• 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.

Swift 828HHS Bins - Any opinions ? (1 Viewer)

rka

ttbirds
I'm looking for a good budget birding binoculars (<US$400). After quite a bit of research, it's down to two units. Interestingly, both units are from Swift, a brand I have never looked seriously at before. Does anyone have experience with the following units:

1) Swift 828HHS 8.5x44 (Latest Roof Model)
2) Swift 820ED 8.5x44 (Porro Model)

rka
 
I have the 820 non-ED and am very pleased with it. The specifications show these to be quite different binoculars: the porro prism 820 is heavier than the 828, but has an unusually wide field of view - and BVD points out in general that porro prisms make the optical designer's job easier.
 
Decided on the 828HHS and just purchased it online for US$270. I'm not qualified to provide a proper review but will post my impressions in this thread.

rka
 
rka,

new to the forum. i saw your post and am interested in hearing about the audubon roofs. i had the 820 porros, and was very impressed with the resolution, best i've seen, and i own nikon SEs, BUT the oversized eyecups would not fit comfortably into my eyesockets (deep-set eyes) so i couldn't see that wonderful wide FOV everyone is so excited about, saw maybe 6.5*, not much more than the roofs. i prefer a larger FOV, but like the resolution on the audubons. i've read that the roofs are not as sharp as the porros,but still very good. eager to hear your review. thanks.

brock
 
rka,

Saw your review on the review page. Thanks for posting it. I guess when you compare any 8X40-44mm birding bin to a spotting scope, especially an 80mm premium model, it is not going to compare more favorably except perhaps for FOV and portability. I would like to see the HHS compared to comparably priced phase-coated roof bin (e.g., Pentax DCF 8X42).

The one con you listed was the blurry edges, and you gave the edge performance a rating of 6/10. Does that mean that the views are sharp to about 60% from the center or is that just a subjective value? I read another review (excelsis.com) that put the edge sharpness to 15% from the edge (i.e., fall off at 85% from center), which is quite good for a birding bin. Please elaborate more on the edge performance of the HHS. Thanks!

Brock
 
Last edited:
Swift 828HHS

I am considering buying the Swift 828 after much deliberation. They seem like the best bino for the buck- I have seen them at 279.00 US. I wear glasses and think they would be better for me than the porros.
 
Here's an update on the Porros - I tried to clean the 820 non-EDs by immersion and ruined them because although it said waterproof on the outside it didn't mean that waterproof. After a long wait and many email messages via WarehouseExpress I got a replacement pair, which were faulty on arrival - one side permanently blurred and rattling when shaken.

In the mean time I had got a pair of 820EDs because I did like the optics. On Sunday I went to the Forest of Dean and spent a few hours birdwatching in the rain. Yesterday I noticed that the 820EDs were internally fogged on one side. Putting them on top of a radiator for a few hours seems to have cleared that, but confirms that the 'waterpoof' marking on them doesn't mean waterproof in the sense of being rainproof for a decent length of time, either.

So I am accumulating multiple worries about the company, their use of english, and their quality control, but the 820 optics do seem to be good.
 
mcdowella said:
Here's an update on the Porros - I tried to clean the 820 non-EDs by immersion and ruined them because although it said waterproof on the outside it didn't mean that waterproof. After a long wait and many email messages via WarehouseExpress I got a replacement pair, which were faulty on arrival - one side permanently blurred and rattling when shaken.

In the mean time I had got a pair of 820EDs because I did like the optics. On Sunday I went to the Forest of Dean and spent a few hours birdwatching in the rain. Yesterday I noticed that the 820EDs were internally fogged on one side. Putting them on top of a radiator for a few hours seems to have cleared that, but confirms that the 'waterpoof' marking on them doesn't mean waterproof in the sense of being rainproof for a decent length of time, either.

So I am accumulating multiple worries about the company, their use of english, and their quality control, but the 820 optics do seem to be good.

I have heard that the body is waterproof, but the eyepieces aren't which would explain your observation!!!! This might also explain how they have achieved waterproofing in a non-internal focus binocular.

The only problem with the eyepieces flooding and then being dried out is that dissolved minerals in the water will end up on the optical surfaces!
 
I don't know where the water came in, but I know where it ended up - the fogging was on the inner surface of the ?objectives? - as far away from the eyepieces as you can get. I don't like to think of what this might be putting on the unreachable glass surfaces, but as far as I can tell the resolution is still limited by my eyesight - I suspect that I could say this of cheaper binoculars, too, but I wouldn't get the same field of view. I get very nearly the full field of view despite glasses, by the way - but my optician always tells me to go for the closest fitting frame they can get because the lenses need to be pretty strong.
 
Binoculars claimed to be "waterproof" should be immersible. Swarovski specify submersion tightness to 4m for their binoculars, including porros. The maker of a binocular that can't be submerged should use one of the old familiar dissembling terms like "spray proof" or "splash resistant", so we can all know not to take the claim seriously.
 
Last edited:
These claim to be immersible, but only for a relatively short period. Two hours in the rain would I presume therefore not be covered. In fact, I can't think of any real life situation that would be covered. It says Waterproof US Pat 4626081 on the body. If you look that up on the web (google search for Patent 4626081 and then follow the link to the patent office) this turns out to be a new way to hold the prism in the binoculars, so that you can adjust the fitting of the prism without the adjustment needing a hole to let in water.
 
I wouldn't call using binoculars in the rain immersion at all. Your first pair's soaking in the kitchen sink would qualify. I think you have a very legitimate complaint that niether pair lived up to the manufacturer's claim of "waterproof". Imagine a "waterproof" watch that you couldn't wear in the rain.
 
Last edited:
I have the 828HHS, and so far (up until yesterday), I was very happy with them. Suddenly, and unexpectedly, a silverish spot has developed on the inside of the right ocular.

I am in the process now of trying to communicate with customer service about this. Unfortunately, the retailer I purchased from has a very short return time, and I just went beyond it.

They are very comfortable, and the view is great, but I have some doubts about the overall construction, especially since I have only used these about 8 times, and not in any type of inclement weather.

I am now looking at Swarovskis.
 
Hi

Two weeks ago I bought the 828's for £240 the local photographic shop had them in at £290 but I haggled them down as my friend also bought a pair at the same time.

This is my opinion of them at the moment (been out 6-8 times) they are quite good bin's for the money and allow a good amount of detail within the image. The colour rendition is superb (compared to my old bins.... helios patrol). On the brightness side of things they are good. Have not been in the position to test the "waterproofness" of them yet.

They are light and come in quite a small for their size of 8.5x44. They fit in my hands very well and can be used single handed no problem at all. They allow panning with no blackouts at all (unlike the swaro's I looked at). Also the pop out eye cups fit my eyes nicely and do not let any distracting light in.

One slight nag is the soft edges encountered which seems at worst when viewing at a distance.......close up's are excellent.

One thing to note Joe is that they do come with a lifetime warranty in the UK. Yours should be the same!! The registration card had to be sent in within 2 weeks for it to be valid. As far as the shop I bought mine from reckon that if anything happens to them within 12 months it's straight back to the shop with them for them to deal with.


Cheers, Macca B :)
 
Just bought Swift 828

I just bought my Swift 828's in NY at B & H. I had spent quite a bit of time figuring out which binoculars to get to replace my ancient Bushnells 7 X 35 cheapos which I had graduated from years ago. Plus they had double vision. Anyway, I went to a small birding shop in rural Connecticut and was lucky to talk with an expert with a lot of credentials. He gives we a pair of binos I had not heard of in my research. Swift roof 8 x 42 (warbler). I could not believe how comfortable they were and clear. Then he shows me some high end Swarovski's. I liked the Swift out of every one. clear, crisp, bright and wonderful to handle.

Went to B & H and looked at that pair plus the 828 and 820. I really liked the 828 over the 820. The guys there had never looked through Swifts and were amazed at how good they were. They thought they should put them on display along with the Swarovski's and Zeiss's!

Perhaps it was not the best place to test these, but I did not see the great difference in the field of view. Also, the roofs still felt less bulky. Anyway I read that the difference between the two fov 's are not that great in reality and that the clarity in the middle suffers with the wider fov. Would like to hear more on this from others. It takes some getting use to since I have been using binoculars with a much wider fov -- the old bushnells. I wonder just how much more one can really see and whether that does affect the center view.

So I have tried the swift 828's where I live -- across from a fresh water marsh. Can see every blade of wild rice. Can even see the different color of the marsh water where it is shallow. Then I can quickly go close focus and see the into open mouths of the finches who monopolize the bird feeder. At night I can look into the woodland and see anything that might be there.

One final thing. It is amazing how the "feel" of the bino's affect the decision and I don't know whether that should be discounted. Having used porros all my life, these roofs felt so much better.

Suzanne Haig
 
HHS 828 - is it really waterproof?

Does anyone know where to get the "official" specs on this bino? I like to bird in cold weather so I'm concerned about fogging. Eagle Optics says the 828 is Waterproof/Nitrogen purged, but Optics4birding says otherwise - they say its only "showerproof" and not nitrogen purged. Any idea how I can get the truth?

Thank you.
--Karl
 
thank you for the link.

I spoke with Optics4birding - they made a mistake on their website. The HHS 828 is fully waterproof/fogproof/nitrogen purged.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 18 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