• 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.

New (2016) Vortex Diamondback 8x32 (1 Viewer)

mfunnell

Registered Confuser
As I noted in another thread, Vortex has released new models in most or all of their Diamondback line. I pre-ordered a couple of pairs, in 8x28 (to compare with my old-model Diamondback 8x28s) and in 8x32 (to further my ongoing quest to find an inexpensive and compact 8x32 I actually like). Both arrived yesterday.

I've found the 8x32 to be far more interesting (and in some ways annoying) than the 8x28s, which I'll provide my impressions on when I get to them.

Here, though, are my initial impressions of the new-model Vortex Diamondback 8x32s.

Firstly, their specifications (lifted straight from the B&H website where I bought the bins):

Code:
Prism Type 			Roof
Magnification 			8.0x
Objective Lens Diameter	 	32mm
Angle of View 			8.1° (actual)
Field-of-View 			426' @ 1000 yd / 141.43 m @ 1000 m
Minimum Focus Distance 		2.4' / .73 m
Exit Pupil Diameter 		4  mm
Eye Relief 			15.6  mm
Interpupillary Adjustment 	55 - 75 mm / 2.17 - 2.95"
Dioptric Correction 		Not Specified By Manufacturer
Focus Type 			Center
Tripod Mount 			Yes (Adapter Optional)
Dimensions 			4.6 x 4.5" / 11.68 x 11.43  cm
Weight 				15.5 oz / 439 g

These specifications appear to be mostly accurate and are impressive in some areas.

In the hand, and viewing through them:

  • These Diamondbacks are small and light (smaller in all dimensions than my other compact 8x32s: the Meade Rainforest Pros I recently wrote about and lighter by nearly an ounce). They're nice to hold and are not too small for comfort in my more-or-less average size male hands. They have thumb indents on the underside of the armour that are positioned "just right" for my hands. Oddly, for bins where compactness is one of the attractive features, they come with a rather bulky semi-rigid case that seems inconvenient to carry in the field and too large to easily fit in a bag or pack. The rain guard, rubber-band-and-cap objective covers and neck-strap are of good quality and fit well.
  • Construction seems solid, the focus wheel is smooth in use (though with slightly too little resistance for my taste) and has no play or backlash. (For those who care, the focus moves counter-clockwise to infinity.) The hinge seems well-weighted, allowing easy adjustment of IPD while holding position firmly. The dioptre adjustment is the usual ring near the right-hand eyepiece and is firm enough to adjust easily without being likely to move accidently once set. The three-position twist-up eyecups hold position well and seem suited to the available eye relief, which appears to be pretty much just as specified. I use the middle position with glasses on, and maximum extension without, which matches my nearsightedness fine and allows me the full field of view in both circumstances (unlike those Meades I wrote about).
  • The field of view is wide, seems to be just as specified, and the apparent FOV is wide as well. The sweet spot, though, is rather small (more on this below): they seem very sharp in the centre but that degrades swiftly when you look off-axis. Contrast and colour both seem pretty good, but I probably need to use them more to firm up my opinions there. Chromatic aberration is moderate in the centre of the field (slightly more than I'd like, really) but doesn't seem to increase much until the very outer edges of the field. Flare is reasonably well controlled. When provoked I can induce both direct flare and veiling flare, but it doesn't seem as if flare would be a problem in most circumstances.
  • Close focus is specified as a rather amazing 2.4'/73 centimeters. Too amazing, I'd say. While their close-focusing ability is really quite impressive, it isn't that good. I measured this, to make sure, since with my nearsightedness I can usually focus more closely that the specified distance - but not with these. My measured minimum close focus is 108cm without glasses and 127cm with glasses on. People with "normal" eyesight and younger eyes would probably be able to focus somewhere within those distances. My guess is that 73cm number came by finding the youngest, most nearsighted, member of their team then handing them binoculars and a tape measure... Nonetheless, between their higher magnification and wider real and apparent field of view, these Diamondbacks compete quite closely with the view through my 6.5x21 Papillo IIs - as long as the subject isn't too close. I find that quite impressive.
All of that having been said, though, my strongest initial impression when using these Diamondback 8x32s is that there's something "off" about the view. It took me a while to work out what. At first I thought it might be the dioptre adjustment, which I worked and re-worked until I had it spot-on. Yet the view still seemed off. I checked and re-checked to make sure it isn't that the dioptre setting needs to change with distance (which would be bad!) - but it's not that either.

Then something clicked: what it appears to be is a very shallow depth of field with an abrupt transition to the out-of-focus areas and a very harsh background blur (what a photographer might call bad bokeh; something I'm fairly sensitive to in photographs, but have never previously noticed with binoculars). I do emphasise "appears" because, yes, I do know that depth of field in binoculars is "really" all about magnification (etc. ad nauseum). Yet the view through these Diamondbacks gives the appearance that things are otherwise.

The real story - at least as near as I can work out - is that these bins have a rather drastic curvature of field, coupled with rather a lot of other uncorrected off-axis aberrations. This would account for the small sweet spot and explains why the transition to the background seems abrupt (off axis, they're really focused way in front of where you think they are) and sort-of explains why the background seems harsh (some complex mixture of uncorrected stuff that I haven't begun to analyse and probably won't bother with). Checking this showed that I don't have to look far from the centre to need to change focus a lot to bring off-axis details into focus.

Which leaves me thinking that these Diamondback 8x32s are really very nice bins in a lot of ways, but also thinking I won't ever really like them. I get the feeling that their view has been compromised by pushing too hard for the "headline numbers" in the specs of 8.1° FOV and 2.4' close focus. I'd have preferred a slightly narrower field of view if it allowed some reduction of the over-the-top field curvature. I'd also have preferred a more realistic close-focus number to be admitted in the specs.

But I'm sure that their way, with those numbers in the specs, they'll sell a lot more binoculars than if they'd set out to suit my taste.

...Mike
 
Last edited:
Good review Mike.

I steered two guys (both just needing a good binoc-neither a birder though) toward x42 Diamondbacks (my usual suggestion to anyone willing to break the $150 threshold but not $500 in binocs) in the last few months. I notified both that a new model was "coming" and suggested it might be worth waiting on. Both however took advantage of some awesome deals at Cabelas and both got theirs (of course the "older" model") at something around $129 with free shipping. This makes me think they might have gotten the best deal possible, if the new x42s give the same impression as these x32s did.
 
Thanks for your kind words, David. Despite not having used either the old nor new versions of the 8x42 Diamondbacks, I think that $129 run-out price for the old model sounds a terrific deal (I think B&H has a similar one). I've no idea, though, whether there would be any similarity of characteristics between the new-model 8x42s and the 8x32s above. I do have the new-model 8x28 to compare with my old-model one, and it is much closer to the old 8x28 than the new 8x32. I've not used the new 8x28 all that much, yet, but at first glance it seems to have some incremental improvements on the old one.

I also want to make sure I'm not leaving the impression that the new 8x32 Diamondbacks are dreadful binoculars. They're not. Their compact size, light weight, good handling, centre sharpness and extra-close focus are all quite attractive. The small sweet spot and so-so CA control are less so. The strong field curvature is probably their worst optical "sin" - but the consequent effect (in conjunction with other aberrations) on the part of the veiw that's out of focus is something that probably disturbs me more than it might other people. Others might not even notice it! Or, if they do, they might not really care. It does bug me, though.

...Mike
 
Last edited:
How about the Kowa SV 8x32?

When I'm out with them I generally prefer to use the eyecups right down and then I get this great in the view effect but if it's a very bright day I might use them at the first click. Anyhow they have basically zero CA and very little distortion and a big view. I really do love them, well this pair I have but they seem standard so they should all be good. Basically not one thing negative with them so what's not to like? I actually challenge anyone to find any issue with them. Oh the eyecups cover was a bit loose but I happened to have one from and old Hawke Endurance 10x32 that fits perfect and the case is a bit large so I use the one that came with my Bresser 8x28.

I just mention it as they sound like what you may be after and don't have the issues that you describe with the Diamondback.

Some day some-one else will discover these.
 
Thanks Clive. I have given thought to the Kowa SVs, mainly because of your reports of how well you like them. (That they have high-performance red stripes is an added bonus ;) ) Unfortunately (for me) they don't really address the problem I'm trying to solve, which requires something smaller in size and (less importantly) perhaps lighter in weight. The dimensions and weight of the Kowa SVs are around the same as my Sightron SII Blue Skys (which I like a lot) and from your reports I'd guess the Kowa's have similarly nice views. But 5.5"x4.9" is just too large for what I'm after.

What I've been after is something smaller that's easier to pack away in a camera bag, briefcase or day pack. I currently use my 8x28 Diamondbacks for that and they get the job done - but I generally find larger-format binoculars better to use. I'd guess that's a function of exit pupil, eye relief and eye cup design. What I'd really like is something the size of those 8x28s with a view like your Kowas or my Sightrons. :smoke: I know.

There is a binocular that's near-perfect for what I want, being only a little bit larger and heavier than I'd prefer, with great ergonomics and stunning views. What's also stunning is their price :eek!: :-C Oh, well...

...Mike
 
Last edited:
Guessing Swaro CL? Do tell. Wasn't sure you had the Sightron.

I'd also forgotten about the Kowa go faster stripe but now that you mention it, yes it is massively down with the kids I'm sure 8-P

Another then for the Nikon M7 is the obvious answer. Basically the same size as my Bresser 8x28 but a bit chunkier oh and at least twice the view.

I have a lot of small bins now but if I want proper viewing I have to at least take the M7 or Kowa and I normally go for the 8x Kowa over the 10x M7 just for the general more immersive wide angle view. I don't think there is anything smaller that would really give that (apart from maybe the 8x M7). An approximation to it sure but not the equal.

I'm sure many would like to know of such a marvel if it existed.

Do the Sightron fit into the 8x28 Diamondback case?

I'm genernally happy to accept something lessor like my Endurance 10x25 or Vistron 8x25 or RSPB 8x20 or even Papilio 6.5x or etc etc if I really want something small and light and just lug something larger like my Sapphire 8x43 if I really want the full viewing experience but the Kowa is something of both worlds and it makes me want to take it along at least fairly regularly but then I'm not lugging a camera any more and if I was then I'd be happy with a compact I think or the Kowa as it would fit in my camera bag quite easily. Actually if I really wanted low weight along with a camera I'd seriously consider just a monocular.

Also from my recent experience the Carson Scout 8x22 reverse porro could be a great choice. I'm amazed by the 7x18 Mini Scout but it's very small to hold and I like my U8x22 Visionary but it's not nearly as sharp and clear as the Carson. They are sure small and light and dirt cheap so not much risk to try. You might be very surprised with the Carson optics. I've still to get out and check the 8x22 properly and if it shows promise I might well be buying the Carson version.
 
Last edited:
\
Guessing Swaro CL? Do tell.
Better go with Zeiss, rather than Swaro and Victory rather than Conquest. Both the best and most boring binocular I own: there's really nothing to talk about. But the views are nice :t:
I'm sure many would like to know of such a marvel if it existed.

Unless you bite the bullet, as it were, and spend more $$$ than seems sensible, I'm pretty sure it doesn't. Still, I could have spent equivalent money on something which might have seemed better yet suited me less well. So I'm ahead of the game.

At least that's what I keep telling myself.

...Mike
P.S.
Do the Sightron fit into the 8x28 Diamondback case?
No, never can and never will. The Sightrons are about the same size as your Kowa SVs, while the Diamondback 8x28 case would barely fit my wallet (which is rather thinner than it should be, these days).
 
Last edited:
As I noted in another thread, Vortex has released new models in most or all of their Diamondback line. I pre-ordered a couple of pairs, in 8x28 (to compare with my old-model Diamondback 8x28s) and in 8x32 (to further my ongoing quest to find an inexpensive and compact 8x32 I actually like). Both arrived yesterday.

I've found the 8x32 to be far more interesting (and in some ways annoying) than the 8x28s, which I'll provide my impressions on when I get to them.

Here, though, are my initial impressions of the new-model Vortex Diamondback 8x32s.

Firstly, their specifications (lifted straight from the B&H website where I bought the bins):

Code:
Prism Type 			Roof
Magnification 			8.0x
Objective Lens Diameter	 	32mm
Angle of View 			8.1° (actual)
Field-of-View 			426' @ 1000 yd / 141.43 m @ 1000 m
Minimum Focus Distance 		2.4' / .73 m
Exit Pupil Diameter 		4  mm
Eye Relief 			15.6  mm
Interpupillary Adjustment 	55 - 75 mm / 2.17 - 2.95"
Dioptric Correction 		Not Specified By Manufacturer
Focus Type 			Center
Tripod Mount 			Yes (Adapter Optional)
Dimensions 			4.6 x 4.5" / 11.68 x 11.43  cm
Weight 				15.5 oz / 439 g

These specifications appear to be mostly accurate and are impressive in some areas.

In the hand, and viewing through them:

  • These Diamondbacks are small and light (smaller in all dimensions than my other compact 8x32s: the Meade Rainforest Pros I recently wrote about and lighter by nearly an ounce). They're nice to hold and are not too small for comfort in my more-or-less average size male hands. They have thumb indents on the underside of the armour that are positioned "just right" for my hands. Oddly, for bins where compactness is one of the attractive features, they come with a rather bulky semi-rigid case that seems inconvenient to carry in the field and too large to easily fit in a bag or pack. The rain guard, rubber-band-and-cap objective covers and neck-strap are of good quality and fit well.
  • Construction seems solid, the focus wheel is smooth in use (though with slightly too little resistance for my taste) and has no play or backlash. (For those who care, the focus moves counter-clockwise to infinity.) The hinge seems well-weighted, allowing easy adjustment of IPD while holding position firmly. The dioptre adjustment is the usual ring near the right-hand eyepiece and is firm enough to adjust easily without being likely to move accidently once set. The three-position twist-up eyecups hold position well and seem suited to the available eye relief, which appears to be pretty much just as specified. I use the middle position with glasses on, and maximum extension without, which matches my nearsightedness fine and allows me the full field of view in both circumstances (unlike those Meades I wrote about).
  • The field of view is wide, seems to be just as specified, and the apparent FOV is wide as well. The sweet spot, though, is rather small (more on this below): they seem very sharp in the centre but that degrades swiftly when you look off-axis. Contrast and colour both seem pretty good, but I probably need to use them more to firm up my opinions there. Chromatic aberration is moderate in the centre of the field (slightly more than I'd like, really) but doesn't seem to increase much until the very outer edges of the field. Flare is reasonably well controlled. When provoked I can induce both direct flare and veiling flare, but it doesn't seem as if flare would be a problem in most circumstances.
  • Close focus is specified as a rather amazing 2.4'/73 centimeters. Too amazing, I'd say. While their close-focusing ability is really quite impressive, it isn't that good. I measured this, to make sure, since with my nearsightedness I can usually focus more closely that the specified distance - but not with these. My measured minimum close focus is 108cm without glasses and 127cm with glasses on. People with "normal" eyesight and younger eyes would probably be able to focus somewhere within those distances. My guess is that 73cm number came by finding the youngest, most nearsighted, member of their team then handing them binoculars and a tape measure... Nonetheless, between their higher magnification and wider real and apparent field of view, these Diamondbacks compete quite closely with the view through my 6.5x21 Papillo IIs - as long as the subject isn't too close. I find that quite impressive.
All of that having been said, though, my strongest initial impression when using these Diamondback 8x32s is that there's something "off" about the view. It took me a while to work out what. At first I thought it might be the dioptre adjustment, which I worked and re-worked until I had it spot-on. Yet the view still seemed off. I checked and re-checked to make sure it isn't that the dioptre setting needs to change with distance (which would be bad!) - but it's not that either.

Then something clicked: what it appears to be is a very shallow depth of field with an abrupt transition to the out-of-focus areas and a very harsh background blur (what a photographer might call bad bokeh; something I'm fairly sensitive to in photographs, but have never previously noticed with binoculars). I do emphasise "appears" because, yes, I do know that depth of field in binoculars is "really" all about magnification (etc. ad nauseum). Yet the view through these Diamondbacks gives the appearance that things are otherwise.

The real story - at least as near as I can work out - is that these bins have a rather drastic curvature of field, coupled with rather a lot of other uncorrected off-axis aberrations. This would account for the small sweet spot and explains why the transition to the background seems abrupt (off axis, they're really focused way in front of where you think they are) and sort-of explains why the background seems harsh (some complex mixture of uncorrected stuff that I haven't begun to analyse and probably won't bother with). Checking this showed that I don't have to look far from the centre to need to change focus a lot to bring off-axis details into focus.

Which leaves me thinking that these Diamondback 8x32s are really very nice bins in a lot of ways, but also thinking I won't ever really like them. I get the feeling that their view has been compromised by pushing too hard for the "headline numbers" in the specs of 8.1° FOV and 2.4' close focus. I'd have preferred a slightly narrower field of view if it allowed some reduction of the over-the-top field curvature. I'd also have preferred a more realistic close-focus number to be admitted in the specs.

But I'm sure that their way, with those numbers in the specs, they'll sell a lot more binoculars than if they'd set out to suit my taste.

...Mike

Hi Mike,

Signed up to this forum to reply to you. I've also found the same with the 2016 Diamondback 8x32 - the small sweet spot and the curvature of field as I pan. Very noticeable, but not a total nightmare. When I first used them this morning (from home - I overlook a hill and fields so that means I can test then fairly well inddoors) I was struck by their amazing brightness for the cost and compared to my three-year-old Vortex Crossfire II 8x42 binoculars. Just got the Diamondback yesterday and may try to return them. I'm not an expert. I searched for information on this problem with this model and found your comment, which was incredibly useful to me.

Is there, in your experience, increased curvature of field (is that the same as 'globe effect'?) with this spec of binocular in general i.e. with this magnification combined with this size objective lens, especially at this price? Or are there other makes of a similar size and dimensions at roughly the same price, or a little more, with far less curvature of field?

It's a shame, as I love this model in other ways, the size, build, brightness, weight, etc.

Appreciate any advice.
 
Hi Mike,

Signed up to this forum to reply to you.
Why, thank you and welcome to birdforum and the binocular sub-forum. I hope you find better reasons to hang around :t:
[..]not a total nightmare[..] I was struck by their amazing brightness for the cost[..]
I find the 2016 Diamondback 8x32 binoculars to be good binoculars in many ways, yet not so much in others. You've pointed out a couple of pieces of their goodness, but have also noticed and noted a couple of places where they're not so good, as I did.

Only you can know whether the sum of good-minus-bad works for you. As it happens, the Diamondback 8x32s don't quite work for me.
Is there, in your experience, increased curvature of field (is that the same as 'globe effect'?) with this spec of binocular in general i.e. with this magnification combined with this size objective lens, especially at this price?
No, there are plenty of 8x32 format binoculars which work just fine for my eyes. Some at the relatively inexpensive end that also provide, to my mind, very good views. For me, the Sightron SII Blue Sky 8x32 bins which are widely well regarded in this forum rate among that set. If they were only somewhat smaller (eg. around the size of the Diamondback 8x32s) they'd be about perfect for me. But they're not. Great views, not-so-great size for my purposes.

[Note the 'globe effect' or 'rolling ball' (more formally 'angular magnification distortion' though even that can be argued at the margins of technicality) is something quite different from field curvature. The short answer is that it comes from insufficient deliberate pincussion distortion in the view, which leads to a technically accurate yet visually disturbing view when you pan from side-to-side when viewing with binoculars. Some people are more disturbed by the effect, some less.]

I also know, and have used, similarly small binoculars (around the same size and price as the Diamondback 8x32s) that have different optical sins. For example, I have a set of Meade Rainforest Pro 8x32 bins which work better in some ways than the Diamondbacks we're talking about, and are around the same size, but completely lose it when it comes to flare. They can't be pointed within about 90 degrees of a bright light without becoming awfully close to unusable.

Or are there other makes of a similar size and dimensions at roughly the same price, or a little more, with far less curvature of field?
Not that I've found. While I can find compactness and compromised views, or less compact and good views at around this price-point, I've not found both. To get both (and I have done that) I've had to pay a huge amount extra. I had to compare the Zeiss FL and Leica UVHD+ and decide between them. Which comes in at about 10x the price of the bins we're talking about. I took a big gulp, then did it. But I wouldn't recommend it to others unless they're prepared to pay the $$$$$.

...Mike F
 
Last edited:
Mike

Did you never consider/try the Nikon M7 8x30. A very good bin and surely not larger than your Zeiss and about 1/4 or 1/5 or 1/6th..... of the cost.

My M7 is about the same size as the Bresser 8x28 I had, just a bit more depth to it i.e. not just as slim as the Bresser but otherwise they are very similar in size.

The M7 is definitely smaller than my Kowa SV 8x32 and therefore smaller than your Sightron so just what you were looking for?

Or the Prostaff 7s?
 
... (see above)

Hi Mike,

Thanks so much for your detailed reply, which was useful and cleared up a number of points I was unsure about. I looked up field curvature and understand it a little more, but not totally, but this may not now matter regarding this pair of bins...

My overwhelming thought now about binoculars, which I didn't realise before, is that it's a bit of a complex area, far more complex than I thought. That's not a problem though. I just mean all the factors which combine to produce the image and bins themselves, the technicalities of it all, all the variables in design. I've also just spent a while again comparing the Diamondback 8x32s with my oldish Vortex Crossfire IIs (8x42). It's amazing for someone at my current lowish level of knowledge (and spend) how things vary between different bins, even ignoring brightness. For one thing, at some distances, usually near distances, birds look smaller at first glance through the 8x32s, but not less clear, than through the Crossfires, merely because of the context of the bird within the wide view. At next glance they do not really appear smaller at all. The mind works in weird ways, especially considering the sweet spot is smaller, or appears smaller than the Crossfires, though possibly isn't. Despite the lack of clarity away from the sweet spot, it is still taken into account by the brain when judging the size of the object in relation to the whole view. I think what I've written makes sense! Basically if I only had the Diamondbacks I'd be overjoyed and would never have started to wonder if they were totally suitable for me.

When I first got the Diamondbacks and tried them out (at home), I thought there was some sort of reasonably alarming distortion when panning. I think I still notice that today, but I'm really loving the wide angle view, despite the smallish sweet spot, which in fact, at times doesn't bother me. The weather and light is the same today as yesterday, so nothing radical has changed. So I went from yesterday loving them, to being very unsure, to today when I really like them again. Especially for the price. I would be prepared to spend another say two hundred (UK) pounds on a different pair, but for the time and trouble I cannot now believe that would be worth it. I'll give it another few days, but I think I'll stick with the 8x32s and get a lot of pleasure from them. I did want lighter weight bins too, than the Crossfires, for easier carrying over longer distances, say while trekking. And now I have that. I'll most likely lend out my Crossfires to family long-term. They have a pair of Leica 10x32 Duovids (I think 32), and they're always amazed about how bright and good my Crossfires are, let alone what they'll think of the Diamondbacks, when they get a (brief) try of them. They went for 10x as they are even less knowledgeable than me, and think 10x will always be better, whatever the size of objective lens.

The only other option is the Vortex new Diamondback 8x28s, but I think I'll miss the wide angle of view I have with the 8x32s. Both are of a similar weight and dimensions though. Or maybe there's the old Diamondback 8x32, but these are heavier than the 2016 model, have lower eye relief, but I don't know if they are slightly less bright than the 2016 Diamondbacks.

The case though is awful in my opinion, on the new Diamondback 8x32. Like you say further up, large for such relatively compact bins. I will probably look for a replacement case from somewhere, which is probably easier said than done.

Bit of a jumbled comment this, but that is good - it's a good reflection of all the things about bins that are swimming around my mind...

Dave
 
Mike

Did you never consider/try the Nikon M7 8x30. A very good bin and surely not larger than your Zeiss and about 1/4 or 1/5 or 1/6th..... of the cost.

Clive,

I did try the M7, but it didn't quite do it for me. Flare problems and some complex distortion out towards the edge of the field that I find disconcerting (though I'm sure many people don't). They are nice binoculars in many ways, and I can see why people like them, but they weren't really for me. In any event, I worked some insane hours towards the end of last year to fix a couple of major problems. I was on contract at the time, which meant I was paid for the hours (a rare circumstance which no longer applies |=(| ). So I treated myself to the Zeiss FLs as a Christmas present and am very happy with everything about them except maybe the price. But because my contract work covered for that, even the price wasn't too much of a concern except on general principles. I plan on using 'em 'till they outlast me.

...Mike
 
Clive,

I did try the M7, but it didn't quite do it for me. Flare problems and some complex distortion out towards the edge of the field that I find disconcerting (though I'm sure many people don't). They are nice binoculars in many ways, and I can see why people like them, but they weren't really for me. In any event, I worked some insane hours towards the end of last year to fix a couple of major problems. I was on contract at the time, which meant I was paid for the hours (a rare circumstance which no longer applies |=(| ). So I treated myself to the Zeiss FLs as a Christmas present and am very happy with everything about them except maybe the price. But because my contract work covered for that, even the price wasn't too much of a concern except on general principles. I plan on using 'em 'till they outlast me.

...Mike

I'm surprised to hear that about the M7 but mine is the 10x and it's really been quite impressive and problem free with the view. I consider mine quite distortion free across the view and nothing problematic glare wise either in fact no problems of any kind. Superb.

It seems there might have been quite a bit of sample variation with them in the early days?

Anyhow I certainly wouldn't feel it unfortunate to have the Zeiss as an alternative. Long may it serve you well. Actually I was out with my Kowa SV yesterday evening and it sort of reminds me of the Zeiss 8x32 FL I had although I actually find the Kowa more relaxing to use and get eye position but I did miss the punch of high contrast that the Zeiss could produce in the evening light although the Kowa can provide that in the right light conditions also. I think it's something to do with the greater blue bias of the Zeiss compared with a more greenness with the Kowa. My RSPB HD 8x20 would be more in the Zeiss direction and it's great too.

I heard a Grasshopper Warbler calling and traced it to some nearby brambles and was actually practically looking down it's throat as it did it's full repertoire of calling. First time I ever had a good close look at one. Love those moments and love my bin (whichever of them) when it provides the means to achieve such a view.
 
Last edited:
Warning! This thread is more than 8 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