Sightron "Blue Sky" II 8x32 (1 Viewer)

[Steve C]

Long ways from the Sightron Blue Sky, but knowing your liking for 7x I'm betting this one, the 7x50.
http://www.vixenoptics.com/binoculars/foresta.htm

I originally figured this one
http://www.optcorp.com/product.aspx?pid=1818-1829-16167

 

[SivaL]

Thanks brocknroller for the Audubon 820 review link and the photos. The new Audubon 820 seems well built. On the other hand Nikon SE's no fault warranty would be nice to have. I don't know how good the Swift customer service is. I also have a feeling that the so called water proof 820 wouldn't pass a good dunk test. So the Nikon for it's price would be ahead in my opinion.

Talking about Swift, a few weeks back I tested the Swift Audubon 828 roof and it was surprisingly good. I compared it with the Nikon Monarch X 8.5X45 and the Pentax DCF SP. The open roof Monarch X was the best handling of the three. Optics wise the 828 and the Monarch X seemed similar. I only had 30 mins to try the bins and was not actively looking for CA or Edge sharpness. Looking at birds on the power line under bright Sun I remember seeing more purple fringing on the Monarch X compared to the 828. I was trying to read street signs at 500 Yards and the Audubon to me was better with it's relaxed view. Like the Monarch X it was also easy to handle with one hand. The eye pieces on the 828 were easy on the face compared to the hard ones on the Monarch X. I don't understand why such bins with good optics and handling are not marketed well. For some reason I didn't like the Pentax much even if the images looked sharp. It was not easy to hold them.

I hope to test the 820ED when it's available.

 

[BrightIdea]

Anecdotal Sightron commentary #67:

My dad came over today and we were looking at hawks and trees & buildings and other stuff off the deck for a while.

He is a big fan (and recipient of) the 6.5 Fury. Anyhoo, he doesnt know the names/brand/quality of any of my binos. I put the Theron, Sightron, ProOptic 10x42, and Yosemite 6x30 on the table. I didnt say much of anything about any of them.

He tried all of them on and off while we shot the breeze about other stuff. No optics chat.

FWIW In the end he had the Sightrons.

 

[Chosun Juan]

...the Swift Audubon 820ED or Nikon SE 8x32....From all that I have read here these two should be excellent birding bins comparable to roof bins costing more than $1K.

Have you read Steve Ingraham's review of the 820 Audubon? Poor Man's EL?

....the optics were pretty good.

Swift changed the body style last year, and now uses the old B&L Discoverer body, which looks more comfortable to hold, although someone who bought one said the eyecups were still very large (I added a couple photos of the new body style).

Brock

CURSES!! :C to all you damnable:storm:non-eyeglass wearing un-cro-magnon-like folk with faces flatter n a Steller's Sea Eagle!! :-@ 8-P

Able to enjoy your "see behind your back" wide angle reasonably priced quality porro's (vintage or not) and value quality optic reasonably FOV'd roofs, while the rest of us poor souls slide surreptitiously, uncerimoniously shot down the slippery slope screaming past the event horizon, ignominiously, inconsolably into the black hole of Why2K? predation .......................


:-C Chosun :gh:

 

[BrightIdea]

CURSES!! :C to all you damnable:storm:non-eyeglass wearing un-cro-magnon-like folk with faces flatter n a Steller's Sea Eagle!! :-@ 8-P

Able to enjoy your "see behind your back" wide angle reasonably priced quality porro's (vintage or not) and value quality optic reasonably FOV'd roofs, while the rest of us poor souls slide surreptitiously, uncerimoniously shot down the slippery slope screaming past the event horizon, ignominiously, inconsolably into the black hole of Why2K? predation .......................


:-C Chosun :gh:

DECAF man, DECAF!

:-O

 

[lilcrazy2]

it's a "Mystery" to me

 

[FrankD]

Long ways from the Sightron Blue Sky, but knowing your liking for 7x I'm betting this one, the 7x50.
http://www.vixenoptics.com/binoculars/foresta.htm

Ding. Ding.

We have a winner.

My initial comments before a day trip down to Middle Creek Wildlife Refuge to check out 60,000 Snow Geese, several thousand Tundra Swan, a Sandhill Crane and dozens of other waterfowl with them....

....Crackin' good object and overall image performance. They don't have the wide field performance because of the 7.1 degree field of view but man are the edges sharp. Contrast, apparent sharpness and brightness are all first rate CA control is very, very good...assuming from the porro design and the triplet objective.

Image quality is actually intoxicating. I feel as if my eyes just drink in the image.

Love 'em. Really do.

 

[brocknroller]

Thanks brocknroller for the Audubon 820 review link and the photos. The new Audubon 820 seems well built. On the other hand Nikon SE's no fault warranty would be nice to have. I don't know how good the Swift customer service is. I also have a feeling that the so called water proof 820 wouldn't pass a good dunk test. So the Nikon for it's price would be ahead in my opinion.

Talking about Swift, a few weeks back I tested the Swift Audubon 828 roof and it was surprisingly good. I compared it with the Nikon Monarch X 8.5X45 and the Pentax DCF SP. The open roof Monarch X was the best handling of the three. Optics wise the 828 and the Monarch X seemed similar. I only had 30 mins to try the bins and was not actively looking for CA or Edge sharpness. Looking at birds on the power line under bright Sun I remember seeing more purple fringing on the Monarch X compared to the 828. I was trying to read street signs at 500 Yards and the Audubon to me was better with it's relaxed view. Like the Monarch X it was also easy to handle with one hand. The eye pieces on the 828 were easy on the face compared to the hard ones on the Monarch X. I don't understand why such bins with good optics and handling are not marketed well. For some reason I didn't like the Pentax much even if the images looked sharp. It was not easy to hold them.

I hope to test the 820ED when it's available.

Subzero,

You are not the first to note the "Purple Haze" in the Monarch X...

Purple haze all in my brain
Lately, chromatic aberration drivin' me insane
Monarch's actin' funny, I don't know why
'Scuse me while I switch to my Sightron Blue Sky

According to allbinos (I should have a function key with that phrase so I don't have to write it so much , the Swift 828 Audubon only has 75% light transmission!

It's one thing to be dickering over whether the FL has 91% or 94% LT, but if the allbino boyz are right about the 828, that low a number is going to be noticeable to most people when they compare it to the 90% LT Swift 820 Audubon porro or the 91% Swift Horizon roof (also allbinos' figures) on an overcast day.

The 10x42 Horizon they reviewed is only $179.98 at bin.com, so why does it have so much more LT than the company's more expensive flagship roof? That's a head scratcher.

I haven't tried the 828, but I corresponded with two owners who did reviews on BF and read numerous other reviews, and enough agreed that when compared to the Audubon porros or other modern roofs they've tried, the 828 doesn't hold as well in dim light to make me suspect that allbinos' numbers if not on the money are at least in the ballpark.

Swift spun off its sports optics division a few years back, but I would have thought that by now they would have updated the 828 with higher transmission coatings on the prisms and lenses.

If you're thinking about buying the 828, test it on an overcast day and compare it to some other bins to make sure it suits your needs.

As far as the 820 vs. the SE, I think the SE is the better of the two. Better build, better optics, better mechanics, better edges, and you can buy one second hand and still get it repaired for $10 + return shipping.

Can't touch that
I told you, homeboy
You can't touch that.

Brock

 

[jaymoynihan]

Subzero888
I currently use both the 820ED (about 10 years old) and the 8x SE. There is a fair amount of talk about both of these on the forum. PM me if you have any particular questions.

 

[vop]

Subzero,

You are not the first to note the "Purple Haze" in the Monarch X...

Purple haze all in my brain
Lately, chromatic aberration drivin' me insane
Monarch's actin' funny, I don't know why
'Scuse me while I switch to my Sightron Blue Sky

According to allbinos (I should have a function key with that phrase so I don't have to write it so much , the Swift 828 Audubon only has 75% light transmission!

It's one thing to be dickering over whether the FL has 91% or 94% LT, but if the allbino boyz are right about the 828, that low a number is going to be noticeable to most people when they compare it to the 90% LT Swift 820 Audubon porro or the 91% Swift Horizon roof (also allbinos' figures) on an overcast day.

The 10x42 Horizon they reviewed is only $179.98 at bin.com, so why does it have so much more LT than the company's more expensive flagship roof? That's a head scratcher.

I haven't tried the 828, but I corresponded with two owners who did reviews on BF and read numerous other reviews, and enough agreed that when compared to the Audubon porros or other modern roofs they've tried, the 828 doesn't hold as well in dim light to make me suspect that allbinos' numbers if not on the money are at least in the ballpark.

Swift spun off its sports optics division a few years back, but I would have thought that by now they would have updated the 828 with higher transmission coatings on the prisms and lenses.

If you're thinking about buying the 828, test it on an overcast day and compare it to some other bins to make sure it suits your needs.

As far as the 820 vs. the SE, I think the SE is the better of the two. Better build, better optics, better mechanics, better edges, and you can buy one second hand and still get it repaired for $10 + return shipping.

Can't touch that
I told you, homeboy
You can't touch that.

Brock

I think that allbinos 75% transmission of the Swift Audubon 828 isn't correct, like many others.

I've only A/B:ed them extensively against the Opticron SR.GA 8x32, (which is supposed to have very good coatings and, since being a porro, doesn't have any mirror coating loss) and I find them only slightly dimmer. Haven't seen much complaint about that in other reviews either.

(Read: don't diss my main bino!)

Guess I have to buy a photospectrometer and come up with some evidence...

 

[black crow]

(Read: don't diss my main bino!)

Quoted for accuracy.



But they are pretty reliable when we agree.

 

[lulubelle]

Ding. Ding.

We have a winner.

My initial comments before a day trip down to Middle Creek Wildlife Refuge to check out 60,000 Snow Geese, several thousand Tundra Swan, a Sandhill Crane and dozens of other waterfowl with them....

....Crackin' good object and overall image performance. They don't have the wide field performance because of the 7.1 degree field of view but man are the edges sharp. Contrast, apparent sharpness and brightness are all first rate CA control is very, very good...assuming from the porro design and the triplet objective.

Image quality is actually intoxicating. I feel as if my eyes just drink in the image.

Love 'em. Really do.

Frank,

How is the focus on this bin? I am wanting to get a porro, so have been following all the the most recent posts, but want one with a decently fast focus. .......fast(er than my Pentax!), but precise!!!

 

[FrankD]

Laura,

I will have to go and measure it. I wouldn't call it excessively fast, as in Nikon 8x32 LXL or Vortex Fury 6.5x32 fast but it certainly isn't slow by any stretch of the imagination. I think you would enjoy it in this regard.

Just checked....1.25 turns from close focus to infinity on the 7x50 Foresta. Keep in mind the excellent depth of field considering the magnification and prism style.

 

[vop]

Quoted for accuracy.



But they are pretty reliable when we agree.

But... of course!!! :-O

But I seriously think 75% should be noticeable, like putting on light shades. But I'm not sure. Like I said, I have to get a photospectrometer.

 

[SivaL]

Thanks brocknroller, I saw the allbinos' mediocre ranking of the Audubon 828 - 70%. The 820ED's overall ranking does not fare well either and is almost the same as the 828 - 71.6%. The 828 bins for me were such a delight to use with great handling with no eye strain. I only checked them briefly on a Sunny afternoon and have no idea about low light usage. Like you said buying the Nikon SE with that great warranty used would be a good idea .

Thanks jaymoynihan for offering to help.

 

[ceasar]

Thanks brocknroller, I saw the allbinos' mediocre ranking of the Audubon 828 - 70%. The 820ED's overall ranking does not fare well either and is almost the same as the 828 - 71.6%. The 828 bins for me were such a delight to use with great handling with no eye strain. I only checked them briefly on a Sunny afternoon and have no idea about low light usage. Like you said buying the Nikon SE with that great warranty used would be a good idea .

Thanks jaymoynihan for offering to help.[/QUOTE


That is one of the best things about the 828. It's versatility and ease of use. It's large exit pupil helps make up for it's lack of brightness too. It is really a well designed binocular with many good points, not the least of them being it's price.

Bob

 

[JSturr]

Is exit Pupil with the 8x32 compared to a 42 a concern?

Hello to the group - I'm new here.

I need some bino's ... and I'm doing my research and I'm totally
confused as to if I want 8x32's or 8x42's.

I'll be doing some Raptor survey research in and around the Salt
Lake area soon.

These Sightron's, from the reviews, appear to be a real winner.

So -- is the exit pupil a big concern going to an 8x32 - or with
todays optics and coatings - is this less of a concern.

I am assuming because the magnification whether being an 8x32 or an 8x42
it's the same ??

 

[black crow]

I think the difference in exit pupil wouldn't be a problem for most folk and the 10mm aperture difference wouldn't be a deal breaker for most either.

However I'm going to challenge you to try the Sightron Bluesky SII 8x42. No one here has yet and I'm guessing they would be pretty great. And for some strange reason they cost less than the 32mm and as an enticement if you get them I'll give you a code to get another 10% off at Optics Planet. But you have to review them for us.

http://www.opticsplanet.net/sightron-sii-blue-sky-binoculars.html

PM me if you decide to take up the challenge.

 

[black crow]

This is the thread that will not die.o

 

[Stet]

Black Crow,

I will have them in hand tomorrow. Actually pretty excited to get them in. Will keep ya posted.

John

I think the difference in exit pupil wouldn't be a problem for most folk and the 10mm aperture difference wouldn't be a deal breaker for most either.

However I'm going to challenge you to try the Sightron Bluesky SII 8x42. No one here has yet and I'm guessing they would be pretty great. And for some strange reason they cost less than the 32mm and as an enticement if you get them I'll give you a code to get another 10% off at Optics Planet. But you have to review them for us.

http://www.opticsplanet.net/sightron-sii-blue-sky-binoculars.html

PM me if you decide to take up the challenge.