I haven't tried the Vortex in question, but I am currently trying a similar model...the Bushnell Excursion EX 7x36 birding binocular. Bought it for $143 with free shipping, including a coupon code that reduced the price from $150.
I will probably post an extended version of this as a review at some point.
These have phase correction, and weigh about 21 ounces. The field of view is wide, probably about 400 ft /1000 yards (the specs claim a bit more...and on the focus knob it says "451 ft FOV", which is even more than the published specs claim). The exit pupil is 5.1mm.
They don't really feel all that light for their size. The rubber armoring is nice, and the thumb indents on the bottom are very soft, but don't quite fit my thumbs in the angle I prefer to hold them. I wear a size 10 glove, so my hands might be medium to barely above medium size for a man. They do feel small in my hands, but again, not very light for their size. The open bridge design is nice, and works ok, though it would likely work even better on larger binoculars in my hands (when holding with one hand, etc.)
The focus knob is a bit stiff. The green color of the rubber is nice. I find them more difficult to hold steady, than the 10x42 Leupolds I mention below. I'm not sure if the Leupold's radically longer physical length is playing a role, but it just may be.
Optically, they are very sharp and bright given their size, and the color is mostly neutral to slightly warm...and well saturated. The contrast is probably as good as, or better than, anything anywhere near the price. Dark areas go very, very dark...and bright areas go very bright...both appear to extend the contrast I see with the naked eye. I do notice a bit of red and green color fringing (CA) toward the outside of the field, but only on the most extreme edges of a high contrast object, such as dark tree limbs against a brightly diffuse daylit sky. Set against a dimmer sky, such as after sunset, I couldn't see any CA. If there is ever CA in the center of the image, I can't see it. I don't have absolutely perfect vision, yet I do prefer to use binoculars without wearing corrective eyeglasses.
I forget what the eye relief is. It seems like it could use a bit more, but it might be above average. I use the eyecups extended all the way out, but also find that I like to press them tightly to my eyes, especially when there is bright light to the side or rear of my head. The multicoating looks very green on both objective and eyepiece, and seems to control reflection well.
When held to a bright light, or daylight, I can look inside from the eyepiece end (while holding them away from my eyes), and see some of the internal barrel structure and prism edges, being lit up. To be fair, it seems very few models other than the very expensive range, seem to control this very well...at least from test websites I have seen, which show test photos.
They seem to focus very close, perhaps under 5 feet. The depth of field is a bit shallow, but I like this. It allows objects to stand out against a busy background that becomes nicely blurred. I am a photographer, so I love lenses which perform similarly, such as my 135mm f/2.
When used for astronomy, stars appear as pinpoints, other than at the extreme edges. Faint objects such as nebulae, appear better resolved than a cheaper 8x42 pair that I own, but not quite as good as a friend's more pricey, but older 10x42 Leupolds. During daytime, this Bushnell is easily brighter and has more contrast than either of those, but I admit they may not be the best comparison. (At present these are all I have to compare.)
I didn't dare look at the full moon with these, as it would have hurt my eyes.
I will likely return these Bushnells, because I decided to bite the bullet and try something a bit more expensive and larger, with ED glass. I will compare them before I return them, though.
The Vortex model that intrigues me is the upcoming Talon HD 8x32, with a claimed 9.1 degree field of view. It costs quite a bit more than I want to spend (over $400), but I may just try them anyway. I suspect the field periphery will suffer quite a bit, if the FOV really is that wide...but you never know.
