'm having this problem right now with my Bushnell Elite vs the Hawke! It's the worst sort of comparison because it's Apples and Oranges: weight and grip versus optical view.

Hence try before you buy (or with a easy return) is the only realistic test.

[LW1959]

Originally Posted by J. Moore

I would also add the Vortex Viper 8 x 42 to your list of binoculars to try. They are lighter than all three you list. They should also be faster focusing than 2, have better eye relief than 1, and be less expensive than 2 & 3. Not quite as good optically, but quite close IMO and very good overall. Vortex is also a more established company than 1, so there should be fewer worries about backing up their excellent warranty (as Kevin mentions).

Best,
Jim

Ok ,yes the viper do look good, so anyone what do you think of the...
Viper 8x42 ? £259.00p
and
Hawke Frontier 8x43 ED ? £279.00p
There is only £20.00p between them so which one would you go for ?

[oleaf]

LW,

Take a look at Meopta's 8x42. It's on par with the EL but a wider FOV. It's very nice.

http://www.holgermerlitz.de/kowa85x44.html

This opinion shows how they best the Vortex by quite a margin (not that there's anything wrong with Vortex)
And look at the size difference. The Meopta is very compact and very nice to hold.

If Frank is online he could tell you how they compare with the Razor

The FOV is stunning on these 8's

Cheers

[bitterntwisted]

Originally Posted by oleaf

LW,

Take a look at Meopta's 8x42. It's on par with the EL but a wider FOV. It's very nice.

Best UK price I can see on these is £570.

[J. Moore]

Originally Posted by LW1959

Ok ,yes the viper do look good, so anyone what do you think of the...
Viper 8x42 ? £259.00p
and
Hawke Frontier 8x43 ED ? £279.00p
There is only £20.00p between them so which one would you go for ?

I do not believe anyone here has directly compared the two in person, so it is a tough call. Moreover, as Kevin indicated, each individual has different priorities. I suffered for years with binoculars that were quite good optically, but had very poor eye relief, a diopter that had become loose and required constant adjustment, and were fairly heavy. So, based on what I know now, I would probably lean towards the Vipers (which I now use) since (unlike the Hawke), they have a locking diopter, quite generous eye relief, and are quite light. (Though if I directly compared the two my opinion might change of course). But I am sure others here, such as Steve C., whose opinion I have a lot of respect for, would go with the Hawke, because they have different priorities and really appreciate its slightly -- but noticeably -- superior optics.

So it is better for you to compare them if possible, so you personally can decide which is the better fit for you.

My two cents,
Jim

[Kevin Purcell]

Just in case I didn't make it clear in my review the 16mm ER speced for the Hawke is right. With it's 65 degree AFOV I only just miss the field stop top and bottom when wearing eyeglasses i.e. I essentially see the whole field. No ER problems with it.

Even simple things like the feel or the balance can turn a bin from being a pleasure to use that something that annoys you every time you go out birding.

To the OP: are you anywhere near a decent bin dealer?

[J. Moore]

Originally Posted by Kevin Purcell

Just in case I didn't make it clear in my review the 16mm ER speced for the Hawke is right. With it's 65 degree AFOV I only just miss the field stop top and bottom when wearing eyeglasses i.e. I essentially see the whole field. No ER problems with it.

Yes, but it should be emphasized that eye relief requirements vary from person to person. So there is no guarantee that it will work as well for other glasses wearers as it does for you (and even for you it does not sound perfect). I, for example, have fairly deep eye sockets, so may have more robust eye relief requirements than some other individuals. And 16 mm is pretty much at the borderline as far as I am concerned. The vipers have 20 mm, so it stands to reason that fewer people (perhaps none?) will find the eye relief inadequate on the vipers as compared to the Hawke.

Best,
Jim

[Steve C]

Jim,

You are correct about the slight but noticeable differences. That's what they are. However the reason I have the Promaster and am wondering if I keep the Viper is that the Promaster offered the same noticeable optical improvement of the much more expensive glass, but at similar cost to the Viper. If the Promaster sold for $1,000+ I probably would not have bought it. I accepted long ago the fact that I am a cheapskate at heart, and place far more credence on value for the money than I do on absolute technical superiority. I got the value for the money, based on my assumption that Promaster will last as long as the Monarch I have. Time tells that tale.

And if eye relief is a consideration, then the Viper does have the Promaster bested. Since I have no need to use glasses with binoculars, I sometimes tend to overlook that point. The locking diopter on the Viper is nice as well. One of the real virtues of the Viper is that it has the same sort of a set-it-and-forget-it utility you often hear assigned to an IF glass. The Viper does tend to stay where you put it and neither the center bridge, focus wheel, or diopter have much tendency to move around, unless the user moves them. A little better, I will allow, than the Promaster, but not much. As I noted above the Viper does seem to have a deeper field of focus. The real optical difference is that an 8x Promaster will show a touch more detail "way-out there" than a 10x Viper. The next difference is the FOV. I think the Viper is fine at 347'@ 8x. The Promaster at 393'@ 8x is a littler nicer.

The Viper would be a good glass to hybridize with the Hawke/Promaster. Either give the Hawke/Promaster the strong points of the Viper for an open bridge design, or the FOV and optics of the H/P to the Viper for a traditional design.

It will be interesting to me to see how (or if) the rest of the market responds to whatever level of challenge the H/P glass provides.

I haven't seen the Hawke, but am relying on Frank D's assessment of the strong similarity between the two. I feel fairly safe here because it seems to me Frank and I tend draw the same/similar conclusions on optical quality. But Jim, you are right, I cannot offer a direct Hawke/Viper comparison.

[Alexis Powell]

[quote=Steve C;1315380The real optical difference is that an 8x Promaster will show a touch more detail "way-out there" than a 10x Viper.[/QUOTE]

I can't believe that is true. Only awful quality 10x underperform 8x w/respect to resolving power, and the Viper is a better than average model.

--AP

[Steve C]

Originally Posted by Alexis Powell

I can't believe that is true. Only awful quality 10x underperform 8x w/respect to resolving power, and the Viper is a better than average model.

--AP

Alexis

I really do not give two hoots whether you believe it or not. It is what it is.

[Alexis Powell]

Originally Posted by Steve C

Alexis

I really do not give two hoots whether you believe it or not. It is what it is.

The intent of my comment wasn't to call attention to my state of mind, but rather that your claim is an extraordinary one that is not generally true of even very cheap binoculars. Only the very worst 10x perform as poorly you claim the 10x Viper does in this respect. Furthermore, I don't know how a binocular could show more detail "way out there" without also showing more detail up close as well, unless your observation is simply that the binocular is yellow/amber color biased and thus filters out some of the blue light associated with haze that becomes visible with distance.

--AP

[Steve C]

Alexis

Since when is it an extraordinary concept that beter resolution can trump higher magnification?

I have posted numerous times here that I amire the Vortex Viper. I have never stated that it is a poor performer. Now, here you are making the statement I have relegated it all of a sudden to cheap binocular status. I didn't say it was a poor performer. I said the Promaster is a better binocular than the Viper. That does not all of a sudden make the Viper a cheap performer. It isn't.

I also didn't say that the 8x Promaster image was bigger than the image of the 10x Viper. It is clearer and sharper. Maybe you equate detail to size. At some point, yes you can get only so much with resolution, whereupon magnification needs to jump as well.

[Alexis Powell]

Originally Posted by Steve C

Since when is it an extraordinary concept that beter resolution can trump higher magnification?

If referring to the actual resolving ability (boosted resolution) of the binocular, sure. But if the issue is amount of detail that can be seen through the binocular (issues of glare etc aside), which is what we've been talking about here, it is of course possible, but I've not known it to be true in practice in the arena of birding binoculars. I've not seen lower resolution demonstrated in a 10x than an 8x except in the case of _very_ poor quality or defective binoculars. For example, my tripod mounted Leica 10x25 Trinovid delivers more visible detail than any of my tripod mounted 8x binoculars (and note that my corrected vision is much better than average). Of course I've seen many testimonials of higher overall image quality (due to greater DOF, lower shake w/hand holding etc) in 7x and 8x binoculars than 10x but that's another matter. I think the claim that excellent 8x binos can have higher resolution than good 10x binos is baseless and wrong. It has a certain "logical" appeal and could easily (and may already) have currency in the mythology of binocular adoration. There are plenty of good reasons to choose 8x binos over 10x, but getting higher resolution is not one of them. Likewise, thinking one can do so without sacrificing resolution is folly.

--AP

[Alexis Powell]

Originally Posted by Steve C

At some point, yes you can get only so much with resolution, whereupon magnification needs to jump as well.

Right, the point that the binocular is delivering more detail than the eye can detect, and every 8x and 10x binocular that is worth a darn (even very cheap porros) does this.

--AP

[Kevin Purcell]

Originally Posted by Alexis Powell

Right, the point that the binocular is delivering more detail than the eye can detect, and every 8x and 10x binocular that is worth a darn (even very cheap porros) does this.

Although I agree with Alexis reasoning the resolving power of bins is closer to the limit than some people think.

A 1 arcminute (60 arcsecond) eye resolution (the "typical" value quoted in these arguments and apparently the on the US Army uses in specing bins too) means the bin must be better than:

10.0 arcseconds at x6
8.6 arcseconds at x7
7.5 arcseconds at x8
6.0 arcseconds at x10

Of course good bins do this but "very cheap porros"? I've seen surveyors measure for Alpha bins (IIRC!) of 4 arcseconds. That's only double the requirement (and for people with really good eyesight might only be just enough).

BTW the M22 spec was 9 arcsecond for a 7x50.

[henry link]

I agree with everything Alexis has said. The often cited figure of 1 arc minute for human eyesight acuity is actually calculated in a different way from the way telescope resolving power is usually measured. The familar Snellen chart of eyesight acuity measures the separation angle between lines. Telescope resolution (when it's measured on a line pair chart like the USAF 1951 test pattern) is usually based on the angular width of line pairs (one line and one space), which is twice the separation angle between the lines, so 1 arc minute of eyesight acuity on the Snellen chart corresponds to 2 arc minutes of telescope resolution on the USAF chart. A few years ago Kimmo Absetz posted an excellent explanation of this subject.

Of course, either separation angle or line pairs can be used to express resolving power as long as the notation is consistent. Both Jan Meijerink and Kimmo Absetz have chosen to use separation angle for their measurements of telescope resolution. Misunderstandings occur when the reader doesn't know which one is being used or if the two are mixed as in Kevin's post above.

[Steve C]

Here is the basis for my comment "The real optical difference is that an 8x Promaster will show a touch more detail "way-out there" than a 10x Viper.

When I first got the Promaster, I used it deer hunting. Here's the scenario; A cold, rainy, gloomy day. We spotted a group of deer in some gray brush. Had a laser range finder, but there was not a reflective enough target to accurately range the distance. However, it was at least 850 yards. There were five pairs of eyes, and we ALL saw the same thing. There was one small buck in this group of deer. The 8x Promaster was able to show us the small antlers, not any real details of them, just that they were there. The 10x Viper was not able to show those antlers. ALL of us thought the Promaster image was brighter, clearer and sharper than the Viper. We ALL thought the Viper image was bigger, but not as clear. Now I apologize for attributing this difference to resolution.

But Alexis, don't tell me you don't believe it or that I am imagining things. I'm not so stupid as to stand up here in front of the world, including a bunch of people who know a lot more about optics than I do (likely including you), and shoot off silly claims. One of the pairs of eyes in the group was a State Trooper who works a lot in wildlife violation investigation, and has some on the job requirements of being able to accurately report what he sees. The trooper also had a Swarovski 8.5 EL. It also showed the small antlers where the Viper didn't. Want to talk about how far you can read something like the black lettering on a yellow road sign, fine, the Viper will read further. There were other things we ALL saw that were similar in nature to the small antlers on the little buck. If that is not resolution fine. What is it? If I need to educate myself on proper terminology use I will.

I also make no claim to have either a bad Viper or a cherry Promaster. They are each my sample of one. The Viper is probably going up for sale, because that difference (whatever it is) seems to be a permanent, repeatable feature between the two binoculars.

[Kevin Purcell]

SteveC's post shows what happens when you use 100% (black/white) line pairs for measuring resolution and the comparing bins rather than measuring the MTF to determine the contrast level at a given "resolution" (spatial frequency).

It's quite possible for Steve's Promaster's to have an better MTF (due to its better contrast) which allows the "resolution" of his 8x bin on a given low contrast target to exceed that of the 10x bin on the same low contrast target.

On the MTF plot the contrast level of the Promaster at the low frequency end would exceed the Viper. As the spatial frequency is increased both would decrease to zero. The two curves would eventually cross (at the spatial frequency they have equivalent performance).

The 8x bin MTF would cross the spatial frequency axis (i.e. contrast difference is zero) before the 10x bin MTF has hit zero showing it's limiting resolution would be worse the higher magnification bin.

The 10x bin (+ the eye) would exceed the 8x bin in resolution against a black and white target (or against two separated points of light on a black background). But against a real life low contrast target that isn't always true.

Plus there may be other effects (CA, stray color and other aberrations) that cause the Viper to have lower contrast on this target than the Promaster.

MTF measurements give you more data than "in the limit" data you get from a simple resolution chart measurements.

[henry link]

Kevin,

Real MTF plots of these binoculars would be very interesting to see, but we can't tell much from imaginary ones. If they look like your description then the Viper has serious problems from excessive aberrations or defects. The actual contrast level of the target doesn't really matter. That's always 1 on an MTF diagram. If the Viper can't show more detail than the Promaster on any target, high contrast or low, with a 25% magnification advantage then something is seriously wrong with it.

I don't doubt Steve and his friends' experience with the antlers, but that's is not a very well controlled test. It's more like an observation with an unexpected outcome that needs to be investigated with a controlled test.

Henry

[Steve C]

Originally Posted by henry link

If the Viper can't show more detail than the Promaster on any target, high contrast or low, with a 25% magnification advantage then something is seriously wrong with it.

I don't doubt Steve and his friends' experience with the antlers, but that's is not a very well controlled test. It's more like an observation with an unexpected outcome that needs to be investigated with a controlled test.

Henry

Henry,

I really wonder about controlled tests. I am a biologist, not an optical engineer, but I realize the necessity for creating controled tests, with repeatable results. Not much except for arguement would result without these controlled tests. I do wonder how far one can sometimes go with them. It seems to me that when somebody goes out the door with their binoculars they are headed off into a series uncontrolled tests, or as you put it above, observations with possible unexpected outcomes.

You are right, my observation is not a very well controlled test. It was my intent only to register it as an observation. Wildlife typically does not appear next to a resolution chart with a set of matched line pairs. I'd like to see somebody develop a resolution chart or charts, that could be used at varying distances out to several hundred meters. Maybe they're out there, but I have never seen any.

Now for the past some time, I have put the Promaster and the Viper to an amateur's version of a resolution test. What I used is a multi colored chart posted by Surveyor on another thread some time ago. In this case, the Viper does indeed show more detail as far out as either binocular can read the largest items on the chart. The Promaster image seems brighter and clearer, and it is easier to read the last size level that it can read, but will not read as small a level as the Viper. I don't doubt that is a repeatable result. From what I can see from over a year's experience with that Viper, I don't think there is anything seriously wrong with it. Take both binoculars clear out to Jupiter and the Viper has a clearly larger planet image, but the edges of the planet are sharper and more clearly defined in the Promaster. The moons are easier to see with the Viper.

Put the Promaster against my 8x42 Nikon Monarch, then the Monarch pretty well comes out in second place, they wouldn't put the antlers on that little buck either. Neither would an 8x30 Yosemite. Nobody would have said the 10x Viper didn't show more detail than those 8x glasses. Same deal with the Swift 7x36 Eaglet.

Now as a strictly amateur observation, it has always seemed to me that the repeatable optics tests are weighed in favor of higher magnification. In close, what else can be expected other than a decent 10x will best an 8x. Now, out at the distance where we were looking at those deer, the Viper image was indeed bigger, but it was also not as clear. On a clear bright day, the Viper does in fact seem to show a bit more detail, but again its image is not as sharp as the Promaster.

With some trepidation I now press the submit button.