Hey everyone,
I’ve been using a Nikon Monarch M7 8x42 for a while and thoroughly enjoyed using it. With the M7 being a rather affordable choice, I kept wondering what else is out there and how much more viewing pleasure you’re buying as the price increases.
It feels like I’ve been reading every single thread I could find about binocular comparisons on birdforum and it helped tremendously to understand the tradeoffs between different price classes and manufacturers and to narrow the choices to what matters most to me. With this post, I would like to give back to the birdforum community and contribute to this invaluable pool of collective knowledge with my own hands-on experience.
Last weekend I got to try a bunch of top-of-the-line binoculars back-to-back at my local dealership. Typical for Northern Germany, it was a dark, colourless day, the sky obstructed by a thick layer of clouds, occasionally losing a few drops of rain. Certainly no weather for binocular flattery.
About 50 meters away from the dealership, there is a bird feeder positioned on top of the roofless balcony of the neighbouring house, which can be conveniently observed through an open window from the dealership.
Since I’m often carrying something else alongside my binoculars, such as my little kid, a camera, or my dog’s leash, I ruled out most of the 42mm binoculars from the start, since they are just too big and heavy for me. The exception being the Zeiss SFL 40s, which are close to the dimensions of a 32mm binocular and were thus also good candidates. I still looked through some 42mm models, just for comparison.
I also wasn’t sure about my choice of 8x magnification, which helped me find and track birds more easily, but when I found them, I always wished I could see them closer.
Before you read through the list of binoculars I tested and my impressions of them, keep in mind that this is the personal opinion of someone who is neither an experienced bird watcher, nor an expert in optics. I do, however, have quite some experience with photography (~10 years). I only know the Monarch M7s and haven’t used any other binocular. I brought my pair along for direct comparison. So please take my descriptions with a grain of salt and don’t feel attacked if you own one of the models I criticised. I may very well be wrong. It’s ok.
Center sharpness was amazing in all of the binoculars I tested and trying to find a difference between them is hairsplitting to me. I therefore won't mention sharpness in the individual reviews.
Leica Ultravid 8x32 & 10x32 HD-Plus
The smallest and to my mind, best-looking binoculars of the bunch. If you’re into industrial design, these are as stylish as it gets. Due to the small size, I found them noticeably more difficult to hold than its competitors, but in no way uncomfortable.
Looking through it, I noticed a thin line of chromatic aberration, red in colour, even in the center of the image. It was only visible against the contrast of the cloudy sky, but to me, this is not an edge case. Viewing birds in flight or scanning through leafless branches of trees in winter is a common scenario. Sharpness dropped visibly towards the edges, noticeable also from peripheral vision. At this price point, this wasn’t right for me.
Aside from the obvious, I didn’t notice any difference between the 8x32 and the 10x32, other than taking a bit more time to align the exit pupils with my eyes in the 10x32.
Leica Noctivid 10x42
Much smaller than I expected from pictures I’ve seen and also well-designed. Leica binoculars truly look and feel amazing. I found these a lot nicer to hold than the Ultravids, not surprising given their larger objective lenses.
The view was surprising to me: It showed a lot more contrast and saturation than any other binocular I tested. Just like the Ultravids, sharpness dropped noticeably towards the edges from around 60-70% off the center. I found it very likeable, but the same kind of chromatic aberration I observed in the Ultravids, also in the center of the image, ruled them out for me.
Zeiss SFL 10x40
This was the cheapest among the binoculars I tested, but it certainly didn’t feel like that. The dimensions and weight are similar to the 32mm candidates and they’re comfortable to hold.
The color rendering was pleasant and harmonious, with more contrast and saturation than the following candidates, but not as much as the Noctivid. Sharpness slowly dropped towards the edges from around 70-80%, not noticeable from peripheral vision. Together with the drop in sharpness, chromatic aberration in form of purple and green fringing started to gently set in. However, I couldn’t find any chromatic aberration in the center of the image. Given the difference in price, this was a serious contender for me.
Zeiss Victory SF 8x32 & 10x32
What immediately stood out to me when I first picked them up, was how amazing they felt in the hands. They fell into place naturally and were so well-balanced that they instilled a sense of home, in lack of a better term.
Immediately noticeable are the huge field of view and consistent sharpness, which slightly decreased in the last 10% towards the edge. Anything located in this area is still easily recognisable, but appears slightly distorted. To me this isn’t a problem, because the field of view is so massive that I’m having a hard time seeing the edge, no matter the eyecup position (I’m not wearing glasses by the way). The color rendering was natural and unobtrusive, without being dull. Since there were reports of this all across birdforum: I didn’t notice a green cast, not even in direct comparison with the other contenders. I’m not saying reports of this are wrong, I’m saying that I find the differences in hue between all binoculars so incredibly subtle, that my admittedly untrained eyes fail to see it.
Again, I found no difference between the 8x32 and 10x32 model aside from taking more time to align with the exit pupil.
Swarovski NL Pure 10x32
Thinking I saved the best for last, I picked up the NL Pures in eager anticipation. They felt comfortable in my hands, but I think the wasp shape of the barrels was designed with the bulkier 42mm models in mind. I found them more comfortable to hold than the Ultravids, but less comfortable than the Victory SFs.
Color rendering was again natural and unobtrusive, very pleasant overall. The view appeared to be ever so slightly more clear and transparent than the other models. The field of view was just as massive as the Victory SFs. Sharpness was perfect across the entire field, all the way up to the edges. The story could’ve ended here, but there’s one thing I couldn’t get past (you know what’s coming): The moment I looked through them, I was immediately greeted with an excessive amount of glare. The bottom half of the field was covered in a thick milky haze that only disappeared when tilting the binoculars downward, pointing below the horizon. I adjusted the eyecups to all available positions, but I failed to make it disappear while holding the binoculars straight. Keep in mind: I was looking out an open window and it wasn’t even that bright outside. This was the kind of weather that can give you seasonal depression, yet the NL Pures behaved like I pointed them at the sun. Maybe it’s the price to pay for an otherwise impeccable view, but I wasn’t ready to do that. The dealer nodded knowingly, while I described my experience in disbelief. Then they confirmed: “The NL Pures are unfortunately very susceptible to veiling glare.”
I would give a lot to learn how this is not a thing for a large number of Swarovski customers, because this amount of glare is impossible to miss. It’s not a subtle quirk that you have to look for, it’s an obvious flaw the way I experienced it.
This situation reminded of the antenna problem that occurred in Apple’s iPhone 4, where holding the phone in a certain way would shut off all cellular connection. This led to the famous quote: “You’re holding it wrong”. Well, maybe I am, but it shouldn’t be this easy to make a mistake. Especially when there are so many great alternatives. The Victory SFs deliver 98% of the performance of the NL Pures without the capriciousness, and with a lot better handling. So for me, this was an easy choice.
If the Victory SFs hadn’t been an option, I would’ve taken home the Zeiss SFLs. They’re are all you really need and I didn’t find the smaller field of view constricting at all. What a massive field of view gives me is a feeling of airiness. It’s pure luxury. But I don’t think it makes a practical difference as long as you don’t go much below 60 degrees apparent field of view.
However, I am fortunate enough to be able to afford the Zeiss Victory SF and the difference in price was worth the difference in performance to me. The larger field of view and the complete lack of chromatic aberration won’t make it easier to admire and identify birds. But it will make it a little bit easier to forget that I’m looking through binoculars.
One last question remained: 8x or 10x? I mentioned already that I found it noticeably harder to find the correct viewing position with all the 10x32 models. It was manageable, but still a minor inconvenience.
I thought I had steady hands, but comparing the two magnifications back-to-back, I felt a lot more nervousness when looking through the 10x magnification. It’s not that this would’ve hindered me from seeing intricate details in plumage, it’s more that the 8x magnification felt so much calmer. And admittedly, the difference in apparent size of the viewed subject isn’t that big between the 8x and 10x.
Combined with the fact that the larger exit pupil in the 8x model will make the image appear a little bit brighter in low light, it was an easy choice for me.
As a closing remark, I would like to stand up for the Nikon Monarch M7. They retail for 400-500 dollars or 350-450 euro and are therefore a fraction of the price of all the binoculars I tested above. Still, when looking through them even in direct comparison to the Victory SFs, I’m not missing nearly as much as the difference in price would indicate. Yes, there’s more chromatic aberration in high contrast situations. Yes, there’s a bit less sharpness in the center of the image, maybe 10-20% less. Yes, there’s a bit more field of view (155m vs 144m). But considering the price, these are outstanding binoculars that anyone could be happy with. They deliver 90% of the performance of a top-of-the-line binocular, at 20% of the price. If you’re on a tight budget, I’d wholeheartedly recommend these. I'll pass them on to my little son as soon as he's old enough to go birding with me.
I’ve been using a Nikon Monarch M7 8x42 for a while and thoroughly enjoyed using it. With the M7 being a rather affordable choice, I kept wondering what else is out there and how much more viewing pleasure you’re buying as the price increases.
It feels like I’ve been reading every single thread I could find about binocular comparisons on birdforum and it helped tremendously to understand the tradeoffs between different price classes and manufacturers and to narrow the choices to what matters most to me. With this post, I would like to give back to the birdforum community and contribute to this invaluable pool of collective knowledge with my own hands-on experience.
Last weekend I got to try a bunch of top-of-the-line binoculars back-to-back at my local dealership. Typical for Northern Germany, it was a dark, colourless day, the sky obstructed by a thick layer of clouds, occasionally losing a few drops of rain. Certainly no weather for binocular flattery.
About 50 meters away from the dealership, there is a bird feeder positioned on top of the roofless balcony of the neighbouring house, which can be conveniently observed through an open window from the dealership.
Since I’m often carrying something else alongside my binoculars, such as my little kid, a camera, or my dog’s leash, I ruled out most of the 42mm binoculars from the start, since they are just too big and heavy for me. The exception being the Zeiss SFL 40s, which are close to the dimensions of a 32mm binocular and were thus also good candidates. I still looked through some 42mm models, just for comparison.
I also wasn’t sure about my choice of 8x magnification, which helped me find and track birds more easily, but when I found them, I always wished I could see them closer.
Before you read through the list of binoculars I tested and my impressions of them, keep in mind that this is the personal opinion of someone who is neither an experienced bird watcher, nor an expert in optics. I do, however, have quite some experience with photography (~10 years). I only know the Monarch M7s and haven’t used any other binocular. I brought my pair along for direct comparison. So please take my descriptions with a grain of salt and don’t feel attacked if you own one of the models I criticised. I may very well be wrong. It’s ok.
Center sharpness was amazing in all of the binoculars I tested and trying to find a difference between them is hairsplitting to me. I therefore won't mention sharpness in the individual reviews.
Leica Ultravid 8x32 & 10x32 HD-Plus
The smallest and to my mind, best-looking binoculars of the bunch. If you’re into industrial design, these are as stylish as it gets. Due to the small size, I found them noticeably more difficult to hold than its competitors, but in no way uncomfortable.
Looking through it, I noticed a thin line of chromatic aberration, red in colour, even in the center of the image. It was only visible against the contrast of the cloudy sky, but to me, this is not an edge case. Viewing birds in flight or scanning through leafless branches of trees in winter is a common scenario. Sharpness dropped visibly towards the edges, noticeable also from peripheral vision. At this price point, this wasn’t right for me.
Aside from the obvious, I didn’t notice any difference between the 8x32 and the 10x32, other than taking a bit more time to align the exit pupils with my eyes in the 10x32.
Leica Noctivid 10x42
Much smaller than I expected from pictures I’ve seen and also well-designed. Leica binoculars truly look and feel amazing. I found these a lot nicer to hold than the Ultravids, not surprising given their larger objective lenses.
The view was surprising to me: It showed a lot more contrast and saturation than any other binocular I tested. Just like the Ultravids, sharpness dropped noticeably towards the edges from around 60-70% off the center. I found it very likeable, but the same kind of chromatic aberration I observed in the Ultravids, also in the center of the image, ruled them out for me.
Zeiss SFL 10x40
This was the cheapest among the binoculars I tested, but it certainly didn’t feel like that. The dimensions and weight are similar to the 32mm candidates and they’re comfortable to hold.
The color rendering was pleasant and harmonious, with more contrast and saturation than the following candidates, but not as much as the Noctivid. Sharpness slowly dropped towards the edges from around 70-80%, not noticeable from peripheral vision. Together with the drop in sharpness, chromatic aberration in form of purple and green fringing started to gently set in. However, I couldn’t find any chromatic aberration in the center of the image. Given the difference in price, this was a serious contender for me.
Zeiss Victory SF 8x32 & 10x32
What immediately stood out to me when I first picked them up, was how amazing they felt in the hands. They fell into place naturally and were so well-balanced that they instilled a sense of home, in lack of a better term.
Immediately noticeable are the huge field of view and consistent sharpness, which slightly decreased in the last 10% towards the edge. Anything located in this area is still easily recognisable, but appears slightly distorted. To me this isn’t a problem, because the field of view is so massive that I’m having a hard time seeing the edge, no matter the eyecup position (I’m not wearing glasses by the way). The color rendering was natural and unobtrusive, without being dull. Since there were reports of this all across birdforum: I didn’t notice a green cast, not even in direct comparison with the other contenders. I’m not saying reports of this are wrong, I’m saying that I find the differences in hue between all binoculars so incredibly subtle, that my admittedly untrained eyes fail to see it.
Again, I found no difference between the 8x32 and 10x32 model aside from taking more time to align with the exit pupil.
Swarovski NL Pure 10x32
Thinking I saved the best for last, I picked up the NL Pures in eager anticipation. They felt comfortable in my hands, but I think the wasp shape of the barrels was designed with the bulkier 42mm models in mind. I found them more comfortable to hold than the Ultravids, but less comfortable than the Victory SFs.
Color rendering was again natural and unobtrusive, very pleasant overall. The view appeared to be ever so slightly more clear and transparent than the other models. The field of view was just as massive as the Victory SFs. Sharpness was perfect across the entire field, all the way up to the edges. The story could’ve ended here, but there’s one thing I couldn’t get past (you know what’s coming): The moment I looked through them, I was immediately greeted with an excessive amount of glare. The bottom half of the field was covered in a thick milky haze that only disappeared when tilting the binoculars downward, pointing below the horizon. I adjusted the eyecups to all available positions, but I failed to make it disappear while holding the binoculars straight. Keep in mind: I was looking out an open window and it wasn’t even that bright outside. This was the kind of weather that can give you seasonal depression, yet the NL Pures behaved like I pointed them at the sun. Maybe it’s the price to pay for an otherwise impeccable view, but I wasn’t ready to do that. The dealer nodded knowingly, while I described my experience in disbelief. Then they confirmed: “The NL Pures are unfortunately very susceptible to veiling glare.”
I would give a lot to learn how this is not a thing for a large number of Swarovski customers, because this amount of glare is impossible to miss. It’s not a subtle quirk that you have to look for, it’s an obvious flaw the way I experienced it.
This situation reminded of the antenna problem that occurred in Apple’s iPhone 4, where holding the phone in a certain way would shut off all cellular connection. This led to the famous quote: “You’re holding it wrong”. Well, maybe I am, but it shouldn’t be this easy to make a mistake. Especially when there are so many great alternatives. The Victory SFs deliver 98% of the performance of the NL Pures without the capriciousness, and with a lot better handling. So for me, this was an easy choice.
If the Victory SFs hadn’t been an option, I would’ve taken home the Zeiss SFLs. They’re are all you really need and I didn’t find the smaller field of view constricting at all. What a massive field of view gives me is a feeling of airiness. It’s pure luxury. But I don’t think it makes a practical difference as long as you don’t go much below 60 degrees apparent field of view.
However, I am fortunate enough to be able to afford the Zeiss Victory SF and the difference in price was worth the difference in performance to me. The larger field of view and the complete lack of chromatic aberration won’t make it easier to admire and identify birds. But it will make it a little bit easier to forget that I’m looking through binoculars.
One last question remained: 8x or 10x? I mentioned already that I found it noticeably harder to find the correct viewing position with all the 10x32 models. It was manageable, but still a minor inconvenience.
I thought I had steady hands, but comparing the two magnifications back-to-back, I felt a lot more nervousness when looking through the 10x magnification. It’s not that this would’ve hindered me from seeing intricate details in plumage, it’s more that the 8x magnification felt so much calmer. And admittedly, the difference in apparent size of the viewed subject isn’t that big between the 8x and 10x.
Combined with the fact that the larger exit pupil in the 8x model will make the image appear a little bit brighter in low light, it was an easy choice for me.
As a closing remark, I would like to stand up for the Nikon Monarch M7. They retail for 400-500 dollars or 350-450 euro and are therefore a fraction of the price of all the binoculars I tested above. Still, when looking through them even in direct comparison to the Victory SFs, I’m not missing nearly as much as the difference in price would indicate. Yes, there’s more chromatic aberration in high contrast situations. Yes, there’s a bit less sharpness in the center of the image, maybe 10-20% less. Yes, there’s a bit more field of view (155m vs 144m). But considering the price, these are outstanding binoculars that anyone could be happy with. They deliver 90% of the performance of a top-of-the-line binocular, at 20% of the price. If you’re on a tight budget, I’d wholeheartedly recommend these. I'll pass them on to my little son as soon as he's old enough to go birding with me.
