• 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.

Vortex Viper UHD beats Zeiss SF and Leica Noctivid! (1 Viewer)

It's a good service your doing Dennis, providing first hand experience of these new bins - much appreciated!

I use a 15x56 as a spotter and it works great. I imagine the Razor UHD 18x56 will also do a fine job. Looking forward to your review.
I also too agree on everything.

While I disagree on this:
The vast majority of hunters won't accept a $1500 Vortex either.
By attending hunters' forums, anyone would notice that in the USA Vortex binoculars are highly appreciated and that many hunters use various models, both bright and spotter (like 18x56).
 
Even if three different reviews say the Razor UHD is as good or better than the EL, SF and Noctivid which are 2x the price. You don't think some people would give them a try?

https://redirect.viglink.com/?forma...ttps://www.audubon.org/news/category-top-line
https://redirect.viglink.com/?forma...www.bestbinocularsreviews.co...Review-255.htm
https://redirect.viglink.com/?forma...tps://www.binomania.it/vortex-razor-uhd-8x42/

9 out of 10 will not, and most hunters have never heard of those websites. What they do know is that it's a good thing Vortex has such a great warranty and customer service because you'll most likely need it.
 
I know Vortex gets a thrashing here and there. I think they are making some good optics, Razor UHD in particular. However there is a point about what J Raider is saying. I have spoken to many local guys here and in Wisconsin and Michigan, and many will say I only have 900 to spend on a new glass, I cannot afford a SLC unless I can get one used.
They will go with Vortex because of the affordable cost and that Warranty, so at a decent price one can afford a good glass and the Warranty which is very generous. Now the reason I do not have Vortex glass is that in my experience, different things started to go (after 3-4 months) eye cups did not perform like when they were new, focus started to get free play/slag. I said to my self my older Nikons, Leicas, Zeiss did not have these problems so I decided for myself that I would pay more for a glass whose Eye cups perform the same a year later, that the focus performance was also the same, no need for more frequent service.
I also wonder how long can they afford to keep the existing Warranty here in the USA from a financial perspective, I have no idea what it is overseas, likely much more limited.

I wish them luck, the UHD is in another price bracket now, time will tell how they sell. I also wonder how the other companies like tract and Maven are really doing financially.

Andy W.
 
The ones currently available in the UK have a price of $1830, so they are certainly not the bargain on this side of the Atlantic.
 
Rico70;395 Vortex binoculars are highly appreciated and that many hunters use various models said:
As this specification is deemed to be ideal for astronomy and hunting / spotter use I am perplexed as to why this model needs a close focus of 3 metres. Any ideas? I would have thought with this magnification the focusing range would start from about 5 metres if not more. The "useless" specification of 8 x 42 focuses down to 1.3 metres, perhaps for birders and insect enthusiasts.

£1550 from an "outdoor" specialist including a free trail camera etc.

P
 
Last edited:
I know Vortex gets a thrashing here and there. I think they are making some good optics, Razor UHD in particular. However there is a point about what J Raider is saying. I have spoken to many local guys here and in Wisconsin and Michigan, and many will say I only have 900 to spend on a new glass, I cannot afford a SLC unless I can get one used.
They will go with Vortex because of the affordable cost and that Warranty, so at a decent price one can afford a good glass and the Warranty which is very generous. Now the reason I do not have Vortex glass is that in my experience, different things started to go (after 3-4 months) eye cups did not perform like when they were new, focus started to get free play/slag. I said to my self my older Nikons, Leicas, Zeiss did not have these problems so I decided for myself that I would pay more for a glass whose Eye cups perform the same a year later, that the focus performance was also the same, no need for more frequent service.
I also wonder how long can they afford to keep the existing Warranty here in the USA from a financial perspective, I have no idea what it is overseas, likely much more limited.

I wish them luck, the UHD is in another price bracket now, time will tell how they sell. I also wonder how the other companies like tract and Maven are really doing financially.

Andy W.


Good points Andy. My only rebuttal when I hear this "argument" regarding the Razor HD"s, is that there is a bino that is slightly better IMO/IME, with an exceptionally better build quality for the same or less money, that being the Meopta Meostar HD. The Nikon HG is better optically as well for the same money, with just as good of a build quality, and once again IMO, better. The only saving grace with a Vortex product is, once again, the bulletproof warranty which one will likely need at some point.
 
I know you take some stick on here now and again for no good reason that I can see, but I also enjoy reading your posts.
Thanks, I appreciate it. This kind of thread is right in my wheel house. I like trying new binoculars on the market and comparing them to what I have or had. And I have had a LOT of different binoculars so most of the time I am speaking from experience.
 
I know Vortex gets a thrashing here and there. I think they are making some good optics, Razor UHD in particular. However there is a point about what J Raider is saying. I have spoken to many local guys here and in Wisconsin and Michigan, and many will say I only have 900 to spend on a new glass, I cannot afford a SLC unless I can get one used.
They will go with Vortex because of the affordable cost and that Warranty, so at a decent price one can afford a good glass and the Warranty which is very generous. Now the reason I do not have Vortex glass is that in my experience, different things started to go (after 3-4 months) eye cups did not perform like when they were new, focus started to get free play/slag. I said to my self my older Nikons, Leicas, Zeiss did not have these problems so I decided for myself that I would pay more for a glass whose Eye cups perform the same a year later, that the focus performance was also the same, no need for more frequent service.
I also wonder how long can they afford to keep the existing Warranty here in the USA from a financial perspective, I have no idea what it is overseas, likely much more limited.

I wish them luck, the UHD is in another price bracket now, time will tell how they sell. I also wonder how the other companies like tract and Maven are really doing financially.

Andy W.
Interesting about the long term quality problems with the Vortex's. I have had a couple pair for quite awhile and never experienced problems like that especially after only 3 months. Was that with the MIJ models or the MIC ones? The new UHD's seem as high in quality as any alpha level binocular I have ever owned and even higher than some. They have better eye cups than a Zeiss SF. They are flawless just like a Swarovski. Vortex seems to do well with their Unconditional Warranty and it helps them keep customers loyal once they have experienced it and loyal customers will continue to buy Vortex's.
 
Last edited:
As this specification is deemed to be ideal for astronomy and hunting / spotter use I am perplexed as to why this model needs a close focus of 3 metres. Any ideas? I would have thought with this magnification the focusing range would start from about 5 metres if not more. The "useless" specification of 8 x 42 focuses down to 1.3 metres, perhaps for birders and insect enthusiasts.

£1550 from an "outdoor" specialist including a free trail camera etc.

P
Close focusing is usually a specification people look at when buying binoculars and usually the closer the better. Many people use 8x42's for insects like butterflies so a close focus is beneficial. You would be surprised how many people use an 18x56 for close observation too see detail also so a 3 meter close focus can be helpful even with that high of a magnification. Entomologist use high magnification binoculars like 18x to 20x to observe bird predation of insects because they can see more detail and they need a close focus.
 
Last edited:
Good points Andy. My only rebuttal when I hear this "argument" regarding the Razor HD"s, is that there is a bino that is slightly better IMO/IME, with an exceptionally better build quality for the same or less money, that being the Meopta Meostar HD. The Nikon HG is better optically as well for the same money, with just as good of a build quality, and once again IMO, better. The only saving grace with a Vortex product is, once again, the bulletproof warranty which one will likely need at some point.
I have had a Meopta Meostar HD 8x32 and several Nikon HG's in 8x42 and 10x42 and I always felt they were one notch down from the alpha's I had at the time. I don't feel that way about the Vortex Razor UHD 8x42. It is the equal of any alpha I have and that includes the Nikon EDG and Zeiss FL. Obviously Audubon feels the same way ranking it right with the Swarovski EL and above the Zeiss SF and Noctivid. Best Binocular Reviews scored it 92% or the Very Best 1% below the Swarovki EL which scored 93% so obviously they think it is pretty good also.
 
Last edited:
I have had a Meopta Meostar HD 8x32 and several Nikon HG's in 8x42 and 10x42 and I always felt they were one notch down from the alpha's I had at the time. I don't feel that way about the Vortex Razor UHD 8x42. It is the equal of any alpha I have and that includes the Nikon EDG and Zeiss FL. Obviously Audubon feels the same way ranking it right with the Swarovski EL and above the Zeiss SF and Noctivid. Best Binocular Reviews scored it 92% or the Very Best 1% below the Swarovki EL which scored 93% so obviously they think it is pretty good also.


That's great denco, but that's not what I said. Andy specifically mentioned the Razor HD, and that's what the Meostar HD and Nikon HG was referenced towards, not the so called "alpha's". Don't put words in my mouth. Since you've owned at least 100 binos over the years, you of all people should know that any optical "review" should be considered subjective.
 
That's great denco, but that's not what I said. Andy specifically mentioned the Razor HD, and that's what the Meostar HD and Nikon HG was referenced towards, not the so called "alpha's". Don't put words in my mouth. Since you've owned at least 100 binos over the years, you of all people should know that any optical "review" should be considered subjective.
I didn't notice that switch to the Razor HD since the thread was about the Razor UHD. I would have to disagree with Meopta Meostar HD 8x32 having substantially better build quality or better optical quality than the Razor HD. I didn't find that to be true. My Meopta Meostar HD 8x32 started oozing grease out of the IPD adjustment and then the IPD became so loose the barrels of the binocular just wouldn't stay apart. I didn't feel the optics were as good as the Razor HD either. Allbino's the only fairly objective review site agrees. The Nikon Monarch HG IMO is a little better overall than the Viper HD but then as you say reviews should be considered subjective. It depends on what things you want in the binocular. The Razor UHD IMO is a significant upgrade from the Razor HD especially with the AK prism and put's it in the alpha class with out a doubt. The bottom video is about the Razor UHD 18x56. I get that one tomorrow. Review to follow.

https://www.allbinos.com/allbinos_ranking-binoculars_ranking-10x42.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOQhHX3HCbs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJxwCas0Hvc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHScM2EcR0w
 
Last edited:
Many people use 8x42's for insects like butterflies so a close focus is beneficial.

Of course, I do as well but my ponder was why in such a high mag, when that would primarily be used for subjects a fair distance away.

Anyhow, it's been an absorbing thread and there may be a place for these binoculars amongst birdwatchers.
 
Of course, I do as well but my ponder was why in such a high mag, when that would primarily be used for subjects a fair distance away.

Anyhow, it's been an absorbing thread and there may be a place for these binoculars amongst birdwatchers.
From what I read it seems so. Also in my opinion it could be appreciated by birders and nature observers in general.
Keep in mind that 3m for an 18x means virtually bringing the user closer to 17cm from objects, such as 1.3m by 8x (but how many 8x focus at 1.3m?).
Any instrument that approaches virtually up to distances of less than 25cm can be considered "macro binoculars".
 
From what I read it seems so. Also in my opinion it could be appreciated by birders and nature observers in general.
Keep in mind that 3m for an 18x means virtually bringing the user closer to 17cm from objects, such as 1.3m by 8x (but how many 8x focus at 1.3m?).
Any instrument that approaches virtually up to distances of less than 25cm can be considered "macro binoculars".

That may be so, but at 8x the view is stable and with 18x it is NOT.

Jan
 
Of course, I do as well but my ponder was why in such a high mag, when that would primarily be used for subjects a fair distance away.

Anyhow, it's been an absorbing thread and there may be a place for these binoculars amongst birdwatchers.
The UHD 18x56's are for "Long Range" bug viewing. You could sneak up on a butterfly much easier from 18 feet away and still see him at a close focus of 1 foot.
 
The UHD 18x56's are for "Long Range" bug viewing. You could sneak up on a butterfly much easier from 18 feet away and still see him at a close focus of 1 foot.

No Dennis you couldn't do this. It is impossible.

Why?

Because there would be too much vegetation in the way to see the butterfly. This happens when you have a 100mm macro lens and you are photographing from only 1 foot (30cm) away so you have absolutely no chance of seeing the butterfly or dragonfly from 18 feet.

I am sure this has been proven by amazing and astounding research and published by the German professors back in the 1920s and a Birdforum member will begin quoting from it any minute now...

Seriously, you would have to be amazingly lucky that there wasn't leaves, twigs, stems, blossoms or fruits or nuts between you and an insect 18 feet away.

Lee
 
Warning! This thread is more than 3 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