• 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.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Hawke Frontier ED 8x43! (2 Viewers)

Oh my, so much to comment on. I love it!

Kevin,

Yes, the neckstrap is out of the bag if that is any indicator. I have finally decided to narrow my selection down to a few select bins (for now ;) ) The Hawke is going to be one of them.

Huang,

I sincerely appreciate the comments/feedback. If I can I would like to continue to discuss a few of your points.

3. I really prefer the texture of these binoculars. Not just the checkered/dotted pattern but the feel of the rubber. It is very smooth and makes it a pleasure to pick up.

5. I am glad you pointed out the two part focusing knob. I forgot to mention that in the review. The "plate" that has the Hawke Frontier ED Logo on actually does not move folks. The focusing ring is behind it and moves separately from the front plate. Nice touch.

6. The difference in friction feel between the Promaster and the Hawke is immediately noticeable. The Promaster has more of a Nikon Monarch/Pentax SP type of feel to the tension. The Hawke feels more like the Vortex Razor but without the stiffness. It has a great feel of control to it. Nicely done.

9. I am glad you clarified the coatings utilized on the lenses/prisms. The Promaster description goes into more detail as to what is utilized. The Hawke does not. I am glad to see that they share pretty much everything but the Repellemax.

10. That I am glad to hear. I wish this was always the case. Sometimes I feel like a company comes out with a wonderful prototype with alot of potential but then really fails to keep on eye on quality control. The unit I have is excellent in fit and finish as well as image quality. I hope they all are at this level of quality.

11. Yes, that bit of stray light is there but I haven't found it to be an issue. I wonder, if possible, that it could be remedied though with further research into the design. It is a minor issue but one that I think separates it from being more "perfect" in design.

13. In my opinion you folks just set a new standard in terms of price and performance. The Hawke ED and Promaster ED models offer superb optical performance for the price. Much better than anything else I have seen at this price point or several hundred dollars more.

Lastly, your question about the 32 vs 36 mm. Good question. I think either would do. A 36 mm would be nice as a compromise bin between a 32 and 42 mm. But since we already have the 42 mm version then I think a 32 mm would make more sense in terms of compactness.

Now here is an important point. I think you would do well enough selling the usual formats 8x32/10x32, etc... However, serious binocular users have been clamoring for a high quality 7x32 for some time and none of the optic manufacturers are listening. If you really want to set the binocular-loving public on its ear then come out with a 7x32 version of the Hawke ED at the same quality level of its 42 mm counterpart. Give it the same level of eye relief as the 42 mm (at least 16 or 17 mm) and give it a generous field of view (I am thinking at least equivalent to the 8x42 version but if you can squeek out a bit more without compromising on overall image quality then go for it).

They will sell like hotcakes and not just to birders but to hunters as well. I visit both types of forums and there are as many hunters out there who realize the benefits of a 7x32 configured binocular.

Thank you for taking the time to come here and comment. I do believe everyone here sincerely appreciates it.
 
Now here is an important point. I think you would do well enough selling the usual formats 8x32/10x32, etc... However, serious binocular users have been clamoring for a high quality 7x32 for some time and none of the optic manufacturers are listening. If you really want to set the binocular-loving public on its ear then come out with a 7x32 version of the Hawke ED at the same quality level of its 42 mm counterpart. Give it the same level of eye relief as the 42 mm (at least 16 or 17 mm) and give it a generous field of view (I am thinking at least equivalent to the 8x42 version but if you can squeek out a bit more without compromising on overall image quality then go for it).

They will sell like hotcakes and not just to birders but to hunters as well. I visit both types of forums and there are as many hunters out there who realize the benefits of a 7x32 configured binocular.

I mentioned on another thread a long list of reasons why < 8x magnification is a good idea:

http://birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=1303666&postcount=32

One thing to keep in mind is that pretty much every military out there uses 7x bins as the general purpose binocular. So I presume they know something we don't.

The only counter argument, which I've made about IF versus CF bins before, is that soldiers, like hunters, are looking for other people (1m scale objects at greater than 100m range) whereas birders area liking for 5mm details at ranges less than 50m. The resolution of the handheld binocular/eye system is limited either by shaking (at about 10x for most people) or by the eye itself so the system resolution is the eyes resolution (typically 1 arc minute) divided by the magnification with most good binoculars not limiting the resolution (a binocular resolution of < 6 arc seconds or better). So with a magnification of less than 10x one throws away some potential resolution for a gain in other areas (bigger exit pupil for more relaxed view; wider FOV; less shake so a less tiring view; etc).

In fact that's one of the things I like about the Promaster 7x32 (despite the stray light issues and the too deep eyecups ... ) is it's a nice balance of resolution/shake/exit pupil/FOV/AFOV. If it was more compact, lighter and didn't have stray light issues it would be excellent.
 
Last edited:
I'd like to put in a word for a reasonably priced 7 x 42!

It would be nice to see some 7 x 32's and 9 x 35's and other useful but exotic configurations that unfortunately have a a poor history of sales; but I think the industry could concentrate a little bit more on making a reasonably priced 7 x 42. This very useful, bright and easy to use binocular, with it's 6mm exit pupil, long eye relief, wide FOV and great DOF does have a market AND an old and honorable reputation and tradition.

Are there any 7 x 42 roof prisms left that cost less than $800.00? Most cost at least $1800.00 or more! The last reasonably priced ones by Meade and Bushnell are gone. What is so difficult about making one? The are dozens of varieties of 42mm roofs on the market in 8x and 10x! Most of them probably use f4 objective lenses. This is very likely an oversimplification, but the costs involved in their manufacture would seem to be limited to putting 24mm oculars into them.

For example, the Vortex Diamondback would make an ideal budget priced 7 x 42. I have an 8 x 42. It's an excellent binocular for it's modest price, but when I use it I can't help thinking how much better it would be at 7x; brighter and with better DOF.

Cordially,
Bob
 
Last edited:
Yes Tero,
Based on the reports we have here from the people who use it, it looks like it is a very good binocular. I've never tried one, but it's FOV is adequate as far as I am concerned. I would probably buy the 8.5 x 44 HHS over it though because I did try one along with of a Swaro 8.5 x 42 at the same time and I liked it's performance and ergonomics and especially it's price.
Bob
 
Mr Lingyun
Thank you for taking the time to post on this site. As you can tell, there is a lot of optical expertice by real users here. I'm not one of those experts, but I think I would speak for a lot of people here and on other optics forums, in that a lot of us would buy a high quality 7x32 or 7x36 binocular. I wonder why the big three all make an 8x32 and a 7x42 but no 7x32. That seems backwards to me.

To answer your question more directly about 32 or 36, I would personally prefer a 32 size bin to go along with my 8x42 Ultravid. I think the people who frequent these boards are inclined to own more than one general use binocular. I would use the 8x42 around the house, on short walks and in places I can drive to. I would like a compact and light (around 20oz) binocular for longer hikes and mountain trips.

Thanks, John
 
Those are some excellent points Bob and about some very specific models and configurations. Well said. I would agree that a mid-priced 7x42 would probably be very well received. Again, if they just took the 8x42 design that they are already utilizing and made the necessary design changes to make it a 7x42 (with an accompanying larger field of view, equal or better eye relief and naturally a better depth of field) then it would be hard not to recommend to just about anyone look for a mid-priced binocular with high end performance.
 
11. As for the wide field of view, FrankD described very clear. At the same time, FrankD indicate that the stray light control is not perfect. It is difficult to control the stray light to a high level under that wide field of view, but we need to apply new techniques to improve this phenomenon. Thank you very much again.

I've been noticing this in all my wide (8 degree) roofs, and to a lesser extend in the narrow FOV roofs, and was wondering if it was a general phenomenon.

Could you say something about the mechanism that's causing the stray light. Where is the light coming from (outside the field I presume) and why does it end up as a ring in the image? Obviously there's some path through the bin for stray light that symmetric around the axis of a barrel.

Perhaps this explains Pentax's design style that leans to a narrower FOV than most.

Perhaps I shall have to trade my desire for a FOV "turned up to 11" with my desire to deal with stray light (which is the biggest issue I have with roofs).

Any insights are welcome!
 
Any insights are welcome!

The solution to this problem, I've found, is to get top-end roofs. The Zeiss 7x42 and 8x32, the Leica 7x42 and 8x32, and Swarovski 8x32 and 7x42 all have fairly wide FOVs as roofs go, but they all control stray light very well and maintain excellent contrast in tricky lighting conditions.

--AP
 
On the assumption that the Promaster ELX ED and the Hawke ED are slightly tweaked versions of the same model, I'm going to respond to Huang Linguan's request for what else we'd like to see.

My vote is for 7x36 in the smaller glass. Looking at the 7x36 Swift I have, it is apparrent that a 36mm objective can come in a truly compact frame size. I'd say my preference is 7x, and then 8x. I don't have much use for compact glass higer than 8x. However since we are wishing here, I'd vote for initial production runs of 6x, 7x, 8x and 9x. Concentrate on 8-9 degree angular fov. After the first production release we'd know if the apparent desire for a quality 7x glass is as real as people on BF seem to think it is. You might take a risk with the 9x because maybe Tero is the only potential customer;). But I think that 9x would still be useful. You would still have a 4mm exit pupil. I think that the extra glass of the 36mm size would provide the engineers with a few more options than lesser amounts. However if you can make wider fov with 32mm designs, then the market would seem to me to indicate that you will sell more binoculars with as much fov as you can give them.

I for one would like to see optional, easily changed flared (angled) eyecups. I happen to like them and get a little weary of fashioning them from bicycle innertubes and O-rings. I prefer the Hawke case accessory kit.
 
The reason that 9x would not sell is that many people cannot tell the difference between similar 8x and 9x. But with 10x you can impress a lot of people, especially the nonbirding kind. "Wow, these are stronger".
 
As a matter of interest, guys, how bad is the "stray light" problem in the Hawke Frontier ED 8x43? I´m gobsmacked by the specs of these bins (having checked them out and found a British distributor on Steve C´s recommendation), and although I´ve never seen a pair, I trust your reviews and recommendations. I have a pair of EL 8x32, but reckoned Santa might bring me a pair of ED 8x42 (If you still Believe in him, he´ll bring you anything....) I´m seriously impressed by the wide FOV and 743gm weight of the Hawkes, and the less-than-sharp edge doesn´t really bother me...the new HD EL´s might be sharp "edge-to-edge", but if their FOV is only 7.6 degrees, there´s less actual edge there. Also they weigh nearly 800gm, and will cost about six times (yes, that´s six times) the Hawkes. So, as you say Stateside, it´s a "no-brainer"...but does that stray light issue make a big difference?
 
Last edited:
...FOV is only 7.6 degrees, there´s less actual edge there.

That is how it goes. Binoculars are kind of like the dress that is too short. If you pull it down, it reveals too much on top. We just juggle our specs and requirements around, but we can't have it all.
 
Binoculars are kind of like the dress that is too short. If you pull it down, it reveals too much on top.
In dresses, I would consider this a distinct advantage;). Isn´t it interesting, though, especially in light of the current collapse of "Western" capitalism, that Chinese manufacturers can produce these bins at the prices on offer? Meanwhile, Swarovski charges more in Europe for its products than it does in the U.S., because it realises that Americans aren´t prepared to pay what Euroeans do. The Hawke bins cost exactly the same in Europe as they do in the U.S. and in gratitude for that, I´m prepared to switch when next I buy bins. Mind you, if the crash deepens, there won´t be a foreign market for Chinese-made goods, as we´ll all be unemployed and spending our days extending our Lists.
 
I feel the need to comment on the issue of stray light with the Hawke EDs. I take a bit of pride in "calling it like I see it" regardless of how I personally feel about a product. I felt the need to comment about that bit of a stray light because I saw it in the image. However, as I said previously, I do not believe it takes away from the overall image quality of the bin...at least for my personal preference in optical quality. It would not deter me from purchasing a second pair of these bins or buying them again in the first place if I knew about it ahead of time. In my experience so far it simply is another aspect of the optical performance in much the same way that I see a little more color fringing in the Swarovski ELs or that bit of astigmatism around the outside edge of the Zeiss FLs. One just accepts it as a compromise in design and, I again feel the need to point out that we aren't talking about a $1500, $2000 or $2500 binocular but rather one that sells for under $500 and yet still delivers, incredibly, in optics and handling...again, in my opinion.
 
Last edited:
If he's still out there, I have a question for Huan_Lingyun. It is this. What is the deal with the slow focus rate in these binoculars? On one hand it seems molasses slow and on the other it seems OK. Is there a variable rate focus design at work here or is it something else. If you can say, I for one would like to know.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 6 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top