Binocollector
Well-known member
I was slightly interested but already owning the Kowa 6.5x32 makes this one pretty redundant.
-
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.
New 7x32 binoculars and 7x42 monocular models from Hawke (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Paskman
- Start date
I did a quick comparison. For the record I do more astronomy night time viewing.
The Kowa has more falling off at the edge of the fov, although the fov is still good. At night this is less of an issue. It still have very nice daytime views. The build quality is better, it feels more solid. It wins on close views, less then 6 feet. The focus is smoother on the Kowa. It loses on eye relief. The main issue is that the Kowa requires darker skies. The Hawke seems to work better in my more light polluted environment. Maybe it's the ED glass, I'm not sure. The extra magnification is also helpful. The Hawke had clear views in daylight with less blurring at the edge. At night it was quite good. Both are easy to hold with less tremors then an 8x. It would be hard to choose between the two. Fortunately I don't have too.
The Kowa has more falling off at the edge of the fov, although the fov is still good. At night this is less of an issue. It still have very nice daytime views. The build quality is better, it feels more solid. It wins on close views, less then 6 feet. The focus is smoother on the Kowa. It loses on eye relief. The main issue is that the Kowa requires darker skies. The Hawke seems to work better in my more light polluted environment. Maybe it's the ED glass, I'm not sure. The extra magnification is also helpful. The Hawke had clear views in daylight with less blurring at the edge. At night it was quite good. Both are easy to hold with less tremors then an 8x. It would be hard to choose between the two. Fortunately I don't have too.
A correction and confession. On reflection I think a 7x at 32 may not be that useful in a boat. Sorry, I got a bit giddy when I thought I saw a good deal (and that seafaring blue and yellow!) 7x50 is popular in marine more for the large exit pupil, so that the eye's pupil more easily stays within it when the vessel heaves, than for the less frequent focusing needed in 7 vs 8x; 7x50 is also lighter and smaller than 8x56 with about the same EP. But if this Hawke 7x32 is very good optically I may still like it for use in woodland as a lower-priced, small, light 7x (although that blue is not ideal there!)
Last edited:
John A Roberts
Well-known member
Regarding the Best Binocular Reviews article mentioned by adhoc in post #18,
I was particularly amused by . . .
'Waterproof
As you would expect from any marine binocular these are fully sealed and thus waterproof and come with an Ingress Protection (IP) rating of 67.
An IP67 rating means that these Hawke Endurance ED 7x32 Marine binoculars are 100% protected against solid objects like dust and sand
(which is also important), and that samples of them have also been tested to work for at least 30 minutes while under 15cm to 1m of water.'
. . . Wow! So if you jump in with a snorkel and flippers, you can motor around using the binoculars to see what's down there with you
Insert head here:
I wonder just how long it'll take for the so-called 'Premium Binoculars' to catch up, and also offer this important aquatic safety feature?
John
I was particularly amused by . . .
'Waterproof
As you would expect from any marine binocular these are fully sealed and thus waterproof and come with an Ingress Protection (IP) rating of 67.
An IP67 rating means that these Hawke Endurance ED 7x32 Marine binoculars are 100% protected against solid objects like dust and sand
(which is also important), and that samples of them have also been tested to work for at least 30 minutes while under 15cm to 1m of water.'
. . . Wow! So if you jump in with a snorkel and flippers, you can motor around using the binoculars to see what's down there with you
Insert head here:
I wonder just how long it'll take for the so-called 'Premium Binoculars' to catch up, and also offer this important aquatic safety feature?
John
Last edited:
John, what do the "premium" cos. in fact claim nowadays? (Just an example or two.)
About 20 years ago Swarovski dealers in the US (or at least one in the East, NY I think) demonstrated to prospective buyers that Swaro. binos were waterproof by dunking them in water at the showroom. Do they still do this, I wonder. (I know of one customer who, although he trusted Swaro. quality enough to buy a bino of that model, politely asked them for another bino than the one used in the demonstration!)
Tip: before you dive in with your new Hawke remember to take that flotation strap off or you may get embarrassed!
About 20 years ago Swarovski dealers in the US (or at least one in the East, NY I think) demonstrated to prospective buyers that Swaro. binos were waterproof by dunking them in water at the showroom. Do they still do this, I wonder. (I know of one customer who, although he trusted Swaro. quality enough to buy a bino of that model, politely asked them for another bino than the one used in the demonstration!)
Tip: before you dive in with your new Hawke remember to take that flotation strap off or you may get embarrassed!
John A Roberts
Well-known member
Hi adhoc,
It was just part of the silliness of my post; the supposed unique advantage of the Hawke at US $270, compared to all high end/ high price binoculars.
And in a similar tone of aquatic foolery, from: New MeoStar B1 Plus Binoculars
John
p.s. As a 7x fan, I find the idea of a modern, light and compact 7x32 roof prism, very attractive for much general use.
And built to a higher quality level (and perhaps with a slightly larger FOV than 132.5 m/ 437 ft at 1000 m/ yd?),
I’d certainly buy one.
It was just part of the silliness of my post; the supposed unique advantage of the Hawke at US $270, compared to all high end/ high price binoculars.
And in a similar tone of aquatic foolery, from: New MeoStar B1 Plus Binoculars
John
p.s. As a 7x fan, I find the idea of a modern, light and compact 7x32 roof prism, very attractive for much general use.
And built to a higher quality level (and perhaps with a slightly larger FOV than 132.5 m/ 437 ft at 1000 m/ yd?),
I’d certainly buy one.
Thotmosis
Well-known member
My neighbours in Crete have a Steiner 7x50 Commander with a simular yellow floating strap. Dont know if Steiner qualifies as a "Premium Binoculars" though?
Floating Strap
Padded in a visible yellow, long-lasting waterproof jacket, the Steiner marine binocular Float Strap with ClicLoc® adapts to most marine binoculars and many others.
FSSP floating shoulder strap pro - Swarovski Optik
www.swarovskioptik.com
William Lewis
Wishing birdwatching paid the bills.
Do they have enough eye relief to wear with goggles though? 😉
Hi John,
• Yes, I knew that was in jest. But I was being serious. This was a request to you as a/?the chief resource person here on binocular history. (Who attains that position has also to graciously oblige those unable—or may be disinclined—to look things up for themselves!)
Briefly, what are the standards observed by the best bino manufrs.? I don't recall them citing the IP scale. I'd suggest that, if you kindly follow up on this, the subject of how waterproofing and shock resistance of binos have been actually improved, and been marketed, over the years is worthy of a separate thread with OP by you, which can then also be found more easily in a search.
A fact not realized by many in the forum, apparently, is that waterproofing is done across model ranges not only to keep out water but fungus, which forms on internal lens surfaces, and can ruin a bino. E.g., despite that demo routine described above, in those days Swarovskis in the tropics caught fungus, but now that defect seems to have been fixed.
Several years ago AllBinos did an extensive comparison test on waterproofing. (Some in BirdForum gave Arek a hard time over it!)
• For fairness, I should correct a mistake in your post. Neither Hawke nor BBR claim this model is unique or even very unusual in that way—unless I've missed it although I looked again carefully in their website and in that review.
BTW, reviews in BBR are always much more diplomatic, hence that much less informative, than in BF!
• John, could you please, as perhaps the best person here to ask for for this kind of info., also tell me the origin of the name Hawke in this brand? I have long been intrigued and tried to find out but never could.
Thank you!
Adhoc
• Yes, I knew that was in jest. But I was being serious. This was a request to you as a/?the chief resource person here on binocular history. (Who attains that position has also to graciously oblige those unable—or may be disinclined—to look things up for themselves!)
Briefly, what are the standards observed by the best bino manufrs.? I don't recall them citing the IP scale. I'd suggest that, if you kindly follow up on this, the subject of how waterproofing and shock resistance of binos have been actually improved, and been marketed, over the years is worthy of a separate thread with OP by you, which can then also be found more easily in a search.
A fact not realized by many in the forum, apparently, is that waterproofing is done across model ranges not only to keep out water but fungus, which forms on internal lens surfaces, and can ruin a bino. E.g., despite that demo routine described above, in those days Swarovskis in the tropics caught fungus, but now that defect seems to have been fixed.
Several years ago AllBinos did an extensive comparison test on waterproofing. (Some in BirdForum gave Arek a hard time over it!)
• For fairness, I should correct a mistake in your post. Neither Hawke nor BBR claim this model is unique or even very unusual in that way—unless I've missed it although I looked again carefully in their website and in that review.
BTW, reviews in BBR are always much more diplomatic, hence that much less informative, than in BF!
• John, could you please, as perhaps the best person here to ask for for this kind of info., also tell me the origin of the name Hawke in this brand? I have long been intrigued and tried to find out but never could.
Thank you!
Adhoc
The Northern Optics video review on this model, commented on and linked by Yarrellii in post #9 above, praises CA control very highly. I have gathered over the years that when assessing a binocular from reviews this is the most telling single parameter that indicates general optical quality.
"One incredible thing about these binoculars is the lack of, or pretty much zero, chromatic aberration even in the really high contrast objects. As I always do, checking for heavily backlit branches, there is virtual none of that purple color fringing. Most people who look through these are going to notice no c_ a_ whatsoever...may be right on the edge...They are almost c_ a_, false color, free. That is absolutely stunning...in this [price] range fantastic.
...as general use/bird watching binos I can't think of a weak spot with these..." [My transcription]
Then in #11 BF member Beacon Hill says the reviewer is he. Beacon Hill, I looked through your previous posts (one just clicks on the no. of posts in the 'profile' in the left margin here) and find that they're all on birds and none on binos. Reading reviews by you will be very useful to many! Best wishes, Adhoc
Adding in edit: Just revisited post #19 by Has530 and #20 by Essex Tern. Clearly there is something very wrong with quality control. Hope this will be improved soon...
"One incredible thing about these binoculars is the lack of, or pretty much zero, chromatic aberration even in the really high contrast objects. As I always do, checking for heavily backlit branches, there is virtual none of that purple color fringing. Most people who look through these are going to notice no c_ a_ whatsoever...may be right on the edge...They are almost c_ a_, false color, free. That is absolutely stunning...in this [price] range fantastic.
...as general use/bird watching binos I can't think of a weak spot with these..." [My transcription]
Then in #11 BF member Beacon Hill says the reviewer is he. Beacon Hill, I looked through your previous posts (one just clicks on the no. of posts in the 'profile' in the left margin here) and find that they're all on birds and none on binos. Reading reviews by you will be very useful to many! Best wishes, Adhoc
Adding in edit: Just revisited post #19 by Has530 and #20 by Essex Tern. Clearly there is something very wrong with quality control. Hope this will be improved soon...
Last edited:
mulligatawny owl
Well-known member
Out of curiosity I tried the 7x32 a few months ago along with a bunch of budgetish 8x30/32's. I wasn't really in the market for more bins as I already have Zeiss pocket 8x25, SF 8x42 and EL field pro 8x32, but I thought they were so handy and tack sharp that I knew I'd eventually cave in and get a pair.
Well, I've had some for a week or so now and I'm still impressed. The light transmission is a bit down on what I'm used to but it's a really nice, natural view and mine are really sharp!
Highly recommended.
Well, I've had some for a week or so now and I'm still impressed. The light transmission is a bit down on what I'm used to but it's a really nice, natural view and mine are really sharp!
Highly recommended.
Appreciate the feedback, Cest! Checking around now for prices and availability.
mulligatawny owl
Well-known member
Still very impressed with the 7x32. I can use them right after using my SF's and EL's and not really find them lacking at all, certainly not in regards to sharpness.
Sure, they don't have the perfectly corrected view or flat HD brightness of the EL's for example but they have a real charm of their own, very natural, 3D and porro like in comparison.
I'm actually a bit shocked at just how sharp these things are. It's been a good few years since I've owned a 'cheap' pair of bins so maybe perfect sharpness is almost a given nowadays? but anyway ,these have absolutely none of that dissolving into varying degrees of mush resolution at a distance that I've experienced in the past with budget bins ( and some rather more expensive ones)
I can't say for sure but my feeling from memory is that, my sample at least, is sharper than the Monarch HG 8x42 I owned recently.
I just wish that more companies would offer a 7x32 or 35. It's possibly the perfect configuration. Ridiculous really that these have to be marketed as ' marine' and only come in bright blue!
Good to know you're still happy with the 7x32. Seems this line of Hawke's blue marine optics has been discontinued.
Boogieshrew
Well-known member
A friend works in an optics shop and tells me that the 7x32s are very popular. They sell in good numbers.
I got the 7x42 monocular and really like it. Sharp, with good color and no CA. Fits in a jacket pocket and I've had no trouble holding it steady one-handed.
