Hi, Brock,Hi Charles,
Good news about the 9x36. Do they have the baffling against "flaring glare" like the second gen 7x36 ED2?
Brock
Hi, Brock,
Yes, all the refinements on the 7x36 ED2 are applied to 9x36 ED2 too, including the glare fix and new baffles.
Thanks
Charles
Very nice specs. 370ft is good, as long as the sweet spot is wide. At 9x, the apparent field of view will be good.
Charles
Do you have any palns for a ZRS in 28 or 32MM?
thanx
Tom
What's BF members' take on this one? I mean, between 28mm and 32mm, which one do you prefer? |=)|
I would prefer 32mm if you can make the outside dimensions small. Vortex has tried to make some 28mm models. Only the Viper seems a success, but even it has a small fov. Look at the Bushnell 8x28, it has some promise as a starting point.
I like 28mm over 25mm, mostly as I cannot stand double hinged pocket binos.
I agree with Tero on double hinges. Make sure it is a single hinge whatever the objective diameter.
Bob
Bob/Tero, although we don't have any double hinge models, it seems to make sense to have double hinge for small objective binoculars (<25mm), for the sake of compactness. What's the issue with double hinge?
My problem is that when I use them it takes longer to find my correct IPD. That's mainly why I prefer my 8 x 20 Conquest over my 8 x 20 Trinovid.
Bob
I thought the 8x20 Conquest and the 8x20 Trinovid have double hinges????
That's one reason I like the 8x20 Victory. Besides it being BRILLIANT.
Having had a double hinge 9x25 Legend for 9 years, I really prefer single hinge. The only advantages to a double is that they store smaller and accomodate smaller IPD's. They are much harder to bring to focus from the collapsed position, the hinge tension is never the same for both hinges, so they look like the Millenium Falcon on a shallow turn unless you fiddle with them. Also I would suspect collimination could be a greater issue with two moveable attachment points as opposed to one.