Switching from 8x42 HTs to 10x42, suggestions? (1 Viewer)

[hopster]

ANY of the major brands 10X42s will be fine. The differences will mainly be user preferences. None are a "step down" but more of a move to the side. You can consider the Swarovski SLC/EL/NL, Leica UVHD+/Noctivid, and Zeiss SF.

...and the Meopta Meostar B1+ HD which competes optically but at a much lower price.

 

[rdfish1]

This is an old thread but popped up due to the above post so I decided to comment as the OP. I ended up buying a pair of 12x50 vortex viper and love them. In fact I am using them as I write. Probably not a favorite hear but I’m very pleased.

Still haven’t sold my 8x42HTs they remain unused so I should list them.

 

[chill6x6]

...and the Meopta Meostar B1+ HD which competes optically but at a much lower price.

Really, the Meostars aren't the bargain they once were.

 

[Maljunulo]

You may be overestimating how much real difference switching to 10X from 8X will make.

Don’t jump.

 

[Elkhornsun]

I can easily manage a 12x binocular as easily as a 10x pair. It is at 15x and greater magnification where I need a tripod. If I can brace the binos against my eye sockets it reduces any movement issues. I was using 10x ones but borrowed someone's 12x40 and was impressed.

 

[tenex]

Heavy, cumbersome, not user friendly, not enough ER for me....

How much of an issue (for birding) was the time required to engage the stabilizer?

Still haven’t sold my 8x42HTs they remain unused so I should list them.

Can you answer this question first (or anyone else who has them): FL 42s had smeary edge distortions that annoyed me. Did HTs solve those? I never saw one.

I ended up buying a pair of 12x50 vortex viper and love them. In fact I am using them as I write.

Impressive close focus!

 

[henry link]

I can speak for the 8x42 FL vs the 8x42 HT. I found no difference whatever in the optical designs of the objective lenses or eyepieces when I analyzed them by comparing the reflection patterns returning from the lens elements and star tested them at high magnification. Off axis aberrations were dominated by the very same amount of astigmatism in both. Optically, they appeared to be identical binoculars with a slight improvement in glare resistance from a different baffling design in the HT and maybe just a little improvement in light transmission, presumably from HT glass.

 

[chill6x6]

How much of an issue (for birding) was the time required to engage the stabilizer?


Can you answer this question first (or anyone else who has them): FL 42s had smeary edge distortions that annoyed me. Did HTs solve those? I never saw one.


Impressive close focus!

Best recollection...quick.