New Vanguard Endeavor ED II Line Showing Available (1 Viewer)

Hi Petrus - the ergonomics thing is obviously a big issue, with all faces and eyes different. While the field of view is not the widest on the 8x, i find that all of it is usuable, with almost edge-to-edge clarity, which is a trade-off i'm happy with. Glad you liked the 10x though!
Paddy

paddy7 said:

Hi Petrus - the ergonomics thing is obviously a big issue, with all faces and eyes different. While the field of view is not the widest on the 8x, i find that all of it is usuable, with almost edge-to-edge clarity, which is a trade-off i'm happy with. Glad you liked the 10x though!
Paddy

Click to expand...

Paddy,

I couldn't agree more. They really are sharp edge to edge. The 10x has a narrower FOV but a larger AFOV which suits me but it's just personal preference.

Hello guys

I've been looking to buy a quality binoculars for good price for a while.
I already have a pair of Nikon Aculon 16x50, and while these are ok for aircraft spotting and use on airshows, they're not too good for other things.

My budget was "around 400 Euro, 600 Euro top". Though I've been looking at Docter 8x56 ED/OH, which costs considerably more.

Stirred on by positive reviews from bestbinocularreviews, allbinos etc., I ordered a pair of 8x42 Endeavor EDII bins.
Only thing that worried me was the silver mirror coatings and reported warm cast of the image, but I found that it's not an issue. Maybe the Nikon I already own has similar colour rendering so I got used to it or it's just not too bad.

If I had to point out the positive optical qualities, I'd be bringing owls to Athens, because everything has already been said. I can also say that I find the fast focus speed quite good, it's nice to just snap into sharp image with a slight turn. Also the depth of field helps.

So, while not wanting to sound negatively, I need to point out a few things that concern me.
I'll start from the less important things towards the more bothersome:

1. Rubber rainguard and rubber eyecups is not the best combination for quick removal or replacement of the rainguard.

2. the carrying case: There is no separate pocket for cleaning cloth + if you clip the neckstrap to the bins, they dont fit with it too well inside and since the case is closed by zipper, rather than velcro or plastic clip, you can't have the strap around your neck, connected to bins, with the case fully closed.
Not a mission critical feature, but since Vanguard is a specialist in the field when it comes to cases for optical instruments, you'd expect them to know better than this. Also I'm not sure if im forced to snap/unsnap the neckstrap to the case, to the bins, to the case ..., how long will the plastic clips last.

3. As fullsize as they may be, the bins are just too small for my hands. I guess this doesn't get much different with other models in the 8x42 roof configuration, and I wanted something more compact than 50mm objective porro for carrying around on hikes.
I guess the 8x56 ED/OH Docters would fit me better : D but who wants to carry 1.4 kilos of glass around all day?

4. The rolling ball effect is there. When I pan the Nikon, it feels natural. Fast panning the Endeavor EDII messes with my eyes a bit. I guess this is the price to pay for edge-to-edge sharpness provided by the field flattener lens (maybe the last 5% of the field shows a little bit of blur and distortion, but that's usually far away from the thing you actually watch, so not too much of a problem)

5. The thing that has me thinking if I should return these - when at dark I look at a source of bright light (moon, street lamp, ...), there are four distinct beams going from the source of the light (star effect). Each barrel produces two rays, the more bright the source, the more distinct the rays are.
Now I don't know, it is because of the eyepiece design, and it will be present in all field flattened bins, or is it just this model, or is it just my bins and I should claim the warranty that they are defective?
For instance, the Aculon I have displays this abberation a bit, it's not nearly as intensive, while not being that less bright (not saying the 16x50 Aculon is any better - it has other problems like lots of CA, eyecups too big, eye relief too short, lack of multicoatings on all surfaces and while not seeing star effect from a streetlamp, instead I get about thousand and one ghost images of it.

I guess this is not a deal breaker for birdwatching during the day, but I also like to stargaze. While stars of magnitude like -1 do look like dots, bright objects such as Jupiter at max. brightness, or moon do produce these rays (interestingly today morning I watched a crescent moon, it produced only two rays, not four)
Now, isn't that what they call astigmatism? If so, then I can't agree with the allbinos test that it's low (or at least not on the 8x42 model, not the one I have, anyway).

You guys who also have got these 8x42 ED IIs, did you test this?
Because I'm now unsure what to do. If I should return them and buy the Vortex Talon HD I was thinking of, or try the Nikon HG-L 8x42 which one online store over here has on sale for almost unbelieavable 16990 CZK, which is ca. 615 € or 780 $.

Thanks

Martin

Martin,

I totally agree with your positive points and some of the negatives too. I find the choice of case design and the plastic clips rather curious at best, but think the sharpness and contrast remarkable for the price. The flat field is fantastic in the right situation but, as you say, you do have to watch out when panning.

As for point 5, it's not something I've checked out properly and tonight is definitely the wrong one to try for celestial bodies. On street lamps just now, I just got feint four point star pattern, pretty much the same as with the Zen-Ray Prime 10x42 I have (also a flat field design), but it's too wet to do much more. I'll have another look when the weather improves. I did get a suggestion that the 'star' effect was more pronounced at an incorrect eye relief settings but I wasn't going to hang around to confirm it.

I thought 'spikes' were produced by the edge of the roof prism but others will know more about that than I do.

All the relatively slight blur at the very edge of the view on my 8x42 appears entirely due to astigmatism. If you examine a thin cross at the edge of the view you will find you can focus either the radial axis or the tangential axis not both. This is substantially less than some of the other binoculars I own.

Cheers,

David

David, I just got back from watching the stars outside when the British weather arrived here too )

I think you might be right about the roof edge causing it - I looked and it appears the beam in each barrel is perpendicular to the imaginary plane defined by the roof edge and barrel axis.

Martin

My BD 10X44 BP has strong radial spikes when looking at bright light sources at night. Prism intrusion into the light path is to blame if I'm not mistaken.

Raubtier said:

David, I just got back from watching the stars outside when the British weather arrived here too )

I think you might be right about the roof edge causing it - I looked and it appears the beam in each barrel is perpendicular to the imaginary plane defined by the roof edge and barrel axis.

Martin

Click to expand...

Hi Martin,
welcome to Birdforum.
Maybe take a look on the new MeoproHDs? they are also in the price range you
specified. I have the HD Meostar and it is very good binocular with only quite small flaws....

Hi Kestrel, thanks for welcoming me

I tried a Meostar B1 8x56 few days ago at one local store and quite liked it, but that's out of the price range.

I did consider the Meopro HD in 8x42, but I'd have to order it from abroad, because no one in Czech Republic retails these models (ironic, since Meopta is a Czech company), then there's the extra shipping cost and cash on delivery fee (I don't favor paying ahead), and in case I had to return them or claim warranty, things might get difficult.


The diffraction spikes (finally I found out what's it called :king in the Vanguard then, I guess are caused by the roof edge not being as precise as they'd be in higher end bins?
If it was due to lack or low quality of phase coatings, it would then affect resolution too, would it not

Hi Martin - firstly, loved the expression 'taking owls to Athens!' It would be great to know where that one comes from .
My contribution is more along the lines of 'why these things don't bother me' than any technical help -
1. Similar points were raised regarding the case and lanyard with the Endeavour Mk1. Why it doesn't bother me is that i only ever use the case when travelling - even then i sometimes just wrap them in a towel. The strap goes on the bins and there it stays. The things are totally waterproof. Objective covers are useful when they're in a shoulder bag, but otherwise, i take them off too. As the strap is never undone, i wrap 20mm velcro strips round the plastic lugs for extra security, or use a tie wrap. My main issue with the lanyard is that i can only just get it short enough.
2. I can detect some rolling ball; however, the movement that causes it is one i would rarely make with bins to my eyes. I don't like that 'carousel' view at all in any optics, as it reminds me of my early drinking days! I suppose i scan, rather than pan.
3. Although there may be some distortions right at the edge, i find the sweet spot in these massive, and reckon you've got around 85% of FoV very good indeed. I think i use edge of view to detect movement, rather than scrutiny, and they do this very well.
4. I seem to remember in a conversation with Typo that the 'star' effect is regarded as 'coma' in the Allbinos test. To be honest, i've never even tried that. I think here is a question of intended use. Most 8x42 bins are designed for birding and hunting; a good twilight performance is an advantage, but i would imagine your 50mm objectives would be much more suitable for astronomy. If i ever get celestial, i drag the Swaro ATS65 scope outside.

Regarding hand size: I think Calvin Jones' initial impression of the EDII (on Ireland's Wildlife website) was similar. If it's any use, i tried some old 10x42 Leica Trinovid BNs recently, that had barrels like piglets. Still got the weight problem there though - i reckon they must have been a minimum of 900gms (without looking it up). They go second-hand on ebay for around £400 if you're lucky....
Hope some of this helps, and welcome to the conversation!
Paddy

paddy7 said:

4. I seem to remember in a conversation with Typo that the 'star' effect is regarded as 'coma' in the Allbinos test.

Click to expand...

Paddy, not quite right. Coma and the issue Martin's referring to are separate phenomenon as far as I can tell from his description. If we get a clear night I'll check.

David

Hi Paddy, David

I think it comes from the Owl of Athena. Another variation of the proverb we have is "Bringing wood into forest", which I believe is equivalent of english "Bringing coal to Newcastle", but I felt an owl would be better on a bird forum )

Coma is probably not the issue, that would be a sort of tail of light from a point source, going in only one direction. I searched the forums and found this: http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=125044

So I guess Zeiss might be the answer. It's not a field-flattened bin, but like I said, fast panning the field flattened Endeavor is a bit dizzying, panning non-field flattened binoculars feels natural to me. And I believe the Conquest will be just as razor sharp, if not even more.
Also, and this might be beacuse it's not a porro device with objectives far apart rather than because of the field flattener, it seems to me that the 3D perception I get from a porro is missing in the Endeavor.
I didn't notice it until now in the porro bin, I can see the difference only when I compare them side by side.

I might be able to find some extra 450€ to spare which would then get me in the Zeiss Conquest HD / Meopta Meostar HD / Docter ED price range, if I were to return the Endeavor of course.

As for the stargazing, I favor 8x42 because of it's versatility for other stuff. The 16x50 I have is too shaky when not on a tripod, therefore utterly useless at watching objects close to the zenith. Plus it's a cheap 150 € instrument, so there are obviously slip-ups in the image quality.
5.25mm pupil of a 8x42 should be ok for me, my eyes are still quite young though not even remotely perfect : D.
I don't want a 10x50 because I'm not sure I could hold the 10x power as steady as I can hold the 8x power, and the 7x50 would be probably too bright for sky full of light pollution.

Martin

Martin,

Diffraction spikes are not something I generally look for but I have stumbled on comments about it from time to time, usually on astronomy forums. It's one of the reasons why porro prisms are popular with star gazers as they are immune to that problem at least. You would expect more expensive roof models to be better than most but I've certainly read comments that roof models from the big three are not problem free but I can't find specific examples at the moment.

Do you mean the Zeiss Conquest Kevin referred to? We think that was built in Hungry but the new Conquest HD has a big contribution from Japan we understand. Most of the samples I've tried I would not judge as sharp as the Vanguard I have. Your's may be different of course.

David

Oh, I meant the new Zeiss Conquest HD. The older Conquests are now hard to find.

There's a lot of things to like about them, the way how well they fared in the ruggedness test where they submerged it, dropped it, dragged it behind a car, ran it over, blasted it with a shotgun (!!), the positive reviews, the features like Schott glass, dielectric coating, T* coating, LotuTec, the looks, the fact it's made in Germany (if they don't know how to make optics, who does?).
It's worth a try I guess.

I don't mind much the dimensions of a Porro binoculars. I just wish they made more of them with internal focusing, fully waterproof and with a sensible field of view.

Martin

B :bounce::king:

paddy7 said:

I don't like that 'carousel' view at all in any optics, as it reminds me of my early drinking days!

Click to expand...

Martin,

No moon or stars visible as yet but I did try the Vanguard, three other roofs and a porro on a range of targets. On various street or porch lamps I was getting nothing more than a very feint trace of a spike with the Vanguard and the Zen-Ray but not the others. Aircraft landing lights at about 3km showed nothing with any of them. However a LED torch shining directly at the binoculars from 30m did give some clear differences. The Zen-Ray gave the most dramatic pattern with 4 lines to the edge of the view and minor spikes at other angles. The Vanguard was something like half that intensity I'd guess, with the cross reaching just over half way. My Opticron had a fairly weak cross about a quarter of the distance to the edge. My Eden was rather different with no dominant spikes, just a multitude of small ones. The porro was spike free of course.

The plane lights were brighter than any star or planet so I would guess none of these would be a problem. It could be an issue with the moon though.

Hope that is some help.

David

David, I just tried it too and your finding sort of correlates with mine. Maybe I'd say the rays from street lamp that's about 200m away are a bit more then faint (did you mean faint as in weak or feint as in fake?).
Perhaps I over dramatized it a bit before - the rays do not reach the very edge, only when it's very bright source of light from very close (sodium street lamp from 20 meters) the rays tend to reach the upper edge of vision (it's less intensive under the source of light than above it, so the rays don't reach the lower edge of vision unless I place the viewed light under the center of the FOV).

However, if there are roof prism binoculars that are spike-free, then those are the binoculars I want, as long as they're as sharp as the Vanguard in the center, have the same or larger FOV with least 80% of it fully usable, and can be purchased for 800 € or less (Am I too demanding? |:d|)

Thanks

Martin

I meant "faint" as in, barely perceptible. Sorry, I'm rather prone to errors like that, hence Typo.

Perhaps the better answer is a 150 Euro porro and <650 Euro roof? That porro I used has a 3.6 arcsecond resolution and is sharp on stars over more than 80% of the view. It cost me 75 Euro in a sale. I got lucky!

David

Well, the diffraction spikes that I can see in mine from nearby (100-200m out) street lamps are certainly more than barely perceptible.
Perhaps I should have them replaced?

Martin

Since the Vanguard conversation took this turn, i've been waiting for a night you could actually see some stars, and typically, there hasn't been one.
I could see a diagonal streak looking at a street lamp (orange and not too bright). I could see the same thing with my eyes slightly screwed and no bins, but what this means, i have no idea!
Think i'll stick to birds and daylight!

Generally stars are not a problem, they are not that bright to cause issues. Street lamps, spotlights etc. cause quite intensive spikes though. I will contact the dealer and see if they could replace them.

Martin