Vortex Razor HD 8x42's Available (1 Viewer)

Just noticed that eagleoptics.com shows the Vortex Razor HD 8x42 as "in stock"; the 10x42 remain as "out of stock". I spoke with the local Audubon Store and they are expecting a delivery of the Razor HD 8x42 in the near future. They already have both the Zeiss Conquest HD 8x42 and the Vortex Viper HD 8x42. I would certainly like to compare these three binoculars. All weigh less than 25 oz, all have closed bridge designs and all have previously had very good reputations for image quality. I applaud the move toward lighter weight designs by Zeiss and Vortex.

If anyone has had the opportunity to try either of these binoculars, please post a review.

I notice that the 10 x 42 Razor has a FOV listed at 362' @ 1000yards. Real wide for a 10x and only 26' less than the 388' FOV listed for the 8 x 42 Razor.

Unfortunately, I can not hold 10x binoculars steady enough to get an useful image, excepting my little 10x28 Vortex Fury's. I really liked the image provided by the old Vortex Viper 10x42s, I thought that they were a good bit better than the 8x42s. However, I experienced too much shake. I hope Vortex has improved the performance of their 8x42 HD Vipers like the improvement in their HD 8x32s. I've read several very positive reviews about the HD 10x42's and the HD 8x32s, but nothing about the HD 8x42. Additionally, I've not seen any reviews of the new HD Conquests or the Razors.

We`re getting these soon in the UK, South West Optics in Truro expecting them in August.

Really excited to try these. Still miss my 8x32 viper, should have kept that one.

Anybody gotten their hands on one of the new Razors yet? I'm thinking of investing in one, 8x42...

A friend of mine bought a pair of the Vortex 8 x 42 HD bins from Walters in Merthyr Tydfil. For the money I rate them very highly com pared to my Swarovski 8.5 EL's and another friends Zeiss bins. No they are not better, but at a fraction of the price they are virtually as good in decent light and his better eyesight negates most of the difference as the light fades.
All in all a very nice pair of bins at a sensible price!
Check with Walters to see if they have any in stock or bite the bullet and see what they will do a pair of Swarows for - mine were VERY reasonable!

I just spent an hour and a half comparing Vortex Razor HD, Vortex Viper HD and Zeiss Conquest HD to my Nikon Monarch (all 8x42s). For the most part, I was disappointed in all of them. Unquestionably, to my eyes behind my eyeglasses the Zeiss Conquest HD provided the best image with best brightness, contrast and resolution. Equally unquestionably, my Monarchs are the best handling binocular of the lot; although the Razors were pretty good.

My Monarchs (silver coated pre-DE prisms) are best on sunny, bright days where their excellent contrast and color handling can make up for their so-so brightness. Unfortunately, this morning was heavily overcast here in Portland. Additionally, although there was lots of differing vegetation present both close and far, some hard lines provided by Audubon structures and many cars - there was nothing available to use as a scale for measuring resolution (such as street signs with small lettering) and only various shades of green and brown, plus red tail lights to look at in regard to color fidelity. Accordingly, everything that I saw and herein report should be taken solely as my opinion and with a large grain of salt.

Previously, I have compared my Monarchs to the old Vortex Viper (pre-HD's) 8x42s and found them to be equal optically and superior in handling. The new Viper HD's had a slight edge in brightness and contrast resulting in faster focusing (target acquisition); however, I could not see any advantage in resolution. The overall image quality appears to be very much the same; the Monarchs colors are a bit warmer. The specs on Viper HD's suggest that they are 5.8"x5.3", weigh 24.2 oz, close focus at 5', have 20mm of eye relief and a FOV of 388' a bit wider than the Monarchs at 330'. That all appears to be correct. Viper HD's handle as good as the original Vipers, even though they weigh more. Physically they look and are configured exactly like the old Vipers. If the Nikon Monarch's are an A+ in handling, then the Viper HD's are a solid B. (This is obviously very subjective.) At $590, I would not consider upgrading from my Monarchs (purchase price of $250) - just not enough of an upgrade to justify the cost.

Next, I compared the Zeiss Conquest HD to my Monarch. FIRST THING NOTICED the Conquest HD specs are WRONG.Conquest HD is NOT 6.5"x4.7", weighing 22.7 oz. The Conquest HD that I examined is no more than 6" tall and weighs much more. Perhaps, the weight is a typo and it should read 27.4 oz? Someone at the Audubon store told me that they weighed the Conquest HD and it was one oz greater then the Zeiss Victory 8x42 (26.6 oz). The Zeiss Conquest HD is noticeably much heavier then the Viper or the Razor. The whole reason that I was interested in the Conquest HD was its specified weight - which is very obviously incorrect.

Additionally, The Conquest HD eye relief is spec'd at 18 mm? I wear eyeglasses and I still had to move the eyecups out two notches. This is most unusual for me? However, once the eyecups were in a correct position for me there was no problem with comma, blackouts or shadowing as previously reported by others? It was a very good, clean image with the entire view accessible to me. The Conquest HD offered excellent brightness, contrast and resolution. I preferred the slightly warmer colors of the Monarch, but the Conquests color fidelity was excellent. Not a wow - I've never experienced a wow from a binocular. Optically, this was the best binocular of the group. However, it handled as expected, like a lead balloon. Definitely not a candidate for one hand usage, nor something that I would consider purchasing. Cost is $950. Too bad it weighs so much and is so bulky.

Finally, I compared the brand spanking new Vortex Razor HD to my Monarch. Initially, I was impressed by its light weight and slender barrels. It looks a bit odd with its large focus wheel and its small single bridge hinge. My Monarch weighs 21.5 oz and that is accurate as I've checked it on a postal scale. The new Razor HD does not feel much heavier even though its specified weight is 24.2 oz. The eyepiece is large with the ocular lens being very wide. The eyecups are just large rims around the large eyepiece they do not partially cover the eyepiece frame. This is different than I'm used to, also it appears that the eyecups stick up above the ocular lens by about 4 mm. This caused concern as the eye relief is only 17.5 mm. However, once again I had to raise the eyecups up a notch to effectively use the binocular. Incidently, these are the best eyecups that I've ever used, they really CLICK into position and they are not going anywhere! So very, very much better then the eyecups on my Monarch. I wonder if Vortex is stating the eye relief as effective eye relief measured from the top of the eyecups several mm above the rear face of the ocular lens?

There are other oddities with the Razor HD. This is a three segment binocular. The forward body which includes the single bridge hinge extends forward past the objective lens; the eyepiece assembly including the diopter ring, plus a mid body segment running the full length of the focus wheel and containing the molded-in/machined (?) binocular strap attachment. This mid-body segment is not covered by rubber armor. I assume, perhaps incorrectly, that this is exposed metal (magnesium?). To me the primary purpose of rubber armor is to protect the lens/prism mounting systems. Its secondary purpose is to provide a comfortable/secure gripping surface. It certainly is not to protect the binocular from damage from being dropped at height. Thus I guess leaving this mid segment unarmored is OK? Another oddity is that there are thumb indents on the bottum of the barrels that are too far forward and they are angled wrong - for me. I found that I was gripping the binocular above these thumb indents, thus they are not located where they would be usefull.

With all of these oddities, this is still a very good handling binocular. If my Monarch is an A+, then the Razor is a B+. Unfortunately, their optics appeared to me to be almost exactly like the Vipor HD; although their color fidelity is a bit better. For $1,180 - I expected much more.

So, optically:
1. Zeiss Conquest HD
2. Vortex Razor HD
2. Vortex Viper HD
3. Nikon Monarch (a close third)

In regard to handling:
1. Nikon Monarch
2. Vortex Razor HD
3. Vortex Viper HD
4. Zeiss Conquest HD

I want to see/handle the new Nikon Monarch 7 and the Zen-Ray HD Prime (even though it is heavier than I desire). I would like to upgrade from my 8x42 Monarch but if I'm going to pop for $1,000, then I want light weight and quality optics. The Zeiss Conqest has the optics, but it is too heavy for me.

bearclawthedonut

Hmm. Sounds like something I need to try in person before ordering. Thanks for the input!

bcl05:

Yes, I would suggest that you carefully compare the new Razor HD with whatever you want to upgrade from. Make sure that it is an upgrade. Also check out the Viper HD as it appeared so similar to the Razor HD in optics. The Razor HD that I examined was brand new, right out of the box. It was not a demo. Good luck.

bearclawthedonut

Someone (can't remember who - but thanks :t: ), somewhere here on BF? posted a link to a review of the Vortex Razor HD 8x42 by "Best Binoculars Reviews"

http://www.bestbinocularsreviews.com/Vortex8x42RazorHD-104.htm

Bear gotta say, the impressions from your brief dalliance with these bins was a tad depressing!
Had high hopes for these bins given the specs ..... :-C


Chosun :gh:

Chosun:

Brief is absolutely correct, I spent only 25 to 30 minutes with each binocular, one after the other. I wish I had been able to compare the Razor HD directly to the Viper HD and then directly to the Conquest HD, but this was at the Audubon Store and they were very nice to let me take each outside (one at a time). So all comparisons were to my Monarch. My Monarch shines in sunlight, much less so on cloudy days. Maybe sunlight would have vastly improved the performance of all four? But, on that cloudy day the Zeiss Conquest 8x42 HD provided the best optical image to my eyes. It also disappointed the most, being so much heavier than the specified weight.

If you get the chance to try any of these, then please post your observations.

bearclawthedonut

bearclawthedonut said:

Chosun:

Brief is absolutely correct, I spent only 25 to 30 minutes with each binocular, one after the other. I wish I had been able to compare the Razor HD directly to the Viper HD and then directly to the Conquest HD, but this was at the Audubon Store and they were very nice to let me take each outside (one at a time). So all comparisons were to my Monarch. My Monarch shines in sunlight, much less so on cloudy days. Maybe sunlight would have vastly improved the performance of all four? But, on that cloudy day the Zeiss Conquest 8x42 HD provided the best optical image to my eyes. It also disappointed the most, being so much heavier than the specified weight.

If you get the chance to try any of these, then please post your observations.

bearclawthedonut

Click to expand...

Your review is interesting, I have owned the Nikon Monarch, and have just
tried the Zeiss in a store setting.
You seem to place a bigger value on light weight than optical performance,
so I am not sure about that.

I would place the Zeiss Conquest HD also better optically than the Monarch. And well it should.

I would just stay with the Nikon Monarch, if you want a nice light binocular.
If the weight of a standard 8x42 bothers you , you will be money ahead.

The weight of the Zeiss Conquest should not disappoint, that is what good
binoculars weigh in the high mid to the highest level.

If you want to move up, then that is how it goes.

Jerry

Bearclaw

Frankly I really don't know how to respond to your observations. On one hand I suppose it goes to show that you never can tell what differences will be seen by different eyes. But I think you have this backwards.

I had the Nikon Monarch ATB from 2002-2011. It didn't take long to figure out there were better binoculars out there for not much more, if any more, money. I initially ordered a Swift Eaglet 7x36 and a Vortex Viper 8x42 as replacements. Both roundly and soundly kick the Monarch's backside. The Viper HD is also demonstrably better than the original Viper I had. I ultimately kept the Eaglet and exchanged the 8x Viper for a 10x. That got me into the optics nut mode and I've been collecting and comparing binoculars ever since, many of those comparisons were with the ATB. I purchased the first version of the Vortex Razor HD about a year ago. It far more closely compares to any alpha then it does to the Monarch ATB, which frankly is far outclassed by the Razor HD. The Monarch ATB, I think, is at least three tiers below the Razor HD. I have not seen the new Razor HD yet, but I have a hard time thinking the optics in the current Razor HD are inferior to the one I had. I also think the Zeiss Conquest, just recently replaced by the Conquest HD, also kicked the Monarch's backside. I have not yet seen the new Conquest HD, but again I have a hard time thinking Zeiss would release a new model Conquest, replete with HD glass that is not better than the Conquest it replaced. I really did not find the Monarch really stood well in comparison to any of its recent mid price competitors, from about 2005-6 onwards anyway. I imagine the Nikon Monarch 7 will be a significant improvement over the ATB...finally.

At any rate, I'm glad you have a binocular that suits you and that you enjoy using. I guess it matters only what you think of it since you are the one using it. I just can not get my head around your comparisons.

Steve:

I pointed out that the Zeiss Conquest HD provided the best image of the three binoculars that I compared to my Nikon Monarch and that it was the only binocular that I felt was a reasonable step up (appropriate to its price) in image quality over my Monarch. However, I did not like its weight, nor that Zeiss has lied about its weight or is so indifferent that they would not be bothered to correct a possible (?) typo that gave an inappropriate impression that its weight was only 24.7 oz. Nor did I like its handling - it felt bulky and heavy in my hands. As a consequence of the Conquest's poor handling I feel that it is not something that I would be interested in purchasing.

I was not nearly as impressed with the images presented by the two Vortex binoculars. I presently own two Vortex Furys (8x and 10x28s) and one Viper (8x32). Obviously, I like Vortex binoculars; however, I've always seen the Viper 8x42 as the poor cousin of the very good Viper 10x42. I've compared my Nikon Monarch 8x42 to several Viper 8x42s and found the Monarch to provide higher quality images. In my recent brief comparisons, it did not appear to me that there was a great deal of improvement afforded by the new HD designation given the new Viper 8x42 over or above that of the old Viper 8x42. I found the Razor HD 8x42 to be under-performing to my expectations of a $1200 binocular.

I generally use my Viper 8x32 from mid-fall to late-spring here in Portland as its a good cloudy day binocular. However, every summer when I switch to my Monarch 8x42 - I am amazed at just how much better its image is then my Viper's. My Monarch has excellent contrast and color handling. It is not three tiers below the new Vortex Razor HD 8x42 that I looked through. Perhaps the Razor HD image is 1/4 or 1/3 of one tier better than my Monarch, perhaps not? Certainly, I do not feel that the new Razor HD is worth over 90% of the present asking price of $1300 for a Zeiss Victory 8x32 demo.

bearclawthedonut

However, every summer when I switch to my Monarch 8x42 - I am amazed at just how much better its image is then my Viper's.

Click to expand...

you must have one incredibly cherry Nikon Monarch. I have a lot of experience with the Monarch II (my wife has owned the 10x42 for many years) and it was a great value for the price when we bought it, but like Steve I feel it has been surpassed optically by many binoculars in the intervening years. Specifically, I've owned a couple of Vipers (6x32 and 8x32 HD) and both were clearly better than the Monarch.

The Monarch has silver prisms whereas the Vipers are DE, and the Vipers are brighter and sharper. The Monarch does have nice handling, it's light and comfortable and has a very smooth, fast focus knob, but it has crummy eyecups. And while it has nice optics, pretty sharp in the center and with that pleasing Nikon color balance, it suffers from a narrow FOV, a smallish sweet spot and significant CA outside of the center. The Viper HD in particular should spank it in terms of brightness, color fringing, size of sweet spot, etc.

In "professional" reviews and user feedback here on BF the Vipers are consistently rated as being maybe a tiny notch below the alphas, with the main weakness being the edge performance, whereas the Monarchs are always a tier down optically. This is not to say that you are "wrong" in your personal experience, as everyone sees things differently, but you may be the only one who thinks the Monarchs are better than the Vipers optically.

eitanaltman:

Please note: my Monarch was used as a basis for comparison. The Audubon store was nice enough to allow me to take each of the binoculars out of the store - one at a time. My observations were that the Viper HD did not appear to be very much upgraded from the original Vipor and that it would not be economically viable to spend $590 on them as their optical upgrade (and they were very slightly better) over my Monarchs was slight. Additionally, I was very disappointed in the optics that I observed in the Razor HD. Certainly, I would never spend $1,180 for so little optical benefit (and yes the Razor HDs were also a slight optical upgrade over my Monarchs). Finally, while the Conquest HDs were a significant optical upgrade over/beyond my Monarchs they were a great disappointment in regard to handling and in regard to Zeiss's misstating their weight. They are fat, bulky, heavy and handle poorly - to me. All very disappointing to me. Take it or leave it for what it is, but truly, I was disappointed. Go try the Viper and Razor 8x42 HDs out for yourself.

In regard to my Monarchs, yes they are very good. Yes, indeed they are better (in sunlight) then my Viper 8x32s. Yes, they are better (to my eyes) then Monarch 10x42s and to Monarch 8x36s. The Monarch 8x42 (pre DE-prism) is the magical configuration. Similarly, the Viper 10x42 is the magical configuration of the Viper line. The Viper 8x42s have always been the week link of the Viper line - to me. If you like Viper 8x42s then good for you. Finally, are my Monarch 8x42 (pre-DE prism) binoculars the best binoculars of all four that I compared at the Audubon store? Their handling is great! Nothing less then great. If handling is important and it is important to me, then yes, I would rather have my Monarchs (even with their crummy eyecups) then the Conquest HDs - even though the Conquest HDs have better optics (and eyecups). However, if the Conquest HD optics could be put into a package similar in size, weight, configuration and with all the handling characteristics of the Razor HD (particularly their eyecups), then and only then, I would rather have that binocular. I would even, happily, pay $1000 for that binocular. I guess that I would even pay $1180 for that binocular, but I would not be quite so happy about it.

I see no reason why excellent optics, lightweight and great handling can not be combined.

bearclawthedonut

Try a Swarovski 8x32 el non sv! Comes in at your price point and has all the tangible benefits you described! Just a thought?!!! Bryce...

I personally do not see why anyone would buy a $1100 Razor when there's every bit as good, and often much better stuff available for less money,as stereo pointed out just one example. Plus, Vortex can't seem to make up their minds on the Razor, changing the design every year makes me think they're searching for a winner, and mostly missing

jgraider said:

I personally do not see why anyone would buy a $1100 Razor when there's every bit as good, and often much better stuff available for less money,as stereo pointed out just one example. Plus, Vortex can't seem to make up their minds on the Razor, changing the design every year makes me think they're searching for a winner, and mostly missing

Click to expand...

Hi folks; first time poster to this helpful forum.

The comment about Vortex changing the design every year was interesting. Instead of thinking they can't get it right, I view the changes as a company continuing to improve their products. Don't Mercedes, BMW, etc, make some changes each year?

The first designs of the Razor had small improvements over the first couple years. Vortex has a video on their website showing the changes over the years.

The newest Razor is a total change in style/design; very similar to how Zeiss has changed the Conquest and the new Victory lines. Whether or not they are worth the price premium, time will tell.

ShelbyGT

eitanaltman:

Sorry, I did not mean to jump on you so hard. As you and Steve C suggested - different people see different things differently. You have not looked through my binoculars (nor through my eyeglasses) and I have not looked through yours.

Bryce:

I've tried the old Swaro 8x32 EL found it to lack the necessary eye relief (min of 16 mm) required for my eyeglasses and to be a bit heavy. Used, I've seen one selling for $1500, more than I care to spend on a 32. I would like to see (even though I would not pop for the price) the new Swarovision 8x32, its specs suggest that it carries less weight and has much better eye relief. Eye relief also eliminates the tantalizing new Swaro CL 8x30.

I like the Zeiss Victory 8x32, but its a bit short (4.6") for my hand, which makes it feel heavier than it actually is to me and again, I'm not sure that I should spend $1300 on a 32. I'll soon be 67 and my vision is changing. While a few years ago I was comfortable with 26, 27, 28 and 30 mm objectives, I now find that I require a minimum of 32mm objectives for easy, comfortable continued viewing. In a few more years, I may require 42 mm objectives? That's why I would prefer to upgrade my 42s.

bearclawthedonut