Steve C
Well-known member
ZEN Prime HD 8x vs 10x
Ok, I have had these for a few days now and have made as much use of them as I have had the time, so here are my comments to this point.
My usual preference for binocular magnification is 7-8x. There are times however when 10x is really nice. My main problem with 10x stuff for my preference is it typically suffers a quite shallow dof. I had an original Vortex Viper that was very good in dof for a 10x glass, but its optics were not as good as some others I have used. I currently have a ZEN ED 2 x 43 as my 10x glass. After using the beta sample Prime HD 10x42, I had hoped that the first production run would give better results in dof as compared to the beta. My goal is to see if I can find a good 10x 42-50 mm glass and one in the 7-8x30-36 mm class as the two main use glasses. The original 7x and 10x combination I used was the Swift Eaglet 7x36 and the Viper 10x 42. Had that not served to infect me with the optics bug, I could have been quite satisfied with that particular combo for quite some time.
So when got the USPS box from ZR, I first removed and opened the 10x Prime. First impression was…well the dof is improved over the ED 2 and the beta Prime. Other observations clearly showed that this is a very nice binocular. The next thing was that ZR did was to ever so slightly round the edges of the eye cup on the production model. It does not look like much, but it improved the contact comfort around the oculars immensely. Both eyes will focus to the same precision of image. In addition to the improved apparent dof, the Prime HD has a better 3-D effect than either the beta or the ED 2. It is just about on par with the 3-D effect from the Wind River 10x50 Mesas, which are a very good binocular in their own right. So…OK, it had passed what it needed to pass for me to keep the 10x. So I had at that point just about decided to send the 8x back.
Then I decided to open the 8x o
. It trumps the 10x in just about every way I can think of, and there is nothing wrong with the 10x, as it is good enough to keep. At first I thought that what I had was a very cherry mismarked 10x unit. I next checked the fov specs and they are right with those listed by ZR. Then I got into serious comparison of the two Primes. That evolved into comparing them against whatever else I had around. In my view, the 8x Prime got better as the comparisons progressed.
If you look at a USAF resolution chart, the 10x at close distance, does show its advantage. I have a variety of targets I use in optical evaluation. To the south of me are the Klamath Hills. Our farm sits at 4,100 ft elevation and the high point of the KH is 5,730 high point of Captain Jack. Two years ago there was a lightning strike fire just below that summit. At a distance of (Google Earth) 1.7 mi the Dept of Forestry left a weather data collection station. It is white, 2 feet x 3 feet with a 5’ high instrument tower. It looks like a mail box in binoculars. At the same distance from a fire in 1998 there is a standing, burned Juniper snag that sits below the horizon. The skeleton is 16’ tall and probably 8’ in circumference. This is south by south west from me. Looking to the east there is the 6,800’ Stukel Mountain. At a distance of 3.71 (again measured with Google Earth) on the north end of the mountain there are several houses. One of these has a very large motor home. It is tan with several stripes of maroon of increasing intensity that make a good test object. At the top of this mountain at 5.1 miles there are several communications towers. So this is the sort of distance I was using.
So to be clear here, the 10x shows a bigger image, but the two have to be side by side on a tripod to see the difference. The 8x shows a sharper brighter image that is actually easier to glean detail from…even at the above distances. That is particularly evident on the weather data box in the fire and on the large motor home. I covered the end of the focuser with electrical tape and showed the 8x and 10x Primes to several people. In this too simple to be valid sample, everybody thought the 8x was the 10x. That might not go down to well with people who are convinced that the 10x will show better detail at distance. Not so here…FWIW. I see no problems of any sort with either binocular, so I don’t think it is a matter of a poor 10x…this is not a poor binocular. Maybe they are both closer to 9x than their stated magnifications, but I think that would alter the fov readings.
Both units carried over the nice focuser and the sturdy construction. Both have the same slightly more rounded edge to the eye cup. The 10x does have better eye relief than the beta sample, about 1.5 mm. This was done by using a thinner assembly around the ocular lens. This looks like the same unit in both binoculars. The eye relief is better in the 8x, so if you need eye relief, get the 8x. However, there is enough extra eye relief that I can use the 10x production model with wrap around sunglasses and I can’t with the beta sample.
Overnight in the refrigerator has no affect on focuser operation. I tried it in the freezer, originally intending to leave them for an hour. I got side tracked and forgot about them and it was 24 hours later that I remembered where I left them:eek!: . That does freeze up the hinge and the focuser. Everything thawed out fine. The betas sample was in the water trough for two days and did not leak.
The Prime bests the Vortex Razor HD (original model). The differences are most evident in the edge performance and in the flatness of the fov. For whatever reason, the Prime (both 8x and 10x) show a pretty pronounced (for a roof) 3-D effect. This difference was clearly apparent, and lacking, in the Razor. The 3-d Effect in the 8x Prime is little less than a Swift 804 type 1c Audubon 8.5x44 and the 10x Prime is little different from a Leupold Wind River Mesa 10x50 porro.
So I’m keeping the 8x. I am also pretty well done looking for a different main use personal binocular too. I simply am not going to add the extra $$$’s for whatever minute differences I’d get from a Leizeinikovski alpha. I’ll keep looking at stuff and I do still want to get my hands on a Monarch 7. I also am somewhat on the lookout for a Prime optical quality 8x32…don’t particularly care who does it first.
The eyecups could stand some attention in future production runs. There was a massive improvement to the slight rounded edge the production run has over the beta. I think some work on a bit more refined eye cup will help lots.
So, I'm headed out of here for a couple of weeks to help some friends on a large haying lease they have on the Klamath Marsh Wildlife Refuge. All I'll have is my phone. There is data service on the Marsh, but the Yamsi Ranch area is kind of hit and miss, so I may be out of ability to responmd much here after Monday.
Ok, I have had these for a few days now and have made as much use of them as I have had the time, so here are my comments to this point.
My usual preference for binocular magnification is 7-8x. There are times however when 10x is really nice. My main problem with 10x stuff for my preference is it typically suffers a quite shallow dof. I had an original Vortex Viper that was very good in dof for a 10x glass, but its optics were not as good as some others I have used. I currently have a ZEN ED 2 x 43 as my 10x glass. After using the beta sample Prime HD 10x42, I had hoped that the first production run would give better results in dof as compared to the beta. My goal is to see if I can find a good 10x 42-50 mm glass and one in the 7-8x30-36 mm class as the two main use glasses. The original 7x and 10x combination I used was the Swift Eaglet 7x36 and the Viper 10x 42. Had that not served to infect me with the optics bug, I could have been quite satisfied with that particular combo for quite some time.
So when got the USPS box from ZR, I first removed and opened the 10x Prime. First impression was…well the dof is improved over the ED 2 and the beta Prime. Other observations clearly showed that this is a very nice binocular. The next thing was that ZR did was to ever so slightly round the edges of the eye cup on the production model. It does not look like much, but it improved the contact comfort around the oculars immensely. Both eyes will focus to the same precision of image. In addition to the improved apparent dof, the Prime HD has a better 3-D effect than either the beta or the ED 2. It is just about on par with the 3-D effect from the Wind River 10x50 Mesas, which are a very good binocular in their own right. So…OK, it had passed what it needed to pass for me to keep the 10x. So I had at that point just about decided to send the 8x back.
Then I decided to open the 8x o
. It trumps the 10x in just about every way I can think of, and there is nothing wrong with the 10x, as it is good enough to keep. At first I thought that what I had was a very cherry mismarked 10x unit. I next checked the fov specs and they are right with those listed by ZR. Then I got into serious comparison of the two Primes. That evolved into comparing them against whatever else I had around. In my view, the 8x Prime got better as the comparisons progressed.If you look at a USAF resolution chart, the 10x at close distance, does show its advantage. I have a variety of targets I use in optical evaluation. To the south of me are the Klamath Hills. Our farm sits at 4,100 ft elevation and the high point of the KH is 5,730 high point of Captain Jack. Two years ago there was a lightning strike fire just below that summit. At a distance of (Google Earth) 1.7 mi the Dept of Forestry left a weather data collection station. It is white, 2 feet x 3 feet with a 5’ high instrument tower. It looks like a mail box in binoculars. At the same distance from a fire in 1998 there is a standing, burned Juniper snag that sits below the horizon. The skeleton is 16’ tall and probably 8’ in circumference. This is south by south west from me. Looking to the east there is the 6,800’ Stukel Mountain. At a distance of 3.71 (again measured with Google Earth) on the north end of the mountain there are several houses. One of these has a very large motor home. It is tan with several stripes of maroon of increasing intensity that make a good test object. At the top of this mountain at 5.1 miles there are several communications towers. So this is the sort of distance I was using.
So to be clear here, the 10x shows a bigger image, but the two have to be side by side on a tripod to see the difference. The 8x shows a sharper brighter image that is actually easier to glean detail from…even at the above distances. That is particularly evident on the weather data box in the fire and on the large motor home. I covered the end of the focuser with electrical tape and showed the 8x and 10x Primes to several people. In this too simple to be valid sample, everybody thought the 8x was the 10x. That might not go down to well with people who are convinced that the 10x will show better detail at distance. Not so here…FWIW. I see no problems of any sort with either binocular, so I don’t think it is a matter of a poor 10x…this is not a poor binocular. Maybe they are both closer to 9x than their stated magnifications, but I think that would alter the fov readings.
Both units carried over the nice focuser and the sturdy construction. Both have the same slightly more rounded edge to the eye cup. The 10x does have better eye relief than the beta sample, about 1.5 mm. This was done by using a thinner assembly around the ocular lens. This looks like the same unit in both binoculars. The eye relief is better in the 8x, so if you need eye relief, get the 8x. However, there is enough extra eye relief that I can use the 10x production model with wrap around sunglasses and I can’t with the beta sample.
Overnight in the refrigerator has no affect on focuser operation. I tried it in the freezer, originally intending to leave them for an hour. I got side tracked and forgot about them and it was 24 hours later that I remembered where I left them:eek!: . That does freeze up the hinge and the focuser. Everything thawed out fine. The betas sample was in the water trough for two days and did not leak.
The Prime bests the Vortex Razor HD (original model). The differences are most evident in the edge performance and in the flatness of the fov. For whatever reason, the Prime (both 8x and 10x) show a pretty pronounced (for a roof) 3-D effect. This difference was clearly apparent, and lacking, in the Razor. The 3-d Effect in the 8x Prime is little less than a Swift 804 type 1c Audubon 8.5x44 and the 10x Prime is little different from a Leupold Wind River Mesa 10x50 porro.
So I’m keeping the 8x. I am also pretty well done looking for a different main use personal binocular too. I simply am not going to add the extra $$$’s for whatever minute differences I’d get from a Leizeinikovski alpha. I’ll keep looking at stuff and I do still want to get my hands on a Monarch 7. I also am somewhat on the lookout for a Prime optical quality 8x32…don’t particularly care who does it first.
The eyecups could stand some attention in future production runs. There was a massive improvement to the slight rounded edge the production run has over the beta. I think some work on a bit more refined eye cup will help lots.
So, I'm headed out of here for a couple of weeks to help some friends on a large haying lease they have on the Klamath Marsh Wildlife Refuge. All I'll have is my phone. There is data service on the Marsh, but the Yamsi Ranch area is kind of hit and miss, so I may be out of ability to responmd much here after Monday.
