Join for FREE
It only takes a minute!
Zeiss - Always on the lookout for something special – Shop now

Welcome to BirdForum.
BirdForum is the net's largest birding community, dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE! You are most welcome to register for an account, which allows you to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Upgrade options from Vanguard ED 8.5x45

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old Sunday 23rd June 2019, 23:03   #1
pavan_n
Registered User

 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Nebraska
Posts: 28
Upgrade options from Vanguard ED 8.5x45

I have been using a Vanguard ED (ver I) 8.5x45 binocular for the past few years and while it is very good, I think I am ready to upgrade.
To set some basic requirements/parameters in place: Cost - I cant afford the top German alphas but am willing to go upwards of $1000 for something that will provide excellent views and is durable enough to last for years/ has good warranty.
Specs -
Eye Relief: I wear glasses. My current set has an ER of 20mm so this has never been an issue, but higher is better.
FOV: current set has 114m/340ft. Id like to get something as much or higher than this.
Magnification: not sure if I want to drop down to 8x and feel Im missing 0.5x :) but am willing to go up to 10x. Spotting birds shouldnt be an issue with 10x, but Im not sure about steady hand holding at the higher mag. Would like to give it a go and find out.
Close focus: under 10ft
Weight/ size: my current set is 770g/27.2oz and Ive never had an issue with this size on the neck strap. Also I will be getting a harness to carry binoculars and camera (Panasonic G9 + 100-400mm) together from time to time. The harness should allow me to take on something a little heavier.
Subjective factors: excellent center field resolution, bright viewing on overcast days and accurate color (with good CA correction) - basically better than what the vanguard ED can deliver. In reading this over, I hope I am not describing an alpha :p
I would appreciate your suggestions and help in narrowing down my options.
Thanks!
pavan_n is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 23rd June 2019, 23:21   #2
[email protected]
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Colorado
Posts: 1,915
I think you would like the Nikon Monarch HG 10x42 based on you requirements. I use 10x all the time and I don't have a problem holding it steady and it shows a lot more detail. It has a big FOV, it is light and compact, it is bright with excellent center field resolution and sharp edges and it is a good value at your price point. Made in Japan.

https://www.amazon.com/Nikon-Monarch.../dp/B01N249ENQ
https://www.fieldandstream.com/top-10-binoculars-2017/
https://www.allbinos.com/314-binocul..._HG_10x42.html
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	nikon_16028_10x42_monarch_hg_binocular_1487633098000_1314385.jpg
Views:	14
Size:	33.5 KB
ID:	698392  

Last edited by [email protected] : Monday 24th June 2019 at 14:33.
denco@comcast.n is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 24th June 2019, 00:30   #3
pavan_n
Registered User

 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Nebraska
Posts: 28
I just saw that the Zeiss Conquest HD 10x42 are about the same price as the Monarch HG 10x42s right now. How would these compare to the Nikon? Since Nikon advertise their field flatteners prominently, I wanted to ask how the rolling ball effect is on the HGs? Price being the same, which of these is a better instrument? I will try to get out to the local outdoor store and try both this week. Hopefully they will have both in stock.
pavan_n is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 24th June 2019, 01:05   #4
gunut
Registered Offender
 
gunut's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Sussex Wisconsin
Posts: 463
I don't think either of the 2 mentioned will give you a noticeable better view…..just a more recognizable name plate...…

in my opinion the HG [on paper] might have a slightly better view and the Conquest a stronger build......

Last edited by gunut : Monday 24th June 2019 at 01:11.
gunut is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 24th June 2019, 01:19   #5
pavan_n
Registered User

 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Nebraska
Posts: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by gunut View Post
I don't think either of the 2 mentioned will give you a noticeable better view..just a more recognizable name plate...

in my opinion the HG [on paper] might have a slightly better view and the Conquest a stronger build......
I have wondered about that too. The vanguard is pretty solid. Will check out the HG and conquest at the local store. Looks like they carry both.

The other option that Ive been thinking about is the Kowa genesis. The limitation with the kowa is their weight and eye relief. The genesis 10.5x44 would be a no-go as it seems to be too little ER.
pavan_n is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 24th June 2019, 01:37   #6
[email protected]
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Colorado
Posts: 1,915
Quote:
Originally Posted by pavan_n View Post
I just saw that the Zeiss Conquest HD 10x42 are about the same price as the Monarch HG 10x42s right now. How would these compare to the Nikon? Since Nikon advertise their field flatteners prominently, I wanted to ask how the rolling ball effect is on the HGs? Price being the same, which of these is a better instrument? I will try to get out to the local outdoor store and try both this week. Hopefully they will have both in stock.
The Nikon would have a little bigger FOV @ 362 feet versus the 345 feet of the Zeiss and be about 4 oz. lighter than the Zeiss with the Nikon weighing 24 oz. and the Zeiss weighing 28 oz. I never noticed RB in my HG's. They don't field flatten to the extent of say a Swarovski SV. Both are really good. You would want to try them yourself if you can.

Last edited by [email protected] : Monday 24th June 2019 at 01:44.
denco@comcast.n is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 24th June 2019, 04:50   #7
chill6x6
Registered User
BF Supporter 2019
 
chill6x6's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Alabama
Posts: 1,432
OK, I have a recommendation for you...

I'm going to recommend a Maven B.2 9X45

I just read over your post and it check a lot of your boxes:

1. Magnification is perfect for you. Not quite to a 10X but you didn't have to drop down to 8X.
2. Eye relief- It's about perfect for me, a fellow eyeglass wearer!
3. Close focus- about 5 feet.
4. FOV- Your current 8.5X has 342ft. Now this is a 9X with 377ft(at least). Now that's a full step up in FOV.
5. Optics- Even though I am a fellow Endeavor ED owner(II &IV) and endorser, the B.2 is going to be a step up in a couple of ways at least. IMO the B.2 is going have better coating on the glass. So that's going to lead to more light to your eye. To add to that, the 45mm B.2s use AK prisms instead of roof prisms which again add 3-5% more light to your eye.
6. Quality- I fully believe that Vanguard offers some of the best binoculars for the money, but the Maven is going to be a step up. Made in Japan.

The one thing about the B.2 Maven is it's going to be a larger/heavier binocular. It looks as if it's going to be about 0.8 longer and 0.68 inches wider. Also about 6 ounces heavier from what I can tell.

I used the B.2 9X45 I had for quite a while. I really liked it and I even have a little sellers remorse. The MAIN reason I ended up selling the B.2 9X45 is that I also have what I consider the best binocular in this mid-magnification range with more FOV, lighter in weight, AND smaller in stature and that's the SV 8.5X42. But it's also OVER twice the price.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_2808.JPG
Views:	52
Size:	68.3 KB
ID:	698402  Click image for larger version

Name:	DSC_0528.JPG
Views:	72
Size:	77.1 KB
ID:	698403  
__________________
Chuck

Last edited by chill6x6 : Monday 24th June 2019 at 12:23. Reason: fixed dimensions
chill6x6 is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2017 2018 2019 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Monday 24th June 2019, 15:08   #8
[email protected]
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Colorado
Posts: 1,915
Chuck's choice of the Maven B.2 9x45 is a good one. I had one too. I sold it for the same reason he did. I had the Swarovski 8.5x42 SV and I had the Swarovski 10x50 SV at the same time and IMO they were both a little better than the Maven optically and build quality wise. The Maven has much softer edges than the SV's. I paid $2200.00 for the SV 8.5 x42 and $1000.00 for the Maven 9x45. If the Maven was as good optically as the SV I guarantee you I would have kept the Maven. The Maven is a good binocular for $1000.00 but it is heavy compared to the Nikon HG. The 10x50 SV is the same weight as the Maven and it is a 50mm so it has another advantage over the Maven but it is twice the price and so is the 8.5x42 SV and it is a smaller and lighter binocular. The Maven is a great binocular but as Chuck says it is a bigger and heavier binocular at 33 oz. especially for a 45mm so keep that in mind. If weight and size are not critical to you it would be a good choice but the Monarch HG at 24 oz. is way lighter and smaller and also has a bigger AFOV so it will have more wow factor and it has sharper edges with the field flattener. If you are hiking a lot for long distances 10 oz. is huge take my word for it! If you are using the Maven from a blind or overlook without a lot of walking it would also be a good choice. If you didn't wear glasses I would recommend the Habicht 10x42 W but it won't work for glasses because of insufficient eye relief. At 24oz. or 10oz. less than the Maven 9x45 it will give you a better view because of it's high transmission and stereoscopic effect of the porro-prism design.

Last edited by [email protected] : Tuesday 25th June 2019 at 14:43.
denco@comcast.n is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 24th June 2019, 19:14   #9
zzzzzz
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Aurora
Posts: 242
Dennis how does the Canon 10x42 L compare optically with the B2.

Quote:
Originally Posted by [email protected] View Post
Chuck's choice of the Maven B.2 9x45 is a good one. I had one too. I sold it for the same reason he did. I have the Swarovski 8.5x42 SV and I had the Swarovski 10x50 SV at the same time and IMO they were both a little better than the Maven. The 10x50 SV is the same weight as the Maven and it is a 50mm so it has another advantage over the Maven but it is twice the price and so is the 8.5x42 SV and it is a smaller and lighter binocular. The Maven is a great binocular but as Chuck says it is a bigger and heavier binocular at 33 oz. especially for a 45mm so keep that in mind. If weight and size are not critical to you it would be a good choice but the Monarch HG at 24 oz. is way lighter and smaller and also has a bigger AFOV so it will have more wow factor. If you are hiking a lot for long distances 10 oz. is huge take my word for it! If you are using the Maven from a blind or overlook without a lot of walking it would also be a good choice. If you didn't wear glasses I would recommend the Habicht 10x42 W but it won't work for glasses because of insufficient eye relief. At 24oz. or 10oz. less than the Maven 9x45 it will give you a better view because of it's high transmission and stereoscopic effect of the porro-prism design.
zzzzzz is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 24th June 2019, 20:37   #10
[email protected]
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Colorado
Posts: 1,915
"Dennis how does the Canon 10x42 L compare optically with the B2"

I had the B2(9x45), Canon 10x42 L and the SV 10x50 all at about the same time. Optically, I would rank them SV(1st), Canon(2nd) and B2(3rd). The SV and the Canon have sharper edges and a flatter field than the B2 so they give you a little more wow factor because the whole FOV is sharp right to the edge.The Maven has softer edges compared to the other two. All three of them have a big AFOV so they are all impressive. The Canon is probably the best with glare. The Canon and the SV are actually very close optically and there really isn't a lot of difference. In fact I sold my SV 10x50 because the Canon 10x42 IS-L is really very close optically and the SV was twice the price. i have since moved to lighter binoculars because I grew tired of carrying anything much over 24 oz mostly 8x32's, 10x32's and 8x30's. I have an SV 8.5x42 but I wouldn't buy another 42mm unless it is a Habicht Porro 42mm because they are less than 23 oz. (I have the 10x42, 7x42, and 8x30 Habicht). The 42mm SV is my heaviest binocular. A Habicht Porro is like an Nikon HG. You get the performance of a 42mm with the weight of a 32mm with 96% transmission. A porro doesn't need all that heavy glass in them. The 7x42 Habicht is even lighter than the 10x42 with a simpler, lighter Kellner eyepiece. Of the Maven's I tried the 9x45 B2 was the best but too heavy and big for me anymore.

Last edited by [email protected] : Tuesday 25th June 2019 at 14:44.
denco@comcast.n is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 24th June 2019, 20:44   #11
zzzzzz
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Aurora
Posts: 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by [email protected] View Post
"Dennis how does the Canon 10x42 L compare optically with the B2"

I had the B2(9x45), Canon 10x42 L and the SV 10x50 all at about the same time. Optically, I would rank them SV(1st), Canon(2nd) and B2(3rd). The SV and the Canon have sharper edges and a flatter field than the B2 so they give you a little more wow factor because the whole FOV is sharp right to the edge. All three of them have a big AFOV so they are all impressive. The Canon is probably the best with glare. The Canon and the SV are actually very close optically and there really isn't a lot of difference. In fact I sold my SV 10x50 because the Canon 10x42 IS-L is really very close optically and the SV was twice the price. i have since moved to lighter binoculars because I grew tired of carrying anything much over 24 oz mostly 8x32's, 10x32's and 8x30's. I have an SV 8.5x42 but I wouldn't buy another 42mm unless it is a Habicht Porro 42mm because they are less than 23 oz. (I have the 10x42, 7x42, and 8x30 Habicht). The 42mm SV is my heaviest binocular. A Habicht Porro is like an Nikon HG. You get the performance of a 42mm with the weight of a 32mm with 96% transmission. A porro doesn't need all that heavy glass in them. The 7x42 Habicht is even lighter than the 10x42 with a simpler, lighter Kellner eyepiece. Of the Maven's I tried the 9x45 B2 was the best but too heavy and big for me anymore.
Thanks
zzzzzz is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 25th June 2019, 04:15   #12
Steve C
Registered User
 
Steve C's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Klamath Falls, Oregon
Posts: 3,568
Chuck got it right on the button with the Maven B2. There is not a better binocular in the $1,000 class. There may be smaller, but not better, unless that is critical, but you seem to be OK there. The 9x45 B2 lists a measly 367' fov, but I have measured several specimens, and they all check in at 404'. That is an AFOV of nearly 70*, which is nearly class leading. I also owned several Swarovskis at the time I had the Maven. They were the 10x42 SLC, the SV EL's in 8.5, and 10 x in the 42 mm size, and the Swarovski SV in 10x50. You will not see any difference in the B2 and any Swarovski, unless you are side by side on a tripod and are seriously trying to ferret out differences. I won't say the Swarovskis are not better binoculars, but the rate of selection of the Swarovski over the Maven is by no means a slam dunk deal.

The Swarovskis went down the road and I still have the Mavens several years later and I am pretty well done looking for personal use binoculars.
__________________
Steve

"Do what you can, with what you have, where you are". Teddy Roosevelt.

Last edited by Steve C : Tuesday 25th June 2019 at 04:21.
Steve C is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2009 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Tuesday 25th June 2019, 18:23   #13
[email protected]
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Colorado
Posts: 1,915
"You will not see any difference in the B2 and any Swarovski, unless you are side by side on a tripod and are seriously trying to ferret out differences."

Steve. When I had my Maven B2 9x45 and Swarovski 8.5x42 SV I had no trouble at all seeing the differences in the optics and I didn't need a tripod. I especially noticed the softer edges of the Maven while the Swarovski's are tack sharp. I would expect it though when you are comparing a $1000.00 binocular to a $2500.00 binocular. Just goes to show you are eyes are all different and our perceptions are different. The better optics IMO, the bigger FOV and especially the lighter weight and smaller size made me decide to sell the Maven's and keep the Swarovski's which parallel the reasons Chuck kept his SV 8.5x42 and sold his Maven's. The Maven B2 9x45 is a good choice at the $1000.00 price point if you are not too concerned about sharper edges, weight and size. I feel for about the same money the Nikon HG 10x42 will give you similar performance, sharper edges and most importantly it is 10 oz. lighter and much smaller.

Last edited by [email protected] : Tuesday 25th June 2019 at 18:25.
denco@comcast.n is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 25th June 2019, 19:21   #14
marcsantacurz
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Posts: 663
I have used the Vanguard Endeavor ED II 8x32, Conquest HD 8x32, and Kowa Genesis 8x33. So, you'd need to extrapolate to x42, but I'm assuming within these lines the differences will scale. Maybe that's not true, so take this with how ever much salt you want. I do a lot of my obsering towards sunset near the Pacific ocean to the west, so for me flare and ghosting are important issues.

I found the Vanguard was not so great with flare. I liked the view through it. It was light and compact and handled well. The diopter adjustment on it is also really easy to adjust and lock. But I had some blackout issues (my eyes are hard to fit, it's not something specific with this model).

I found both the Conquest and Genesis did much better in terms of flare when pointed a bit off the setting sun. And I thought the Genesis was better controlled than the Conquest. I found the Genesis fit my eyes out of the box. For the Conquest, I had to get the long ER eye cups, which made the Conquest on par with the Genesis as far as fit and lack of blackouts. I do not like to hover binoculars, so long ER when extended is important to me. The Conquest have a precise German feel to them that I like. The Genesis have a different feel, but still good in the hands. They both have 3.3'/1m close focus, though the Conquest requires fewer turns of the focuser.

In x42, the Conquest HD is only 2m (6.5') close focus. The genesis (8.5x44) is 1.7m/5.6'. Personally, that's too long for me, I like 1m. The 8.5x42 EL FPro and Victory SF come in at 1.5m/4.9'. I don't know of a more economic model with 1.5 or closer focus in an x42, but I've not looked exhaustively.

In terms of sharpness, I think the Conquest might be a tad sharper than the Genesis. I did some tests trying to read car plates at a long distance handheld and was able to resolve a small bit more with the Conquest than Genesis. In day-to-day use, I don't notice any sharpness difference. My 8.5x42 Swaro FPs blew both of them away in this respect, but that's going x32 to x42.

Personally, I'd just order a few from an on-line retailer and try and return. Ergonomics will be as important as optics/technical, so you'll only really know by holding them and putting them through their paces. Or go to a store if you have one. Try the Vanguard ED IV 8x42, they have a 1.8m close focus and 7.2* actual FOV and phase corrected prism. Also order the Conquest or Genesis and see what works best for you. That would be about $500 - $800 - $1300 price range. I've not tried the Nikon HG, but maybe add them to the mix instead of the Genesis? Try ordering from B&H (who will pay state sales tax if that's an issue in Nebraska), or Optics Planet, or similar. Those both have great returns.

Marc
__________________
https://tear.com
marcsantacurz is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 26th June 2019, 01:51   #15
Steve C
Registered User
 
Steve C's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Klamath Falls, Oregon
Posts: 3,568
Quote:
Originally Posted by [email protected] View Post
Steve. When I had my Maven B2 9x45 and Swarovski 8.5x42 SV I had no trouble at all seeing the differences in the optics and I didn't need a tripod. I especially noticed the softer edges of the Maven while the Swarovski's are tack sharp. I would expect it though when you are comparing a $1000.00 binocular to a $2500.00 binocular. Just goes to show you are eyes are all different and our perceptions are different. The better optics IMO, the bigger FOV and especially the lighter weight and smaller size made me decide to sell the Maven's and keep the Swarovski's which parallel the reasons Chuck kept his SV 8.5x42 and sold his Maven's. The Maven B2 9x45 is a good choice at the $1000.00 price point if you are not too concerned about sharper edges, weight and size. I feel for about the same money the Nikon HG 10x42 will give you similar performance, sharper edges and most importantly it is 10 oz. lighter and much smaller.
I don't know quite how to approach this. However Dennis, you have held every possible opinion from love to hate and back again on every binocular you have ever had. Seems to me that awhile back there was a fellow who had a Maven B2 and a Tract Toric. He liked them so much he started a thread he called "Death of the Alpha". I believe Dennis, you were that fellow. Amazing you couldn't tell the difference then, but you claim you can now. I have a hard time with your fov position as well. I had and measured the fov of the SV EL 8.5x as well as the Maven 9x. The Swarovski was right on spec at 390', while the Maven is larger than listed coming in at a shade over 400'.

The OP was not about spending a lot of money, he wanted to stop at $1,000. It is my opinion that the Maven B2 will not be bested by another binocular at that price range. As I said there are smaller ones to be had. Also there are other brands available that may sit better with peoples brand perceptions. But the OP was upgrading from the Endeavor 8.5x45, which is not exactly a small binocular.

The edges of the Maven are not flat field sharp, but they are a lot sharper than you are seeming to insinuate. My opinion is that if a $2,500 SV EL can't TKO a $1,000 glass in nothing flat, then I'm saving my $1,500.

In short the OP will easily find a good $1K glass, all I have seen are excellent.
__________________
Steve

"Do what you can, with what you have, where you are". Teddy Roosevelt.

Last edited by Steve C : Wednesday 26th June 2019 at 01:58.
Steve C is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2009 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Wednesday 26th June 2019, 02:43   #16
[email protected]
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Colorado
Posts: 1,915
The Nikon HG 10x42 is almost 10 oz. lighter, more compact and has sharper edges than the Maven B2 9x45. The optics and AFOV are probably about equal and both are made in Japan and are supported by good companies with good warranties. What advantages would the Maven have over the Nikon? My point is if the Nikon will do everything the Maven will why carry the extra weight to exercise your arms?

Last edited by [email protected] : Wednesday 26th June 2019 at 13:53.
denco@comcast.n is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 26th June 2019, 04:44   #17
dries1
Registered User
BF Supporter 2019
 
dries1's Avatar

 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Delaware
Posts: 1,576
If you are OK with the size/girth try the Maven, you could always send them back. Try the Nikon HG 10X42 also, and even look at the new Meopta Meostar 10X42 coming soon, what is it the B1.1?, whatever.....it is your $1,000 that you are going to spend, try before you buy, see how your eyes like the view. At this price point, much like the premium glass costing double, ergonomics will play a major role.

Andy W.
dries1 is online now  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2018 2019 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Wednesday 26th June 2019, 18:17   #18
ailevin
Registered User

 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Southern California
Posts: 304
pavan_n:

Reviews can be useful, particularly if you have some sense that the reviewer's personal preferences might be similar to yours. The better reviewers (several have responded here) articulate both the characteristics of an instrument, and the relative importance of those characteristics to them.

At the price point you've chosen (and above) the choice is more subjective and personal than you might expect. There are measurable differences and some of those differences are reflected in manufacturer's specifications or test results. Yet your experience using the binocular may be difficult to predict from those objective measures, particularly since excellent performance is available at your price point. In fact, you may or may not be able to see or feel some of these objective differences. That is why it is so important to try before you buy or to buy from someone who has a liberal return policy. If you are visiting shops, be sure to bring your current binoculars with you for comparison.

My son has the Endeavor ED 8x42, I have the Maven B2 9x45. I much prefer the Maven optically, mechanically, and ergonomically though the Endeavor performs pretty well and my son is happy with it. The wider field of the Maven is quite noticeable, but the wow factor of this binocular is that it puts me in the scene rather than looking at the scene. I don't know just what it is, but I experience it as greater transparency, more color dynamic range, and more sense of 3D. Is it prism type, magnification, aperture, coatings? I have no idea. It is larger and heavier than my other regular birding binoculars, but I use a harness for all my observing and I do not notice the weight in the field. I actually notice the weight and bulk more when I am not using them, that is when they are packed. If I am hiking a distance and not primarily birding, I take something smaller.

I also have a Zeiss 8x42 SF that I prefer to the Maven B2, but that is a very close call which I found shocking given the more than 2x price difference. For the record, while the Maven does have more field curvature than the SF, I don't find it objectionable nor do I consider the flatter field of the SF to be a major discriminator. But that's just me. And I prefer the SF to the Swarovski 8.5x42 simply because the Swaro didn't feel quite right in my hands compared to the SF. I didn't like the placement of the thumb dents or the way my fingers wrapped the barrels at my IPD. I'm sure I would have adjusted and would likely be loving the Swaro had I purchased it.

Alan
ailevin is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 27th June 2019, 15:51   #19
pavan_n
Registered User

 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Nebraska
Posts: 28
Thanks everyone for the input so far. I am coming back with some updates - while I was thinking about what to upgrade to, I came across a 10x42 Vanguard ED II for a great price. I ordered it thinking it would be at least as good as my current v1 vanguard. However, the instrument had a lot of play/slack in the focus wheel (it would turn through a few mm before actually moving focus - my v1 does not have this issue). It was sent it back within a couple of hours of arrival. I thought I had kicked the 'upgrade' can down the road, but it wasn't to be. It wasn't half bad optically and I would have kept it if it was mechanically sound.

Chuck - the Maven B.2 looks really good. The size/weight gives me pause. I should get a demo soon to check it out for myself.
Dennis - the Monarch HG looks pretty good on paper, but I will check it out at a local store today and see if I take to it. I will also look at a Monarch 7, and if that works for me, I may just stop there.
Marc - the Genesis 10x44 doesn't extrapolate from the 33 quite so well the weight for one is significantly more. The x33 though is a good optic from what I've read about it. I will try in person like you suggest. Its the only way to be sure.
Alan - I've not really chosen that price point, its just the max I can go to at this time. If I find something cheaper that works for me, I'd likely just buy it and not look back. Since I can't get a top-of-the-line model, I will always know that there are better optics out there, but if I find something that works, I'll have to buy it quickly and stop looking

After many years of moving through many different camera systems, I've finally landed on a compromise solution that works well for me. I'd hate to go through that process again with binoculars. Part of that camera exploration took me though a digiscoping phase and I have a Kowa 883 setup which i really like. So, I have a good idea what the view through a top optic looks like. Maybe I should get something good enough for now and save up and wait for sales on the top shelf stuff. I'll report back with what I end up with.

Pavan
pavan_n is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 27th June 2019, 21:30   #20
marcsantacurz
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Posts: 663
Quote:
Originally Posted by pavan_n View Post
After many years of moving through many different camera systems, I've finally landed on a compromise solution that works well for me. I'd hate to go through that process again with binoculars. Part of that camera exploration took me though a digiscoping phase and I have a Kowa 883 setup which i really like. So, I have a good idea what the view through a top optic looks like. Maybe I should get something good enough for now and save up and wait for sales on the top shelf stuff. I'll report back with what I end up with.

Pavan
When I was looking for an 8x32, I started out ordering about 6 different models under $400, kept the best, returned the others, then tried the $800 - $1000 models (trinovid, conquest, genesis) and ended up sticking with the Genesis and returned the others. In the x32 size, I wasn't willing to go above that price point. I used a few different on-line retailers and never had a problem with returns (I was also very careful to keep all the parts sorted properly and took care of the products). I ended up trying maybe 10 different models. Ergonomics vary widely and were one of the most important factors for me.
__________________
https://tear.com
marcsantacurz is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 27th June 2019, 22:26   #21
pavan_n
Registered User

 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Nebraska
Posts: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by marcsantacurz View Post
When I was looking for an 8x32, I started out ordering about 6 different models under $400, kept the best, returned the others, then tried the $800 - $1000 models (trinovid, conquest, genesis) and ended up sticking with the Genesis and returned the others. In the x32 size, I wasn't willing to go above that price point. I used a few different on-line retailers and never had a problem with returns (I was also very careful to keep all the parts sorted properly and took care of the products). I ended up trying maybe 10 different models. Ergonomics vary widely and were one of the most important factors for me.
Totally agree on the importance of ergonomics. I went into the local Cabelas today and tried out the following (all in 10x42) - Vortex Viper HD, Vortex Razor HD, Nikon Monarch 7, Zeiss Conquest. They did not have the Nikon HG in the display case.
The first thing I realized is that I noticed a significant amount of shake when trying to read the names of the fish mounted on the far walls. The lighter ones actually were harder to hold steady (not sure if it was the espresso I had an hour before I went into Cabelas or the magnification alone, probably a combo). I had to consciously brace myself for a steady view.
I liked the Conquest and the Viper but did not like the Monarch 7 or the Vortex Razor much. It was a combination of ER, grip position, diopter adjustments, eye cups, weight etc. To my eyes, the Viper appeared to have the widest field of view. It also looked brighter than the M7 and the Razor (which surprised me). The Razor and the conquest appeared to show more detail. I wasn't very fond of the rubber coating on the conquests however.
I'll be placing an order for a Demo Maven 9x45, I don't think the extra few ounces will be too much of an issue. The brightness, the compromise magnification and the build look to be a good middle ground on paper at least.
In the meanwhile, I took a short stroll birding after I left Cabelas and I am noticing things with my trusty Vanguard, that I'd not have noticed before... probably because I'd be so intent on seeing the bird. I will be ordering a Bino bandit to avoid external glare. Hope they work with my glasses. Hope I haven't opened Pandora's box . The search goes on.
pavan_n is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 27th June 2019, 22:36   #22
chill6x6
Registered User
BF Supporter 2019
 
chill6x6's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Alabama
Posts: 1,432
The search IS part of the fun!

I don't know of TOO many that bought/tried the Maven and didn't like it.

You might want to invest in a Rick Young Ultralight Harness. It's works better than it looks! LOL! I attach mine to the binocular with zip-ties instead of the metal rings that are supplied.

https://rickyoungoutdoors.com/basic-...-bino-harness/
__________________
Chuck
chill6x6 is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2017 2018 2019 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Thursday 27th June 2019, 23:05   #23
pavan_n
Registered User

 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Nebraska
Posts: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by chill6x6 View Post
The search IS part of the fun!

I don't know of TOO many that bought/tried the Maven and didn't like it.

You might want to invest in a Rick Young Ultralight Harness. It's works better than it looks! LOL! I attach mine to the binocular with zip-ties instead of the metal rings that are supplied.

https://rickyoungoutdoors.com/basic-...-bino-harness/
D’OH!
I looked at both the Rick young and the regular harness today. Ended up getting the regular flat webbing harness. I just put it on the binocular. Will walk around with it tomorrow and see how it works. May end up getting the Rick young harness in the future if the one i just bought doesn’t work out.

Last edited by pavan_n : Friday 28th June 2019 at 03:15.
pavan_n is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 28th June 2019, 06:48   #24
marcsantacurz
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Posts: 663
Quote:
Originally Posted by pavan_n View Post
Totally agree on the importance of ergonomics. I went into the local Cabelas today and tried out the following (all in 10x42) - Vortex Viper HD, Vortex Razor HD, Nikon Monarch 7, Zeiss Conquest. They did not have the Nikon HG in the display case.
The first thing I realized is that I noticed a significant amount of shake when trying to read the names of the fish mounted on the far walls. The lighter ones actually were harder to hold steady (not sure if it was the espresso I had an hour before I went into Cabelas or the magnification alone, probably a combo). I had to consciously brace myself for a steady view.
I liked the Conquest and the Viper but did not like the Monarch 7 or the Vortex Razor much. It was a combination of ER, grip position, diopter adjustments, eye cups, weight etc. To my eyes, the Viper appeared to have the widest field of view. It also looked brighter than the M7 and the Razor (which surprised me). The Razor and the conquest appeared to show more detail. I wasn't very fond of the rubber coating on the conquests however.
I'll be placing an order for a Demo Maven 9x45, I don't think the extra few ounces will be too much of an issue. The brightness, the compromise magnification and the build look to be a good middle ground on paper at least.
In the meanwhile, I took a short stroll birding after I left Cabelas and I am noticing things with my trusty Vanguard, that I'd not have noticed before... probably because I'd be so intent on seeing the bird. I will be ordering a Bino bandit to avoid external glare. Hope they work with my glasses. Hope I haven't opened Pandora's box . The search goes on.
My girlfriend has hand shakes. She prefers either a slightly heavier binocular (which dampens it, I guess. though too heavy is bad too) or a 7x. She ended up with an Opticron Discovery 7x42 (US$250). She can see more with it than some 8x and definitely 10x because it doesn't react as strongly to shakes. It is also a lot easier for her to find stuff. I, personally, am not a fan of the Discovery, but it is only $250. I found a good deal on the older Zeiss BGAT 7x42, though I'd be tempted for the Leica Ultravid HD 7x42, which can be had for about $1000 - $1100. I saw a Ultravid HD+ go for only $1164 on auction the other day, sorry I missed it (the + model is slightly better, but I understand not significantly better). There are not too many 7x models any more.

Marc
__________________
https://tear.com
marcsantacurz is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 29th June 2019, 00:16   #25
[email protected]
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Colorado
Posts: 1,915
One often overlooked 7x42 is the Swarovski Habicht Porro 7x42. The FOV for a 7x is a little below average @ 342 feet but other than that it is great binocular being very bright with 96% transmission and weighing less than 23 oz. Watch the eye relief if she wears glasse's. You can get them on Ebay new from the UK for about $700.00. This is the seller I got mine from.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Swarovski-T...8AAOSwmohc6xel

Last edited by [email protected] : Saturday 29th June 2019 at 01:00.
denco@comcast.n is offline  
Reply With Quote
Advertisement
Reply


Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Compact Binocular Upgrade Options scillyfive Binoculars 25 Sunday 28th June 2015 16:48
Vanguard Endeavor 8.5X45 Question Zamdrang Binoculars 21 Sunday 24th May 2015 03:45
Vanguard Endeavor ED 8.5x45 CarlTN Others 7 Friday 7th March 2014 14:26
Upgrade options: 50D vs 5DMk2 vs 500mm dwd Canon 37 Saturday 4th October 2008 12:09
Bushnell 8.5x45 Otto McDiesel Bushnell - Bausch & Lomb 2 Thursday 15th February 2007 00:26

{googleads}

Fatbirder's Top 1000 Birding Websites

Help support BirdForum

Page generated in 0.37219000 seconds with 38 queries
All times are GMT. The time now is 03:08.