• 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)

Comparing similar ED bins and Legend.

Err...tough. Maybe. I sort of enjoy the look and the feel in use of roofs over porros. So if they were actually equivalent, it might be hard to be objective here.
 
Good question on the DOF. I don't have mine on hand anymore. Maybe Kevin can comment. I seem to remember the depth of field being comparable to something like the Monarch and a bit better than the Promaster in this regard.

My unit did not have any quality control issues that I was aware of.

I don't have a Monarch to compare it with. I think the DOF is OK. Not astounding but perhaps (if DOF depends only on magnification and they keep the aberrations down) about what you'd expect from a 8x. I suspect it's the sam or better than the Monarch though it might feel different.

Is the Hawke Frontier ED 8x43 better than Bushnell Legend 8x42 porro?

I haven't actually ABed these two but my first guess is the Chinese ED would have it. It is sharper (IIRC ... which may be a bad idea). I suspect the Legends are good but not that good.

I'll see if I can try it but I have a whole stack of ABs to do but I'm focused on the Zen-rays right now.
 
Last edited:
I cannot do the comparison anymore so I will defer to Kevin on that one.

Comparing the Legend porros to the Zen Ray really isn't a fair comparison though I guess you could make the case that they both have some similar specs (eye relief...field of view, etc...). The Zen Ray's image is marginally brighter and a tad sharper with less field curvature. The Legend porro has slightly more field curvature and though sharp isn't as sharp as the Zen Ray. As the Zen Ray and the Hawke are similar in many aspects I think you could make a bit of a case that my comments might apply to them as well.
 
I cannot do the comparison anymore so I will defer to Kevin on that one.

Comparing the Legend porros to the Zen Ray really isn't a fair comparison though I guess you could make the case that they both have some similar specs (eye relief...field of view, etc...). The Zen Ray's image is marginally brighter and a tad sharper with less field curvature. The Legend porro has slightly more field curvature and though sharp isn't as sharp as the Zen Ray. As the Zen Ray and the Hawke are similar in many aspects I think you could make a bit of a case that my comments might apply to them as well.

I'll probably comment on the Zen Ray evaluation thread too but after posting the comment above I went out with the Zen-ray 10x43 and the Eagle Optics Raptor 10x42 porro. Not the same as you ask but in the same ball park.

And the results are similar to FrankD's (except I didn't look at the field edges).

The Chinese ED (I generalize but the Hawke and ZR ED are very similar at 8x) is perhaps slightly sharper and is better with color saturation and presentation. I was watching Ring-necked Ducks and Mallards in the sun when doing this: great targets for color at ranges from 10m to 100m. There were times when the color could be seen in the ED bin clearly but not being nearly so apparent in the non-ED (a porro).

I still think the porro might have had the "clarity" thing I keep going on about but I think the Chinese ED may have been sharper.
 
Kevin,

I know what you are referring to when you mention clarity. Other than the FL it seems to be porro-specific though the Zen Rays are very close as well. I think what we may often overlook, or at least fail to comment on, is the fact that the inexpensive porros compare so well to much more expensive roofs. They may not be quite at the same level but they are oh-so-close.
 
I know what you are referring to when you mention clarity. Other than the FL it seems to be porro-specific though the Zen Rays are very close as well. I think what we may often overlook, or at least fail to comment on, is the fact that the inexpensive porros compare so well to much more expensive roofs. They may not be quite at the same level but they are oh-so-close.

Or they compare differently.

This "transparency" in porros or "haze" in roofs seems to be independent of other characteristics (like sharpness or even contrast, though the roofs that don't show it (or show it less) seem to be brighter (so more contrasty) and sharper too (i.e. enough so that the eye's acuity is the limit).

I've still not had the chance to redo the comparative tests for "transparency" or "haze" across my collection to see if other trends appear.
 
I've still not had the chance to redo the comparative tests for "transparency" or "haze" across my collection to see if other trends appear.

Oh that I would pay to see. You currently have a large enough and varied enough selection to really do a nice comparison of this issue.
 
Ah, but the two are not mutually exclusive.

;)

..and, as for the weather, you act as if it isn't always bright and sunny up on the upper west coast.

:)
 
It's already been mentioned in here somewhere, but can someone in the know confirm the focus speed of the Frontier ED model?

Cheers

Matt
 
Matt, if you look at the Sherwoods Hawke page there is a link to a 'Bird Watching' review of the EDs. It's a pdf file so I can't link to it directly. I think it says 2 1/2 turns from close focus to infinity. Here is the Sherwoods' page:

http://www.sherwoods-photo.com/hawke_sport_optics/hawke_binoculars_fs.htm

Ron

Of course you can ;)

http://www.sherwoods-photo.com/hawke_sport_optics/FRONTIER ED REVIEW BWG0109.pdf

Of course he really likes them (see the review) but for us the interesting quotes which FrankD picked up on before:

Birdwatching.co.uk Review said:
there’s a hint of a halo, but getting your eye position right soon gets rid of that.

Birdwatching.co.uk Review said:
Perhaps there was a small amount of edge softness, and that halo i mentioned earlier. But that’s nit-picking, because both problems were easily fixed by taking a few moments to find the right eye position.

Interesting, I've not found that but maybe I should try again to see if that is the case.

I've found the "practical" range from 10 feet to infinity with these bins takes 1.2 turns or so.

The total amount of rotation is 2.5 turns but there is a lot of overrun and underrun there for hyperopes and myopes.

The bins also use a fair amount of rotation for very close use (i.e. 10 feet to 6 feet).
 
Last edited:
Kevin's observation of the "useful" range of the focusing is spot on. Though the focus knob does complete a full 2.5 turns only a small portion of that focusing range is needed for the average focus/refocus situation.

As for "correct eye placement"......what can I say? I noticed the ring when I went looking for it...as well as the field curvature. Both characteristics were most evident when panning. I will defer to Kevin for further comment as I no longer have them in my possession.
 
When comparing focus speed, it would be useful if people would specify two things to make the reports easily comparable. One is of course the amount of turning of the wheel, in rotations and fractions thereof (e.g. 1 1/4 turns) or in degrees (450, 205, whatever it happens to be), but the other and equally important one, often missing, is the distance range which that amount of turning covered. For the latter, I would suggest using 5 meters to infinity as a practical range that would give meaningful information, although the ones among you who have good memory and have read my previous stuff may recall that I have thus far used 10m-1km as the range. In just about all binoculars, the amount of focus travel from 1km to infinity is pretty minimal and does not skew the result, but focus travel past infinity to serve different levels of myopia can vary a lot between binoculars and, if not accounted for can make the reported "focus speed" meaningless. The same holds true even more for close focus distance. For example, the Hawke 10x43 ED with my eyes focuses down to just under two meters. Adjusting the focus from there to three meters takes about a full turn of the focus knob. If I now compared the "focus speed" of this binocular A by just counting the turns from minimum focus to 1km (or infinity) to binocular B that had minimum close focus at 3m, the latter would appear to have faster focus when, in truth, it could be equally possible that over a given standard range it would focus more slowly.

I'm suggesting this because it is cheap, fast and easy to do, and makes different users' reports meaningful and comparable from model to model. And, as long as the range is mentioned by the person reporting the focus speed, it doesn't even matter if the range is the same or different from what I or anyone else uses - one can always take their reference binoculars and check how fast they focus over the range someone else had reported.

Kimmo
 
I do just what Kimmo suggests but I'd suggest use decimal notation for the turn counting. It's less restrictive ... is that 1 3/8 or 1 1/4 turns or 1.3 turns ... tenths are easy to estimate too.

And use 3m/10 feet to infinity which I feel is a more typical distance range for people who bird over a range of habitats (from woodland to open spaces). It's also a typical maximum focus distance for "older" bins. I think most people would agree 3, as a "maximum" minimum close focus for a birding bin.

Which is what I use in all of my reports (including the one on this thread ;) )

See the new thread at

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=134000
 
Last edited:
Thank you for the suggestion Kimmo. You are right ofcourse. It would standardize many of the varying reports on different models. I will make it a point to include it in any further observations I have on the various models.
 
Had the opportunity to try out three different models of the 8x43 Frontier ED over the last few days, on all three I found the focus action dreadfuly unresponsive and spongey to the point I was beginning to think there was a defect with the inner focus mechanism!! Also thought the slow focus wouldn't be too bad but considered it way too slow for woodland birding and insect watching etc. The image quality is awsome but the handling sucks in my opinion!! Would be interested to hear if other Hawke owners find the same?

While I was trying the last model I compared them against the much better ergonomically designed Opticron Imagic SE 8x42 and 8x32 SE, the image was almost as good (which amounts to pretty darn good!!) as the Frontier but had much better and quicker focus action, it was also a good deal smaller and appeared to have better build quality.

Matt
 
Yes Matt, the ultimate test is the field test. 200 lifers with my Monarchs. I would buy them again if that is all they sold for under 400.
 
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