Maybe too small of a small niche market? I confirmed that they've been discontinued.
-
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
mulligatawny owl
Well-known member
That's a shame that they've been discontinued. Still really enjoying my 7x32. It's become my go to binocular when I want something small and light to chuck in my rucksack ( the EL field pro 8x32 takes up quite a lot of space) but also want a comfortable and relaxed view that the Zeiss pocket 8x25 don't have in comparison.
Sadly no chance of an update on these with dielectric coating and a few other refinements if Hawke has discontinued them already then
I've never used a monocular but I'd like to try the 7x42, could be very handy alternative to a pocket binocular if I'm able to keep it steady.
First impressions: mixed feelings.
I've been using the 7x32 Endurance ED and here are some initial findings (really sad to read they've been discontinued), some good surprises and some not so good surprises.
First the good.
I don't particularly like the looks of the Endurance ED. As a matter of fact, I'm not a huge fan of the entire Endurace line. Going by the pictures I had seen, I anticipated a less than stellar build quality and materials, but I was in for quite a surprise. It's been a while since I was so positively surprised by the build quality of a pair of binoculars. The rubber armour (that doesn't look very promising on pictures, at least to me) has been applied with such a level of attention and care that there are no gaps, air bubbles or places where it moves or squeaks. The blue rubber fits the chassis like a proverbial glove, and the places where one usually finds a lower level of build quality (joints and the end bits of rubber) show a remarkable level of craftsmanship. Then there's the focus wheel: really. The Endurance ED could teach one or two things to binoculars at twice or three times the price. Butter smooth, perfect resistance, no play whatsoever, even action. I'm not 100 % sure is metal, but it definitely feels, looks and sounds like metal (not that I have anything against plastic knobs, from the Zeiss FL, to my Swaro EL SV and the Nikon Monarch 7 or Opticron Traveller, I've enjoyed many lovely plastic focus knobs). The action is remarkably pleasurable. Quite stunning.
The loops for the strap look dead cheap on picture, but it turns out that there is a proper metal loop underneath, and the rubber acts like, well, a rubber armour (yes, I know it sounds obvious, but it's a nice touch either way). Holding the Endurance is a pleasure. The tubes are noticeably thicker than the 8x32 Opticron Traveller (I prefer the Opticron, others may disagree), and they are heavier too, but not terribly so. They feel ver well and that combined with the very respectable field of view and the 7x stable view is a great combination. And a word about the eyecups too: I'm quite picky when it comes to eyecups (I've rejected many binoculars because of this, especially due to narrow eyecups). These have lovely eyecups: wide but not too chunky and made with a very soft rubber that makes using them a pleasure. They "fall" on the face very well too: it's easy to find the right viewing position.
And finally a small remark about the shape. A lot has been written about focus wheel position (and there is an endless debate about where is the right place). I remember when I first saw the illustrations on the publicity of the Zeiss SF, how the finger rested on the focus wheel in a natural and relaxed way, while in "other binoculars" (like the EL) the index finger had to be "open" in a more unnatural position... Well, this is all very well in theory, but there's more to focus wheel position than meets the eye. And this is a good example. If you take a look at the picture, you can see that the focus wheel on the Endurance is located in an "ergonomic" position, lower than the Traveller and the Diamondback, which should make for an increased level of comfort. However, personally, while in use, I haven't feel the position of the knob makes for any difference in user's comfort between the Traveller and the Endurance. However, the bridge on the Traveller is located "higher" allowing for a longer portion of the tube to be "naked" and giving you more space to place two fingers with ease, while the tip of the tubes on the Endurance only allows for one finger to curl around the tube, and the others have to make do over the bridge. I personally find the two fingers grabbing the tube of the Traveller have a greater impact on focusing comfort (because the ease the movement) than the sheer "ergonomically correctness" of the Endurance.
For illustrating the not-so-good I'm going to use some 8x and 7x reference I have at hand. I have no 7x32 or 7x30, so it's a bit tricky to compare this to anything else: what do you pitch them against? A 7x35? There are not a lot of roofs around with that configuration (the 7x33 Celestron Granite and the 7x36 Zen Ray could be an obvious choice and, while I've had them in the past, I sold them long ago for different reasons).
So, a first round of comparison against some light 8x32 (I could have used my 8x32 Swaro EL, but I thought that the difference in size and price would render the result pointless). So the 450 g Opticron Traveller and the 435 g Vortex Diamondback HD.
And here comes the not-so-good surprise. To be honest, on a first impression I've found the image through the 7x32 Endurance a bit underwhelming. Maybe I expected too much. Maybe I felt the combination of a bigger body and lesser magnification was a recipe for stunning sharpness and perception of increased image quality, but I haven't experienced it. The Diamondback retail for around 200 GBP, and the Endurance can be found for some 30 quid more. So the Hawke are a bit more expensive, but let's say they play on the same league. I don't know if I have a cherry unit, bu I've always found the sharpness on the Diamondback really amazing and beyond what I would expect for the price (and what I have read on reviews; mind you I've had many very sharp 8x32, like the EL, Conquest HD, UVHD, FL, etc.). It's sharp as a snake fang and the contrast has put my Traveller to shame on many an occasion. However, the Diamondback display a pretty annoying ring of reflection around the fieldstop that makes them a bit of a pain to use (IMHO). The Hawke displays no ring of reflection (so I guess a little more attention has been place on baffling and fighting inner reflections) and it's easy to enjoy the entire field of view, which makes for a pretty immersive experience. As I expected, I personally find the 1x difference in magnification hardly noticeable, even if comparing side by side (let alone if you use the 7x on their own for a while). However, as I continue to use them the feeling of underwhelming slowly starts to creep into my perception: I find the image on the Diamondback is more vibrant and "sparkling". Not sure which one is brighter, probably the Vortex too. I don't know, maybe it's the choice of coatings and the result level of contrast and saturation, but the Diamondback show a level of "crispness" that I find closer to more expensive models. The Traveller feels less "contrasty" compared to the Vortex as well, but in this case it seems to be a deliberate choice, because I also get the feeling that the Opticron could show more detail. When it comes to sweet spot, considering the generous FOV and the price point, it is only to be expected that the sweet spot is not the best, and you can see how the image softens towards the edges, leaving you with a good percenteage of the image out of focus. However, if you place an object at the very edge of the FOV you can refocus and get it sharp without any problem. Comparing the Endurance to the Diamondback, I'd say they are pretty similar in this area too, although I don't find it bothersome in either of them. In fact, I can live with it.
CA: I would say, again, quite close to the Diamondback, maybe a little better (depending on the subjetc), but worse than the Traveller.
One area I've found the Endurance can beat the Traveller is glare (the known Achilles heel of the entire ultra-light 8x30/32 family), I'd say it's also better than the Vortex, but again, not by much. However, I've found night performance not to be 100 % satisfactory, because I got many inner reflections.
In short, after this initial tests, the 7x32 is having a hard time beating two nice 8x32 at two price points (one more expensive -this was to be expected- and one cheaper).
And now enter the real competition, some 7x35 and 7x42. The 7x35 Nikon Action (Gold Sentinel) and Action EX, and the 7x42 Meopta Meostar
7x is my favourite magnification, so it's the one I tend to have more binoculars of at any given moment. I've chosen these 3 binoculars becasue they are probably a good point of reference for many people, but I will continue to compare it with other 7x I have at home at the moment, both roof and Porro.
So, comparing 7x against 7x is where the thing gets steep for the little Hawke. Yes maybe it's not fair to compare it against something many people consider "the missing link" of so-called "Alphas", the Meostar range, but it can be a good reference. As it was to be expected, the Meostar offers a more immersive experience, despite having a slightly narrower field of view. The 7x42 Meostar is truly remarkable. It might sound daft (given their opposite standing points) but when I use the Meostar it reminds me so much of my 8x32 EL SV: the view is crisp, transparent (even a little more sweet): there's nothing missing). So it's obvious that the Endurance would struggle against the Czech king. However, there is one area where the Hawke shines, and it's exactly the reason I bought it: I simply can't see myself birding for long periods of time with a 900 g brick. Seriously: my 8x32 EL is taller than the Meostar, which is quite compact for the format, but I guess its "hunting pedigree" can be felt on the scale. A 540 g 7x32 feels just right. Again: the Hawke has so much to offer in the "user experience" department (this is, what you experience beyond the view).
So, now for some cheap competitors. And here's where it gets more complicated, because both Nikon are wide field binoculars with a stunning 9,3º FOV, which makes for a very immersive view, but (more importantly) they're Porro! Before I said I found unfair to compare the Hawke to the Meopta for the obvious difference in optical punch (reflected in their price), now I think it's unfair to compare the humble roof against these Porros. I really like the 7x35 Action EX from the first time I used it (I've bought 3 units already, I always miss it whenever I sell it). The view is sharp, with nice contrast and the three-dimensionality, the feeling of depth is mindblowing, because it comes from a winning combination.
When assessing the optical performance of the Action EX against the Endurance it is very difficult to detach yourself from the intoxicating view a 9,3º 7x Porro offers. But again: the Action EX are huge and heavy at 800 g and the focus wheel is impossibly hard in this unit. So usability goes again to the Hawke.
And then there's the Gold Sentinel, which offers a very similar view compared to the Aciton EX, but with increased levels of "pop" (the way objects are "cut off" from the background; the "perceived bokeh", the feeling of 3D). This is a remarkable device. I think I prefer it to the Action EX, despite being older and probably cheaper. The Gold Sentinel is such a feat. However: pretty compromised eye relief (and I don't wear glasses: I almost have to brush my eyelashes against the eyepiece lenses in order to get the entire FOV), slow focus well, not waterproof...
These are just some initial impressions, nothing more. But, while I've been surprised by the build quality and overall "user experience" of the Endurance, I can't help feeling that it offers probably less than what I was expecting (and maybe here lies the problem). Yes, it's sharp and full of contrast, but I find the image a bit duller (or less vibrant) than a cheaper Diamondback, and while it has all the contemporary convenience (waterproof, soft and lovely focus wheel, great rubber armour, excellent eyecups...) it is no match for classic 7x Porros. I wonder if Oberwerk/APM/etc could launch a contemporary version of the lauded 7x35. Or if Hawke (or whomever) can take this idea into the Frontier range...
Anyway, I don't want to sound like this is a poor device. Not at all, it's a great compact 7x32. In fact, so good it has no "pure" competition. The 7x36 Zen Ray was (beyond any optical consideration) huge, the 7x33 Celestron Granite was also quite chunky and the sweet spot was really small (at least in my unit), so much so that I remember some sort of "blur doughnut" around the sharp center with such a dramatic transition between focused and blur that made them very distracting.
So, I'll keep using these and gain more experience and see what I make out of them.
Before I forget: THANKS HAWKE!!!! Please, more!!!
I've been using the 7x32 Endurance ED and here are some initial findings (really sad to read they've been discontinued), some good surprises and some not so good surprises.
First the good.
I don't particularly like the looks of the Endurance ED. As a matter of fact, I'm not a huge fan of the entire Endurace line. Going by the pictures I had seen, I anticipated a less than stellar build quality and materials, but I was in for quite a surprise. It's been a while since I was so positively surprised by the build quality of a pair of binoculars. The rubber armour (that doesn't look very promising on pictures, at least to me) has been applied with such a level of attention and care that there are no gaps, air bubbles or places where it moves or squeaks. The blue rubber fits the chassis like a proverbial glove, and the places where one usually finds a lower level of build quality (joints and the end bits of rubber) show a remarkable level of craftsmanship. Then there's the focus wheel: really. The Endurance ED could teach one or two things to binoculars at twice or three times the price. Butter smooth, perfect resistance, no play whatsoever, even action. I'm not 100 % sure is metal, but it definitely feels, looks and sounds like metal (not that I have anything against plastic knobs, from the Zeiss FL, to my Swaro EL SV and the Nikon Monarch 7 or Opticron Traveller, I've enjoyed many lovely plastic focus knobs). The action is remarkably pleasurable. Quite stunning.
The loops for the strap look dead cheap on picture, but it turns out that there is a proper metal loop underneath, and the rubber acts like, well, a rubber armour
(yes, I know it sounds obvious, but it's a nice touch either way). Holding the Endurance is a pleasure. The tubes are noticeably thicker than the 8x32 Opticron Traveller (I prefer the Opticron, others may disagree), and they are heavier too, but not terribly so. They feel ver well and that combined with the very respectable field of view and the 7x stable view is a great combination. And a word about the eyecups too: I'm quite picky when it comes to eyecups (I've rejected many binoculars because of this, especially due to narrow eyecups). These have lovely eyecups: wide but not too chunky and made with a very soft rubber that makes using them a pleasure. They "fall" on the face very well too: it's easy to find the right viewing position.And finally a small remark about the shape. A lot has been written about focus wheel position (and there is an endless debate about where is the right place). I remember when I first saw the illustrations on the publicity of the Zeiss SF, how the finger rested on the focus wheel in a natural and relaxed way, while in "other binoculars" (like the EL) the index finger had to be "open" in a more unnatural position... Well, this is all very well in theory, but there's more to focus wheel position than meets the eye. And this is a good example. If you take a look at the picture, you can see that the focus wheel on the Endurance is located in an "ergonomic" position, lower than the Traveller and the Diamondback, which should make for an increased level of comfort. However, personally, while in use, I haven't feel the position of the knob makes for any difference in user's comfort between the Traveller and the Endurance. However, the bridge on the Traveller is located "higher" allowing for a longer portion of the tube to be "naked" and giving you more space to place two fingers with ease, while the tip of the tubes on the Endurance only allows for one finger to curl around the tube, and the others have to make do over the bridge. I personally find the two fingers grabbing the tube of the Traveller have a greater impact on focusing comfort (because the ease the movement) than the sheer "ergonomically correctness" of the Endurance.
For illustrating the not-so-good I'm going to use some 8x and 7x reference I have at hand. I have no 7x32 or 7x30, so it's a bit tricky to compare this to anything else: what do you pitch them against? A 7x35? There are not a lot of roofs around with that configuration (the 7x33 Celestron Granite and the 7x36 Zen Ray could be an obvious choice and, while I've had them in the past, I sold them long ago for different reasons).
So, a first round of comparison against some light 8x32 (I could have used my 8x32 Swaro EL, but I thought that the difference in size and price would render the result pointless). So the 450 g Opticron Traveller and the 435 g Vortex Diamondback HD.
And here comes the not-so-good surprise. To be honest, on a first impression I've found the image through the 7x32 Endurance a bit underwhelming. Maybe I expected too much. Maybe I felt the combination of a bigger body and lesser magnification was a recipe for stunning sharpness and perception of increased image quality, but I haven't experienced it. The Diamondback retail for around 200 GBP, and the Endurance can be found for some 30 quid more. So the Hawke are a bit more expensive, but let's say they play on the same league. I don't know if I have a cherry unit, bu I've always found the sharpness on the Diamondback really amazing and beyond what I would expect for the price (and what I have read on reviews; mind you I've had many very sharp 8x32, like the EL, Conquest HD, UVHD, FL, etc.). It's sharp as a snake fang and the contrast has put my Traveller to shame on many an occasion. However, the Diamondback display a pretty annoying ring of reflection around the fieldstop that makes them a bit of a pain to use (IMHO). The Hawke displays no ring of reflection (so I guess a little more attention has been place on baffling and fighting inner reflections) and it's easy to enjoy the entire field of view, which makes for a pretty immersive experience. As I expected, I personally find the 1x difference in magnification hardly noticeable, even if comparing side by side (let alone if you use the 7x on their own for a while). However, as I continue to use them the feeling of underwhelming slowly starts to creep into my perception: I find the image on the Diamondback is more vibrant and "sparkling". Not sure which one is brighter, probably the Vortex too. I don't know, maybe it's the choice of coatings and the result level of contrast and saturation, but the Diamondback show a level of "crispness" that I find closer to more expensive models. The Traveller feels less "contrasty" compared to the Vortex as well, but in this case it seems to be a deliberate choice, because I also get the feeling that the Opticron could show more detail. When it comes to sweet spot, considering the generous FOV and the price point, it is only to be expected that the sweet spot is not the best, and you can see how the image softens towards the edges, leaving you with a good percenteage of the image out of focus. However, if you place an object at the very edge of the FOV you can refocus and get it sharp without any problem. Comparing the Endurance to the Diamondback, I'd say they are pretty similar in this area too, although I don't find it bothersome in either of them. In fact, I can live with it.
CA: I would say, again, quite close to the Diamondback, maybe a little better (depending on the subjetc), but worse than the Traveller.
One area I've found the Endurance can beat the Traveller is glare (the known Achilles heel of the entire ultra-light 8x30/32 family), I'd say it's also better than the Vortex, but again, not by much. However, I've found night performance not to be 100 % satisfactory, because I got many inner reflections.
In short, after this initial tests, the 7x32 is having a hard time beating two nice 8x32 at two price points (one more expensive -this was to be expected- and one cheaper).
And now enter the real competition, some 7x35 and 7x42. The 7x35 Nikon Action (Gold Sentinel) and Action EX, and the 7x42 Meopta Meostar
7x is my favourite magnification, so it's the one I tend to have more binoculars of at any given moment. I've chosen these 3 binoculars becasue they are probably a good point of reference for many people, but I will continue to compare it with other 7x I have at home at the moment, both roof and Porro.
So, comparing 7x against 7x is where the thing gets steep for the little Hawke. Yes maybe it's not fair to compare it against something many people consider "the missing link" of so-called "Alphas", the Meostar range, but it can be a good reference. As it was to be expected, the Meostar offers a more immersive experience, despite having a slightly narrower field of view. The 7x42 Meostar is truly remarkable. It might sound daft (given their opposite standing points) but when I use the Meostar it reminds me so much of my 8x32 EL SV: the view is crisp, transparent (even a little more sweet): there's nothing missing). So it's obvious that the Endurance would struggle against the Czech king. However, there is one area where the Hawke shines, and it's exactly the reason I bought it: I simply can't see myself birding for long periods of time with a 900 g brick. Seriously: my 8x32 EL is taller than the Meostar, which is quite compact for the format, but I guess its "hunting pedigree" can be felt on the scale. A 540 g 7x32 feels just right. Again: the Hawke has so much to offer in the "user experience" department (this is, what you experience beyond the view).
So, now for some cheap competitors. And here's where it gets more complicated, because both Nikon are wide field binoculars with a stunning 9,3º FOV, which makes for a very immersive view, but (more importantly) they're Porro! Before I said I found unfair to compare the Hawke to the Meopta for the obvious difference in optical punch (reflected in their price), now I think it's unfair to compare the humble roof against these Porros. I really like the 7x35 Action EX from the first time I used it (I've bought 3 units already, I always miss it whenever I sell it). The view is sharp, with nice contrast and the three-dimensionality, the feeling of depth is mindblowing, because it comes from a winning combination.
- Huge field of view
- Lower magnification
- Objectives spaced very wide apart
When assessing the optical performance of the Action EX against the Endurance it is very difficult to detach yourself from the intoxicating view a 9,3º 7x Porro offers. But again: the Action EX are huge and heavy at 800 g and the focus wheel is impossibly hard in this unit. So usability goes again to the Hawke.
And then there's the Gold Sentinel, which offers a very similar view compared to the Aciton EX, but with increased levels of "pop" (the way objects are "cut off" from the background; the "perceived bokeh", the feeling of 3D). This is a remarkable device. I think I prefer it to the Action EX, despite being older and probably cheaper. The Gold Sentinel is such a feat. However: pretty compromised eye relief (and I don't wear glasses: I almost have to brush my eyelashes against the eyepiece lenses in order to get the entire FOV), slow focus well, not waterproof...
These are just some initial impressions, nothing more. But, while I've been surprised by the build quality and overall "user experience" of the Endurance, I can't help feeling that it offers probably less than what I was expecting (and maybe here lies the problem). Yes, it's sharp and full of contrast, but I find the image a bit duller (or less vibrant) than a cheaper Diamondback, and while it has all the contemporary convenience (waterproof, soft and lovely focus wheel, great rubber armour, excellent eyecups...) it is no match for classic 7x Porros. I wonder if Oberwerk/APM/etc could launch a contemporary version of the lauded 7x35. Or if Hawke (or whomever) can take this idea into the Frontier range...
Anyway, I don't want to sound like this is a poor device. Not at all, it's a great compact 7x32. In fact, so good it has no "pure" competition. The 7x36 Zen Ray was (beyond any optical consideration) huge, the 7x33 Celestron Granite was also quite chunky and the sweet spot was really small (at least in my unit), so much so that I remember some sort of "blur doughnut" around the sharp center with such a dramatic transition between focused and blur that made them very distracting.
So, I'll keep using these and gain more experience and see what I make out of them.
Before I forget: THANKS HAWKE!!!! Please, more!!!
Last edited:
mulligatawny owl
Well-known member
Great writeup yarrellii!
I share your positive views on the build quality, smooth focus and great overall usability. I should also add that the eye relief is really good for glasses wearers like myself, something not very easy to find in an 8x32. I also agree that they lack a bit of sparkle due to the silver coating, there's no doubt they'd be better with dielectric coatings. I'd like to try the diamondback, I believe it has dielectric coating, not sure the eye relief would work so well for glasses wearers though.
I think what really makes them work for me is the exceptional and very surprising sharpness ( on my sample at least) - really nice contrast, which combined with the sharpness really makes them pop in the right light - excellent eye relief - decent sized sweet spot with not too distracting blur or distortion - and the really handy size with the huge advantage of the larger exit pupil. I agree that the difference between 7x and 8x is minimal compared to the big advantage in steadiness, depth of field and exit pupil. Without going into cheaper porros or the likes of leica retrovid 7x35 I'm not sure there is anything else like them on the market, I find 6x or 6.5x not quite enough magnification.
I also agree that they can sometimes be a little underwhelming, though its all relative of course, but then other times, maybe when the light is right, I`m pretty blown away by by the view.
A few more points of reference - my original intention was to get some cheaper compact bins with a larger exit pupil that would fit sizewise somewhere in between my Zeiss pocket 8x25 , ELSV 8x32 and SF 8x42. Only trouble is whatever bins I compared the pockets to up to the price of £450 or so I found the Zeiss to be significantly better overall. The shop didn`t have the Opticron traveller but they did have the Verano VHD 8x32, I think I also tried Hawke EDX 8x32, and a couple of Nikon 8x30's, a few others I forget which. It wasn`t till I got to the Hawke 7x32 that I felt the sharpness of the Zeiss was matched ( I was A- B ing outside a shop so not best conditions) that combined with great eye relief and the comfortable exit pupil made it a clear winner for me. I've since had the pocket 8x25 and the 7x32 out together several times to compare and even though the pocket appears a bit brighter in good light, handheld I can usually pick out more detail near and far with the Hawke, plus it`s much more comfortable to use.
Anyway, it`s good to have a 7x32 roof on the market, ( for now) hopefully they'll garner enough interest to spur Hawke or other companies on- just not in bright blue next time please!
I share your positive views on the build quality, smooth focus and great overall usability. I should also add that the eye relief is really good for glasses wearers like myself, something not very easy to find in an 8x32. I also agree that they lack a bit of sparkle due to the silver coating, there's no doubt they'd be better with dielectric coatings. I'd like to try the diamondback, I believe it has dielectric coating, not sure the eye relief would work so well for glasses wearers though.
I think what really makes them work for me is the exceptional and very surprising sharpness ( on my sample at least) - really nice contrast, which combined with the sharpness really makes them pop in the right light - excellent eye relief - decent sized sweet spot with not too distracting blur or distortion - and the really handy size with the huge advantage of the larger exit pupil. I agree that the difference between 7x and 8x is minimal compared to the big advantage in steadiness, depth of field and exit pupil. Without going into cheaper porros or the likes of leica retrovid 7x35 I'm not sure there is anything else like them on the market, I find 6x or 6.5x not quite enough magnification.
I also agree that they can sometimes be a little underwhelming, though its all relative of course, but then other times, maybe when the light is right, I`m pretty blown away by by the view.
A few more points of reference - my original intention was to get some cheaper compact bins with a larger exit pupil that would fit sizewise somewhere in between my Zeiss pocket 8x25 , ELSV 8x32 and SF 8x42. Only trouble is whatever bins I compared the pockets to up to the price of £450 or so I found the Zeiss to be significantly better overall. The shop didn`t have the Opticron traveller but they did have the Verano VHD 8x32, I think I also tried Hawke EDX 8x32, and a couple of Nikon 8x30's, a few others I forget which. It wasn`t till I got to the Hawke 7x32 that I felt the sharpness of the Zeiss was matched ( I was A- B ing outside a shop so not best conditions) that combined with great eye relief and the comfortable exit pupil made it a clear winner for me. I've since had the pocket 8x25 and the 7x32 out together several times to compare and even though the pocket appears a bit brighter in good light, handheld I can usually pick out more detail near and far with the Hawke, plus it`s much more comfortable to use.
Anyway, it`s good to have a 7x32 roof on the market, ( for now) hopefully they'll garner enough interest to spur Hawke or other companies on- just not in bright blue next time please!
"I've since had the [Zeiss Victory P]ocket 8x25 and the 7x32 out together several times to compare and even though the pocket appears a bit brighter in good light, handheld I can usually pick out more detail near and far with the Hawke, plus it`s much more comfortable to use."
That "and far" is really very impressive! See also the extracts in my earlier posts. I am tempted.
Unfortunately, Yarrellii seems to have got a "lemon". I hope I will do better!
That "and far" is really very impressive! See also the extracts in my earlier posts. I am tempted.
Unfortunately, Yarrellii seems to have got a "lemon". I hope I will do better!
beacon hill
Well-known member
Thanks for the purchase from us and glad they tick a number of your boxes.
Don`t believe everything you read on forums. Just been having a chat with Hawke HQ and got this reply "I can assure you that the Endurance ED 7x32 Marine is NOT being discontinued. Also the 7x32 is currently the best seller, so no definitely not"
@beacon hill Wow! Thanks for the clarification... and that's great news to know that the 7x32 are doing so well... maybe it inspires them to create a 7x32 on the Frontier Range or other 7x configuration. That's great!
And thank you ever so much for all the care and attention during the purchase. They finally arrived and I've been using them on a daily basis ever since! Keep up the good job at Northern Optics.
And thank you ever so much for all the care and attention during the purchase. They finally arrived and I've been using them on a daily basis ever since! Keep up the good job at Northern Optics.
mulligatawny owl
Well-known member
If you're in UK London camera exchange has a demo for sale for &199.00. I bought the shop demo myself as I thought it was a little better than the other pair I tried.
I hope I'm not hyping these up too much as I'm sure that sample variation plays a part at this price range unfortunately. Even so I honestly didn't expect to get this level of sharpness at this price point. - I'm not saying they are sharper than the pocket victory but they are close enough that the steadiness and more comfortable view makes it easier for me to pick out more detail.
Really glad to hear these are not discontinued!
I took my 7x32's and Vortex DB 8x32's out for a spin. One thing I noted was that both are good binoculars. I found that the Hawke's are actually brighter and have more contrast for my eyes. The magnification was not that much less. They are easier to hold steady for me, which is why I got them. The DB's are optically almost as good, very close in fact. They are smaller, which is why I got them (for travel). If I had to keep one it would be the Hawke's, but it would be pretty close.
I then took out my Maven 7x28 just for kicks. Clear sharp images, better for when I'm wearing glasses, good ergonomics. Less fov and you can tell the lost 4 mm. But still extremely good. For the record, my Maven B series 7x45's blow them all away and not just because of the aperture.
I then took out my Maven 7x28 just for kicks. Clear sharp images, better for when I'm wearing glasses, good ergonomics. Less fov and you can tell the lost 4 mm. But still extremely good. For the record, my Maven B series 7x45's blow them all away and not just because of the aperture.
Glad to know the 7x32 is still available. I tried to buy them from B&H and the rep said they were discontinued by the manufacturer. Their website also says "Discontinued." I bought them from a vendor who had one in stock and didn't know if they'd get more. Anyway, sorry for the inaccurate report!
M. Owl, thank you for the London tip. Although it may be possible for me to get that (if still available) I am not in the UK and the person who will do that for me there won't be able to check a bino in that way!
Sample variation: seems to be a critical problem with this model. On this, in my post #32 I cite #19 and #20 by two users, and now we have Yarrellii's comments in #43. By critical I mean the difference between offering outstanding sharpness and not.
Steadier and more comfortable view of 7 vs 8x: I was impressed by what you say about the sharpness of the Hawke Endurance 7x32 vs Zeiss VP 8x25 at distance because in my rather frequent comparing of the very good Opticron Discovery 7x42 vs Zeiss VP 8x25 the latter shows more detail at distance. I don't have super-steady hands: sometimes at distance Zeiss VP 8x25 shows more detail to me than Zeiss Conquest 10x32.
An "alpha" make has already adopted a configuration close to this in the Leica "Retrovid" 7x35.
Sample variation: seems to be a critical problem with this model. On this, in my post #32 I cite #19 and #20 by two users, and now we have Yarrellii's comments in #43. By critical I mean the difference between offering outstanding sharpness and not.
Steadier and more comfortable view of 7 vs 8x: I was impressed by what you say about the sharpness of the Hawke Endurance 7x32 vs Zeiss VP 8x25 at distance because in my rather frequent comparing of the very good Opticron Discovery 7x42 vs Zeiss VP 8x25 the latter shows more detail at distance. I don't have super-steady hands: sometimes at distance Zeiss VP 8x25 shows more detail to me than Zeiss Conquest 10x32.
An "alpha" make has already adopted a configuration close to this in the Leica "Retrovid" 7x35.
mulligatawny owl
Well-known member
I'd love to try the retrovid, also quite intruiged by the Maven 7x28 that Cest mentions, I'd like to know how they compare to the Hawke.
I had the Hawkes out today after a few days of using the SF and EL. I was starting to doubt myself a little on my glowing assessment of the Hawkes as I know how my mind can play tricks on me. Well, I had no need to worry, they are still superb and a joy to use. They are perfect as all round walkabout bins, really relaxing to use and just such a sharp, contrasty and natural view. On the cheaper end of the spectrum they are so much nicer to use than an equivalent 8x32 in my opinion.
mulligatawny owl
Well-known member
I had a suspicion my 7x32's might be a bit of a cherry, but it was fairly dramatically proved today when I had them out together on my local patch with a pair of Opticron Traveller BGA ED 8x32s. The traveller by rights should be better in many respects as they are fair bit more expensive but they were clearly and obviously not as sharp. They were generally just duller, softer and a bit dimmer in daylight and on top of that they had horrible glare issues that the Hawkes simply didn't have.
I'm a big Opticron fan but there is no way I would choose the traveller over the 7x32 Hawkes, certainly not for the quality of the view anyway. The traveler is a fair bit lighter but not really much smaller than the Hawke so there's not really even that much advantage there.
I do try to avoid hyperbole but the Hawke was just so much nicer to look through than this particular traveller 8 x 32. The Hawke has a crispness and sparkle to the view that the Opticron completely lacked in comparison. This doesn't really make a lot of sense to me as the Opticron has dielectric coating and the Hawke doesn't, this was during the day so the 7x32's exit pupil advantage surely shouldn't have made that much difference?
Anyway, perhaps this was a duff Opticron and maybe I really do have a cherry Hawke. Whatever the case, it was a very interesting and conclusive comparison in favour of the Hawke 7x32
I'm a big Opticron fan but there is no way I would choose the traveller over the 7x32 Hawkes, certainly not for the quality of the view anyway. The traveler is a fair bit lighter but not really much smaller than the Hawke so there's not really even that much advantage there.
I do try to avoid hyperbole but the Hawke was just so much nicer to look through than this particular traveller 8 x 32. The Hawke has a crispness and sparkle to the view that the Opticron completely lacked in comparison. This doesn't really make a lot of sense to me as the Opticron has dielectric coating and the Hawke doesn't, this was during the day so the 7x32's exit pupil advantage surely shouldn't have made that much difference?
Anyway, perhaps this was a duff Opticron and maybe I really do have a cherry Hawke. Whatever the case, it was a very interesting and conclusive comparison in favour of the Hawke 7x32
mulligatawny owl
Well-known member
Just spent another hour and a half or so very carefully comparing the Hawke to the Opticron. Glare wasn't an issue this morning so the Opticron fared a bit better than in yesterday's conditions.
With a lot of diopter fiddling back and forth I managed to get the Opticron to appear sharper than yesterday's impression to my eyes but still the Hawke is obviously sharper for me. Reading a sign quarter of a mile or so away blacks are blacker on the Hawke and letters are crisper and more defined. Tiny details in distant vegetation are sharper, crisper and easier for the eyes to penetrate into with the Hawke.
On the plus side for the Opticron, it's focus is smoother, it seems better built and it's very nice in the hand. With a better sample maybe I'd enjoy the deep, rich contrast a little more too.
So anyway, a more measured and careful comparison than yesterday's initial gut feeling response, but the result is the same, a clear win for the Hawke.
With a lot of diopter fiddling back and forth I managed to get the Opticron to appear sharper than yesterday's impression to my eyes but still the Hawke is obviously sharper for me. Reading a sign quarter of a mile or so away blacks are blacker on the Hawke and letters are crisper and more defined. Tiny details in distant vegetation are sharper, crisper and easier for the eyes to penetrate into with the Hawke.
On the plus side for the Opticron, it's focus is smoother, it seems better built and it's very nice in the hand. With a better sample maybe I'd enjoy the deep, rich contrast a little more too.
So anyway, a more measured and careful comparison than yesterday's initial gut feeling response, but the result is the same, a clear win for the Hawke.
Binocollector
Well-known member
That sounds all very promising. Apart from the silver coating. I really wonder why they did that when even the cheapest Chinese binos have dielectric coatings, like the Svbony SV202. However, I do own a Kenko-made Fujinon KF 10x42 with silver coatings and it is excellent. Very sharp and little CA.
beacon hill
Well-known member
Sorry if this is drifting off topic. But a guy came to our optics weekend with a set of Svbony ED 8x42 bins. Did not see the model number, so do not know if they have a range of EDs. When he let me try them, I was astonished how much CA there was. When he asked what I thought of them, I said they have a smooth focus wheel, deciding not to mention the other.
mulligatawny owl
Well-known member
I guess they are just in line with Hawkes budget endurance ED range, I think they'd seriously step on the toes of their upper tier offerings if they had dielectric coating.
Odd though that I like these so much, as I've had much more expensive binoculars that I've not liked as much. I guess that is part of it, the fact that they are so affordable and so good.
Trouble is, it it makes me want an even better compact 7x now and the only option really is the retrovid 7x35 for a lot more money, there doesn't seem to be anything in between.
I've been tempted by the Svbony ED 8x42 as a low light knockabout bin for when I don't want to take the SF 8x42. Can't really be bothered with the sample lottery though.
Last edited:
mulligatawny owl
Well-known member
Well, I eventually caved in and bought a pair of Maven 7x28 to compare to the Hawke 7x32.
The good news is they are very nicely built with great eye relief for glasses wearers, really comfortable to hold.
The bad news is they are quite laughably bad optically, just unusable. Seriously one of the worst bins I've looked through in years. Woefully lacking in sharpness compared to Hawke and the Opticron Traveller too. Really bad distortion and blur within the already limited FOV. Urggg.
Incidentally I also tried a Vortex diamondback HD 8x32 in a store and they were very sharp! Would have bought them if the eye relief worked for me.
In other news I discovered that the Leica Ultravid HD+ 8X32 works for me with glasses, a very nice surprise!
Anyway, the Hawke 7x32 continues to impress me greatly.
The good news is they are very nicely built with great eye relief for glasses wearers, really comfortable to hold.
The bad news is they are quite laughably bad optically, just unusable. Seriously one of the worst bins I've looked through in years. Woefully lacking in sharpness compared to Hawke and the Opticron Traveller too. Really bad distortion and blur within the already limited FOV. Urggg.
Incidentally I also tried a Vortex diamondback HD 8x32 in a store and they were very sharp! Would have bought them if the eye relief worked for me.
In other news I discovered that the Leica Ultravid HD+ 8X32 works for me with glasses, a very nice surprise!
Anyway, the Hawke 7x32 continues to impress me greatly.
oldfortyfive
Well-known member
Sounds like you have a bad sample. Mine are pretty good , just soft around the edges.
