Can (higher) weight be a deliberate choice? (2 Viewers)

[[email protected]]

The B.1 7X42 is certainly a nice binocular. So is the B.1 7X50. Two areas they excel are user-friendliness and eye relief. Two areas they are a little behind is weight and FOV(usually not much, BUT). SO....the Leica UVHD+ and Zeiss FL 7X42s always get the nod for me. BUT....if someone wants a good 7X42 a B.1 decently priced would certainly be a worthy purchase.

Current models...Meopta's B.1 Plus has gotten a little expensive. $1275 on sale for an 8X42. I'd have a hard time recommending it over a Nikon Monarch HG that is less expensive and lighter with more FOV.

But the Meopta B.1 Plus 8x42 is IMO at another level optically compared to the MHG, especially when it comes to contrast. I consider the MHG an excellent mid-tier binocular, but the Meopta B.1 Plus is getting close optically to the alphas.

 

[[email protected]]

Nicely summed up, and I’d add that the magnesium substitution, while offering a little savings in weight, also brings the advertising and ownership cachet associated with less common materials.

Magnesium is significantly lighter than aluminum, in fact almost 33% lighter. By using it, manufacturers can shave several ounces off of a binocular. It makes a big difference. You're correct that the use of magnesium has a lot to do with marketing. Zeiss found this out when they made the FL out of a high tech polymer and even though it was excellent, people didn't want their $2000 binoculars to made out of "plastic". I don't think they will ever use it again on their alpha level binoculars.

 

[Trinovid]

Magnesium is significantly lighter than aluminum, in fact almost 33% lighter. By using it, manufacturers can shave several ounces off of a binocular. It makes a big difference.

Thanks for the common knowledge announcement and as an owner of both the 8x32 versions of both the BN and Ultravid, I don't really think it's that much of a difference at all. Maybe one the bigger binoculars, so put me firmly in the it-depends-on-the-binocular department.

 

[[email protected]]

Thanks for the common knowledge announcement and as an owner of both the 8x32 versions of both the BN and Ultravid, I don't really think it's that much of a difference at all. Maybe one the bigger binoculars, so put me firmly in the it-depends-on-the-binocular department.

The Leica Ultravid 8x32 is 3 oz. lighter than the Leica BN 8x32 likely do to the magnesium frame. That is a significant weight difference for most people.

 

[tenex]

In fact, that is why Zeiss designed the 8x54 HT.

Yes, I did think of HT 54 when I wrote #37, but it seems the sole exception to the rule of low concern for weight in large-aperture models, including even Zeiss's own 56s.