-
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.
Is there a a little more bright, wider FoVd & neutral color Toric for <=$1000? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter mskb
- Start date
Steve C
Well-known member
I have a hunch Chuck maybe typed B2 when he meant B1. I think that either the B1 or the B2 is a somewhat better binocular than the Toric. The B2 is a slight bit better than the B1.
My two binocular combo of the B2 and B3 is now three years old, and I have pretty close to zero desire to try and look for something better. Well...look yes, but desire to buy is pretty well done in.
My two binocular combo of the B2 and B3 is now three years old, and I have pretty close to zero desire to try and look for something better. Well...look yes, but desire to buy is pretty well done in.
Exactly correct! B.1 8X42 OR a B.2 9X45. I agree 100% about the Maven vs. Toric. I've been there, done that. Better optics and better made. Cost more of course.
Attachments
Okay Steve & Chuck, first thing tomorrow, I will place a call for a Maven demo. I see that B1 and B2 have identical specs except that the latter boasts of an AK prism. I will demo the 9x B2 then.
If I end up choosing the B2, I am most likely going the used route for some cost savings for now (want to keep an eye out for the newer Genesis/Meostar until next year, if any!) - assuming that there is someone out there willing to sell.
If I end up choosing the B2, I am most likely going the used route for some cost savings for now (want to keep an eye out for the newer Genesis/Meostar until next year, if any!) - assuming that there is someone out there willing to sell.
Last edited:
Dear All,
I wanted to post an update.
The FL trip went well with both the Maven 9x45 B2 and the 8x42 MHG. The bins were each on a comfortable-but-definitely-overpriced-RY-harness. I was able to find a relatively better eye-placement with my MHG copy to minimize its top-left shadow problem (mentioned here: https://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=372918, thanks to Caesar’s post), but it is still present.
Our trip included the following areas, and species: {Orlando: Merritt, Viera // Tampa: Fort De Soto // Ft. Myers: Ding Darling, Corkscrew Swamps // Florida City: Everglades, Wakodahatchee, Greencay}. Being newbies, as first time lifers, we added {common, purple gallinules, gray headed swamphens}, {white Ibis, roseate spoonbills}, limpkins, {tricolored, little blue, green} herons, {wood storks, sandhill cranes}, least bitterns, { white-winged doves, white-crowned pigeons}, brown pelicans, anhingas,{blue winged teals, black bellied whistling, mottled, redhead} ducks, {willet, black bellied plover, killdeer, rudy turnstone, spotted sandpiper, royal tern, short billed dowitcher}, swallow tailed kite, loggerhead shrike, painted buntings, {black and white, yellow throated blue, palm} warblers, and {blue gray gnatcatcher, blue headed vireos}. Without binoculars, there was no way we could have differentiated the warblers, and identified the beautiful swallow tailed kite / white-crowned pigeons / willets. The willets were in a protected nesting area far away; the kites were only noticed with a random binocular scan of the skies from the parking lot of the Flamingo visitor center. The ancient looking Wood storks were my favorite. Gators, crocs, manatees, and anhingas were the primary attractions for most visitors it seemed like. Kayaking with the crocodiles a few feet away as the manatees glid below us, gators grabbing an almost-mature brown pelican/taking their time chewing a Burmese python from the tail end over a week, the conservation stories behind the Cypress swamps/Glades/Wood Storks were all great to do/see/know-about. A great experience that we were fortunate to have, indeed.
Relative to the MHG, B2 was verry snappy, sharrrper, had greater control of glare, ghosting, and heavy. I want to emphasize that I loved its quick focus in the warm FL weather. On a cold winter day in the North East however, its focus wheel became quite stiff to be of any comfortable use.
Relatively speaking, MHG was very light, wider FoVd, quite soft / un-sharp, very slow focus with at least a couple of back and forths especially when the light wasn’t bright. This last aspect of the MHG, I REALLY REALLY dislike. While the focus wheel tension stayed extremely comfortable in cold / hot days, the hinge tension did become less stiff in hot FL days. I preferred the relatively higher color contrast feeling of the MHG but this could be a side effect of poorer transmission of the MHG relative to the B2.
In both binocular models, I felt that CA-wise, up to proper eye placements, on-axis, there isn’t any fringing worth talking about. CA started at about 45-55% of the FoV from the center, progressively became more apparent in the edges. BUT, rather surprisingly to me, with consistent use in FL, I wasn’t bothered that much by off axis CA at all! I will check how these observations change on snowy, cloudy winter days up here in the North East. All that said, relatively speaking, with the MHG, I was able to consistently find better eye placements quickly and easily. I experienced more CA-free on-axis views; when present, it was easily repairable with repositioning. May be its the weight of the B2 that interfered here, and/or my past experience with the MHG, or something else.
Shakes wise, I felt that I sometimes got less-shaky views on the B2, sometimes with the MHG. I haven’t been able to conclude which one I prefer the most.
The heaviness of the B2, although dampened with a harness while carrying around, certainly limited extended hand-held viewing times. But if one only cares about IDing, and moving on to the next bird in the field, I am inclined to say he/she might not find its weight limiting.
I vastly preferred scanning the swampy Everglades, FL’s shores and the blue/cloudy skies with the MHG , as we were covering several miles walking. Its higher depth of field does interfere hugely when it comes to achieving the perfect focus, but it proved itself to be handy several times in the following way: we would be watching a sandhill crane far away, the wide FoV would catch a small very-fast moving flock flying rather close to us, we would have only turned the bins to follow the flock, wouldn’t have even touched the focus wheel yet, yet would have already got a very good sense of the flock’s identity. In a place like FL, this happened several times, and I was glad everytime I held the MHG. MHG is a great birding binocular in that it offers comfortable views in the woodlands and wide open shores, effectively following quickly moving subjects over near and far distances, retaining natural colors well, and I didn’t notice it lying around just like how a tool should be.
I finally realize why experienced birders like PBJosh/Chuck/David and others recommend the MHG as an 8x for the budget, even though it might also be the most disappointing in certain attributes, especially sharpness/resolution. By resolving the neck bands & eye color, the (9x) B2 was far more effective in telling us newbies that what we saw was a killdeer & not a semi-palmated plover. Getting closer to the bird, which might not be feasible all the time, MHG pointed us in the right direction. David/Steve/Chuck did offer the right advice for my original question: B2 is a significant step up. And finally, just like Andy predicted, I am not as worried as I was on losing that Toric anymore. I still would like one more go at it though.
In summary, this is what I am inclined to conclude based on my experience: B2 is a significantly better binocular. MHG is a better birding tool. There is no way, I would pay ~$1K for the MHG. $700-$750, gladly!
I will close here, and I will update the post if I am swayed by the future Genesis / Meostar at some point in the future.
For now, thank you everyone! :t:
I wanted to post an update.
The FL trip went well with both the Maven 9x45 B2 and the 8x42 MHG. The bins were each on a comfortable-but-definitely-overpriced-RY-harness. I was able to find a relatively better eye-placement with my MHG copy to minimize its top-left shadow problem (mentioned here: https://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=372918, thanks to Caesar’s post), but it is still present.
Our trip included the following areas, and species: {Orlando: Merritt, Viera // Tampa: Fort De Soto // Ft. Myers: Ding Darling, Corkscrew Swamps // Florida City: Everglades, Wakodahatchee, Greencay}. Being newbies, as first time lifers, we added {common, purple gallinules, gray headed swamphens}, {white Ibis, roseate spoonbills}, limpkins, {tricolored, little blue, green} herons, {wood storks, sandhill cranes}, least bitterns, { white-winged doves, white-crowned pigeons}, brown pelicans, anhingas,{blue winged teals, black bellied whistling, mottled, redhead} ducks, {willet, black bellied plover, killdeer, rudy turnstone, spotted sandpiper, royal tern, short billed dowitcher}, swallow tailed kite, loggerhead shrike, painted buntings, {black and white, yellow throated blue, palm} warblers, and {blue gray gnatcatcher, blue headed vireos}. Without binoculars, there was no way we could have differentiated the warblers, and identified the beautiful swallow tailed kite / white-crowned pigeons / willets. The willets were in a protected nesting area far away; the kites were only noticed with a random binocular scan of the skies from the parking lot of the Flamingo visitor center. The ancient looking Wood storks were my favorite. Gators, crocs, manatees, and anhingas were the primary attractions for most visitors it seemed like. Kayaking with the crocodiles a few feet away as the manatees glid below us, gators grabbing an almost-mature brown pelican/taking their time chewing a Burmese python from the tail end over a week, the conservation stories behind the Cypress swamps/Glades/Wood Storks were all great to do/see/know-about. A great experience that we were fortunate to have, indeed.
Relative to the MHG, B2 was verry snappy, sharrrper, had greater control of glare, ghosting, and heavy. I want to emphasize that I loved its quick focus in the warm FL weather. On a cold winter day in the North East however, its focus wheel became quite stiff to be of any comfortable use.
Relatively speaking, MHG was very light, wider FoVd, quite soft / un-sharp, very slow focus with at least a couple of back and forths especially when the light wasn’t bright. This last aspect of the MHG, I REALLY REALLY dislike. While the focus wheel tension stayed extremely comfortable in cold / hot days, the hinge tension did become less stiff in hot FL days. I preferred the relatively higher color contrast feeling of the MHG but this could be a side effect of poorer transmission of the MHG relative to the B2.
In both binocular models, I felt that CA-wise, up to proper eye placements, on-axis, there isn’t any fringing worth talking about. CA started at about 45-55% of the FoV from the center, progressively became more apparent in the edges. BUT, rather surprisingly to me, with consistent use in FL, I wasn’t bothered that much by off axis CA at all! I will check how these observations change on snowy, cloudy winter days up here in the North East. All that said, relatively speaking, with the MHG, I was able to consistently find better eye placements quickly and easily. I experienced more CA-free on-axis views; when present, it was easily repairable with repositioning. May be its the weight of the B2 that interfered here, and/or my past experience with the MHG, or something else.
Shakes wise, I felt that I sometimes got less-shaky views on the B2, sometimes with the MHG. I haven’t been able to conclude which one I prefer the most.
The heaviness of the B2, although dampened with a harness while carrying around, certainly limited extended hand-held viewing times. But if one only cares about IDing, and moving on to the next bird in the field, I am inclined to say he/she might not find its weight limiting.
I vastly preferred scanning the swampy Everglades, FL’s shores and the blue/cloudy skies with the MHG , as we were covering several miles walking. Its higher depth of field does interfere hugely when it comes to achieving the perfect focus, but it proved itself to be handy several times in the following way: we would be watching a sandhill crane far away, the wide FoV would catch a small very-fast moving flock flying rather close to us, we would have only turned the bins to follow the flock, wouldn’t have even touched the focus wheel yet, yet would have already got a very good sense of the flock’s identity. In a place like FL, this happened several times, and I was glad everytime I held the MHG. MHG is a great birding binocular in that it offers comfortable views in the woodlands and wide open shores, effectively following quickly moving subjects over near and far distances, retaining natural colors well, and I didn’t notice it lying around just like how a tool should be.
I finally realize why experienced birders like PBJosh/Chuck/David and others recommend the MHG as an 8x for the budget, even though it might also be the most disappointing in certain attributes, especially sharpness/resolution. By resolving the neck bands & eye color, the (9x) B2 was far more effective in telling us newbies that what we saw was a killdeer & not a semi-palmated plover. Getting closer to the bird, which might not be feasible all the time, MHG pointed us in the right direction. David/Steve/Chuck did offer the right advice for my original question: B2 is a significant step up. And finally, just like Andy predicted, I am not as worried as I was on losing that Toric anymore. I still would like one more go at it though.
In summary, this is what I am inclined to conclude based on my experience: B2 is a significantly better binocular. MHG is a better birding tool. There is no way, I would pay ~$1K for the MHG. $700-$750, gladly!
I will close here, and I will update the post if I am swayed by the future Genesis / Meostar at some point in the future.
For now, thank you everyone! :t:
Last edited:
dries1
Member
MKSB,
Thanks for your observations regarding both instruments. The MHG is one of those glass that some hate or love to use, I enjoy using them. The Mavens to me are another mid range glass trying to get into the frey. Do you think the Mavens are worth their price?, and of course the discussion of warranty will enter the conversation. If Vortex did not have their Warranty, I don't think they would have the sales they do, we will see how long that lasts.
I still think Zeiss, Leica and Nikon provide great mid range glass, for me build quality overtime has been proven by them, and I will continue to use them. I have no inclination to spend $$ on a Maven, they are nice to check out, but that is it.
I hope you will find what you are looking for.
Andy W.
Thanks for your observations regarding both instruments. The MHG is one of those glass that some hate or love to use, I enjoy using them. The Mavens to me are another mid range glass trying to get into the frey. Do you think the Mavens are worth their price?, and of course the discussion of warranty will enter the conversation. If Vortex did not have their Warranty, I don't think they would have the sales they do, we will see how long that lasts.
I still think Zeiss, Leica and Nikon provide great mid range glass, for me build quality overtime has been proven by them, and I will continue to use them. I have no inclination to spend $$ on a Maven, they are nice to check out, but that is it.
I hope you will find what you are looking for.
Andy W.
Hello Andy, Thanks for your comment. I am not qualified enough to comment about build quality / optical characteristics deeply, but subjectively speaking, based on the other models I have tried, I feel like I would have no problems in paying $100-$150 more for the AK B2s than the MHG. That puts the AK B2 somewhere in the $800-$900 range. Unlike the new Razor HDs, I did not feel the B2 was inferior in build quality.
Among the alphas, I have only held a Swaro EL SV 10x50 and a 12x50 for extended periods of times in NJ's Cape May birding festival. The B2 definitely did not feel quite as balanced. That said, if one is looking at a top quality alpha that costs twice as much with similar FoV etc., specs, I certainly think it would serve them well to take one hard look at the B2.
Thanks,
Kumar
Among the alphas, I have only held a Swaro EL SV 10x50 and a 12x50 for extended periods of times in NJ's Cape May birding festival. The B2 definitely did not feel quite as balanced. That said, if one is looking at a top quality alpha that costs twice as much with similar FoV etc., specs, I certainly think it would serve them well to take one hard look at the B2.
Thanks,
Kumar
Last edited:
Hey Kumar,
I enjoyed reading that! You went to some nice birding spots and saw some great birds. I'm more than a little jealous!
I agree the B.2 iS A NICE binocular. It has a very high quality feel to it. There aren't many(ANY?) AK prism binoculars that one can buy for $1000. I can see someone using a B.2 as their primary birding binocular but for me it's at the upper end where size/weight are concerned. BUT if it weren't the fact that I have a SV 8.5X42 I'd still have the B.2 9X45. I kept the B.1 8X42 since it is smaller, lighter, and lower magnification and I figured it would get more use. I CAN vision a nice two-binocular birding set-up featuring a nice 8X32 or 7X42 AND the B.2 9X45!
I really like that MHG. I'd have to say it's ONE of my main birding binoculars. I wouldn't mind if it was my only birding binocular. It's probably a mix of my preferred weight/size/focus adjustment/FOV/optic quality. It's nearly impossible to have it all but I have a few that are my preferred ratio of the above. The MHG is one of those.
On the RYUL harness. It's been MANY binoculars ago that I even took the supplied strap out of the packaging. It's just too easy to wrap it around the binocular and put the whole thing in the binocular case. I soften the price of the harness by buying two at the time! As time goes on your value of the RYUL harness will increase!
Take care..
I enjoyed reading that! You went to some nice birding spots and saw some great birds. I'm more than a little jealous!
I agree the B.2 iS A NICE binocular. It has a very high quality feel to it. There aren't many(ANY?) AK prism binoculars that one can buy for $1000. I can see someone using a B.2 as their primary birding binocular but for me it's at the upper end where size/weight are concerned. BUT if it weren't the fact that I have a SV 8.5X42 I'd still have the B.2 9X45. I kept the B.1 8X42 since it is smaller, lighter, and lower magnification and I figured it would get more use. I CAN vision a nice two-binocular birding set-up featuring a nice 8X32 or 7X42 AND the B.2 9X45!
I really like that MHG. I'd have to say it's ONE of my main birding binoculars. I wouldn't mind if it was my only birding binocular. It's probably a mix of my preferred weight/size/focus adjustment/FOV/optic quality. It's nearly impossible to have it all but I have a few that are my preferred ratio of the above. The MHG is one of those.
On the RYUL harness. It's been MANY binoculars ago that I even took the supplied strap out of the packaging. It's just too easy to wrap it around the binocular and put the whole thing in the binocular case. I soften the price of the harness by buying two at the time! As time goes on your value of the RYUL harness will increase!
Take care..
Thank you Chuck for your kind comments!
FL was quite nice. This was our first trip particularly for birding, and it did not disappoint.
I can see the {7x, 9x} combo working out as a combo as well. One just needs to make sure that the B2's weight doesn't interfere with their birding experience.
MHG is quite nice, indeed! It seems to me it is a good step above the M7 in glare control, sweet spot size with far less blurry %FoV area, and perhaps even the build quality. Center sharpness wise, likely worse but I could be wrong. Whether all those aspects are worth the cost from the M7, I think is a good question every potential buyer of the MHG must ask. I am still asking myself that question.
We have chosen to return the 10x MHG, and one of the 8x copies with focus play to the retailer. We are keeping the remaining two 8x MHG copies, but are sending them back to Nikon for servicing -- we just need to be sure of this top-left shadow problem we are experiencing. There are also some hot-spot issues we are seeing in those shadows areas. We are a 100% sure we will keep one of the 8x MHG copies for years to come, the other we might sell used depending on the future Genesis/Meostar offerings.
I must also mention that David (@typo) has been extremely helpful in this admittedly tiring process of repeatedly trying out different binoculars. So a big shout out to him for his help and support!
FL was quite nice. This was our first trip particularly for birding, and it did not disappoint.
I can see the {7x, 9x} combo working out as a combo as well. One just needs to make sure that the B2's weight doesn't interfere with their birding experience.
MHG is quite nice, indeed! It seems to me it is a good step above the M7 in glare control, sweet spot size with far less blurry %FoV area, and perhaps even the build quality. Center sharpness wise, likely worse but I could be wrong. Whether all those aspects are worth the cost from the M7, I think is a good question every potential buyer of the MHG must ask. I am still asking myself that question.
We have chosen to return the 10x MHG, and one of the 8x copies with focus play to the retailer. We are keeping the remaining two 8x MHG copies, but are sending them back to Nikon for servicing -- we just need to be sure of this top-left shadow problem we are experiencing. There are also some hot-spot issues we are seeing in those shadows areas. We are a 100% sure we will keep one of the 8x MHG copies for years to come, the other we might sell used depending on the future Genesis/Meostar offerings.
I must also mention that David (@typo) has been extremely helpful in this admittedly tiring process of repeatedly trying out different binoculars. So a big shout out to him for his help and support!
Last edited:
dries1
Member
mksb,
The MHGs you will send back to Nikon will be replaced with another different serial No. They do not service the MHG like they used to with their Premium glass of the past.
With respect to the MHG, the top left shadow problem could be that the eye-cups do not fit your facial features, similar to some glass from Meopta, Zeiss, Leitz that do not agree with my eye socket shape.
Andy W.
The MHGs you will send back to Nikon will be replaced with another different serial No. They do not service the MHG like they used to with their Premium glass of the past.
With respect to the MHG, the top left shadow problem could be that the eye-cups do not fit your facial features, similar to some glass from Meopta, Zeiss, Leitz that do not agree with my eye socket shape.
Andy W.
I had to return my Monarch 8x42 HG to Nikon after I purchased it because of a faulty diopter. I bought it shortly after Nikon came out with it and the problem came up after a week or 2 of use. Nikon replaced it in about 2 weeks with a new one. It hasn't given me any problem since. Personally I prefer getting a new replacement in circumstances like this.
I registered both of them with Nikon as soon as I got them.
Bob
Last edited:
Andy, Ceasar, and others, I thought I should post an update on the issue. Nikon did not send a replacement, but instead serviced the MHGs. The top-left shadow problem is minimized quite a bit. Also attached to the service packet was a cryptic note/bill that said optical quality and focus check. Nothing much in the way of details. Just thought I would let you guys know. Thanks!
