Vanguard Endeavor ED II 10x42 vs 8x32 (2 Viewers)

Hallo boys,
I have a doubt: recently, based on albinos review, i bought the 10x42 referred to in the title, and am awaiting its delivery. If what is reported should be true, and should be true also what is reported about the 8x32, my intention to buy also this smaller size is compromised by what albinos himself reported about this model.
Given that what I'm looking for in binoculars is, in order of importance:
- sharpness and brightness of the image;
- flat field;
- sharpness to the edges of the FOV (all obviously related to the price);
given that all three of these characteristics are mentioned by albinos for 10x42, I am afraid that the most critical judgment on these three points referring to 8x32 suggests that the latter may be much inferior to the bigger brother.
Considering that I have just purchased a Kowa BD II 8x32 XD, and I am not at all satisfied with this on any of the three essential points mentioned above, in order to avoid purchasing an item equivalent to this Kowa I ask if any of you own, or have had the opportunity to try, both models of Vanguard subject of the thread, and can you tell me if really the smaller is worse than the bigger or if the difference is minimal.
Thanks for your help (and I apologize if the automatic translator is not perfect ...)

... and the second question is:
which would you choose between the Vanguard 8x32 ED II and the Nikon Monarch 7 8x30?

I guess no one has owned the binoculars you are referencing so I'll do the best I can. Several have owned the ED II 42mm either 8X or 10X and most including myself seem to be very pleased with the 42mm purchase. Though no personal experience the 32mm seems to have a few more quality issues though it seems most are happy with it that get a good one. I've owned the 8X42 model for several years and I haven't come across anything to beat it optically for the price paid. Since you didn't like the Kowa 32mm for the reasons you mentioned, I'd probably move up in quality and price a notch. The Kowa Genesis 32mm would probably a good one for you to try. Also I can certainly vouch for the Zeiss Conquest HD 32mm. If you want to try something a little less expensive the Opticron Verano 8X32 might be a good one to try.

Hope this helps!

Thanks first of all, Chuck, for your welcome suggestions.
Just today I received the Vanguard ED II 10x42, but .... the first impression was really disappointing 😞.
I almost got the impression that it disturbed my sight. I had the suspicion that it may be out of collimation (I don’t know if it’s the right translation), but the image turns out to be perfect after a few seconds of adaptation. I'll do a more thorough test tomorrow. Let's hope!
A few years ago I had the Conquest HD 8x32, the best roof prism optics I've ever had. I sold it to a friend who insisted a lot, since I had other interests at that time.
Today I feel satisfaction in finding good optics that are not so obvious, such as the Opticron T WP Adventure 6.5x32. I find it so incredibly good that I also order the 8X32, so I can make a direct comparison to the Nikon SE 8x32. I am sure that this comparison can give excellent surprises ... (for 96 euro each!). We will see.
Therefor I thank you for suggesting the Opticron Verano (I feel I have a good feeling with this brand 😁).
As soon as I manage to sell the Kowa, I will examine these binoculars.

Thanks again!😊
Fabrizio

If you or anyone else is still interested: I own 3 Endeavor 8x32 (both ED and EDII) and have owned 3 Endeavor 10x42 (ED and EDII). The old Endeavor ED 8x32 gives by far the best view. I compared it with a new Zeiss Victory 10x32 (yes, I know 10 vs. 8), and the Endeavor gave me the same level of detail and contrast on far objects (over 100m or so). The vertical area of sharpness was visibly larger on the Endeavor. The Zeiss was significantly brighter, though, but with a blueish tint. The 8x32 ED's colour is neutral and sharp to the edge horizontally. CA is very minmal across 80% of the view, and can be seen only in bright sunlight. The 8x32 ED II is the same as the old ED version, but with a slightly narrower field of view (on my sample), slightly darker view and a yellow tint. For this reason, I prefer the old ED version. The two gripes about the Endeavor 8x32 are the plastic and flimsy eyecups and some kidney-beaning, when not properly aligned. If you look too far away from the center (50%) or so, the view is "blackened". A bit annoying. All three pairs I own are technically of the same quality. My first sample has about 1-2mm of slack in the focus wheel, that's about it.

Because of the favourable reviews of the Endeavor 10x42 and my experience with the 8x32, I also purchased one 10x42 second-hand, but it was not as sharp as expected. I bought another one new from a store, but returned it. A third sample (EDII) was also disappointing, so eventually I sold the one I still had. The main reasons were a very (!) shallow depth of field, the aggressive focus knob and the fact that the bokeh was ugly, somehow brownish. The view was or felt never really sharp. Chromatic aberration was visible and the bino feels very heavy. I also compared the Endeavor 10x42 with a Kenko Ultraview EX 10x42, Celestron Cosmos 10x42 and Eden XP 10x42. The Eden actually gives the nicest view with little CA, only the contrast could be better.

Compared to the Endeavor 10x42, I could see more details with the Endeavor 8x32, which has a generous depth of view and better sharpness. Colours, contast and sharpness on the 8x32 are outstanding to me, as if I am "in" the scenery. The field is indeed flat. The housing of the Endeavor 8x32 is relatively small.

Compared to the Celestron Granite 9x33 and Granite 8x42 that I own, the Endeavor 8x32 has much better contrast and edge to edge sharpness. CA may be a bit better corrected in the Granites, but we are talking about very minor differences here. The Granites seem a bit brighter, though, and I like their sturdy housing (eyecups are metal). Less contrast also means a more relaxed view.

I have also compared the Endeavor 8x32 with a Celestron Nature DX 8x42 (yes, I know 32 and 42...). The Nature DX is pretty good in the centre, with slightly higher CA. Contrast, brightness and center sharpness are quite similar, but still better on the Endeavor. After sunset, the Endeavor will show you the same details, because of a higher transmission. There is no argument in favor of the Nature DX 8x42 (much heavier and larger), except for the price. The issue with Celestron's Nature DX series is the mediocre quality control. I have also tested several Nature DX 8x32 and 8x25. All (!) of them had issues of some kind. Just compare the warranties and you know why. The Cosmos Tree of Life series, optically the same as the Nature DX, seems to be controlled better. I have purchased some cheap Cosmos 8x25, which are outstanding for under 100€. Actually, I paid only around 50€ for them new.

Lastly, I also compared the Endeavor 8x32 with a Bresser Montana 8x25 (prices vary between 200 and 500€ ?!). Very interesting match, because both in daylight and after sunset, both were on par to me. However, the Montana has very hard rubber on the (smaller) eyecups, which make them quickly uncomfortable to use. The size is almost the same as the Endeavor. The mechanics (dioptre, focus wheel) of the Montana are impressive, though.

I hope this helps!

Hi Addy,
thank you for your exhaustive description of the Endeavor 8x32, which would be my next purchase after the 10x42, but the latter arrived and returned the next day. Unfortunately he was unglued and my sight crossed ... a terrible effect!
Furthermore, the lens caps were too big and did not fit in their place ... In short, a very bad experience, which convinced me to avoid buying also the 8x32.
As 8x32 I recently bought the nikon monarch 7; I have to say that these little binoculars really surprised me. It is true, it is not a top of the range, but I found in it all the characteristics I was looking for in a glass with this focal length, that is: extreme lightness, small dimensions, large fov, very bright despite being only 32 and very sharp in the center. . Unfortunately it doesn't have the flat pitch of the nikon SE 8x32, but for 290 euros I don't think you can expect more, even if my attention had fallen on the Endeavors precisely because of the flat field ascribed to them ... never mind, the problem was partially solved thanks to the other features of the M7. Now I'm looking for a 10x42 to be used essentially for the observation of birds and animals in general. Given the experiment with the small M7 8x32 I would be tempted to bet on the bigger brother 10x42 ... what do you think?

Hello magnum58; I'd like to hear your evaluation of the Opticron T WP Adventure 6.5x32. It's been on my list for a while and although I haven't pulled the trigger, I'd look forward to your opinion on the binoculars. Regards, Pat

pat mitchel said:

Hello magnum58; I'd like to hear your evaluation of the Opticron T WP Adventure 6.5x32. It's been on my list for a while and although I haven't pulled the trigger, I'd look forward to your opinion on the binoculars. Regards, Pat

Click to expand...

Hi Pat, I am happy to be able to give positive info about these binoculars, which for me was a great pleasant surprise. I bought it to have an ultra wide angle to keep in the car but with no hope of finding anything striking. As soon as I tried to sight through this glass, many doubts arose about the value attributed to certain noble optics. Obviously the construction and the materials with which this model is built is not comparable with the construction of more expensive binoculars, but from the optical point of view we can talk about it ... in fact the only "criticizable" point is represented by the sweet spot, which in this 6,5x is quite small, starting the image to degrade already from 50/55% of the field of view. However, by moving the focus ring the image is focused to the extreme edge, a clear sign that the "defect" is due to the pronounced curvature of the field and not to the poor quality of the lenses (low coma and low astigmatism). The sharpness in the center is truly amazing for a glass of this price, and even the chromatic aberrations are practically absent in the center and not very pronounced at the edge. The eye relief is quite good with 17mm.
What else to say? You must know that after trying the 6.5x32 I also ordered the 8x32, to be able to compare it directly with my Nikon 8x32 SE. We are talking about a top of the range against an entry level (which cannot be more entry) and it is obvious that the Nikon wins in all respects, first of all the completely flat field, but the Opticron, for example, has a greater FOV then the SE , and compared to 6.5 the sweet spot is wider. The sharpness in the center is exactly the same as the 6.5, and I'll tell you it's not so far off that of the Nikon SE. Also fantastic glass!
As I was able to say in an Italian forum, it would be fantastic if Opticron built a model of binoculars with the optical scheme of this series in a more performing body, perhaps waterproof, and I'm sure it could be successful even with a three or four times sale price top of the T WP Adventure!
I do not know if I have shown everything you need to "know" this object, but if you need more info do not hesitate to ask.
I hope I've been of help (and I hope my English can be understood ...!).
Bye, Fabrizio

pat mitchel said:

Hello magnum58; I'd like to hear your evaluation of the Opticron T WP Adventure 6.5x32. It's been on my list for a while and although I haven't pulled the trigger, I'd look forward to your opinion on the binoculars. Regards, Pat

Click to expand...

If it may be useful to you I report below the opinion of a user of an Italian forum who is a true connoisseur of binoculars:

“Having already been in possession for some months of the Kowa BD II 6.5x32, (purchased by lucky circumstances at about 70% of the list price) and intrigued by the positive feedback of Magnum58 on the Opticron Adventurer 6.5x32, enticed by its low cost , I bought a copy for comparison.
I state that I was already positively impressed by the overall quality of the Kowa, in particular by the high resolution and sharpness since it is a Schmidt Pechan roof, finding in negative only a moderate globe effect (rolling ball) due, as always, to the optical scheme of the eyepieces that from the center to the edges they enlarge progressively less (also in the Opticron).
In fact, the Opticron 6,5x32, in relation to the price and not only, is truly remarkable even if in absolute terms, and despite being a Porro, it is slightly inferior to the Kowa (which however costs four times more) especially in the degradation of the image from the center towards the edge which starts already at 50% of the radius while in Kowa it starts from 75% and remains acceptable almost to the extreme edge.
I agree with Magnum58 on the untrue data of the Kowa visual field which is given for 65 ° apparent where it is just slightly higher than that of the Opticron which is 59.8 ° apparent. From some comparisons I believe that the Kowa does not exceed the apparent 61/62 °.
In 50% of the central visual field, the Opticron is truly remarkable for its engraving and sharpness, the residual chromatism is very low and does not have chromatic dominants.
The image in both binoculars is very bright and bright and even on the night sky the field of view is uniformly dark.
The reflections from light sources such as spotlights and the like are more or less equal.
Obviously the Kowa, more expensive and not a little, is globally superior (in my opinion) in terms of workmanship, waterproofing and also compactness and, slightly, also in optical performance.
As already mentioned, since it is a Schmidt Pechan roof that is not very expensive, its performance also made me reflect on the continuous progress of machinery that churn out increasingly precise and performing optics. The edge of the roof in Kowa is not easily perceived visually, it is so thin.”

As a guy that has bought a ton of used Japanese made vintage porros, the opticron 6.5x32 is something I'm already familiar with. I wish that some of the binocular makers would have stuck with porros a bit longer to the effect of a whole series of BaK4 equipped, fully multicoated binocs still being made. But the (birder) market has spoken and the market has moved on to China from Japan and porros to roofs. Not sure it would be as much fun to take apart a roof for cleaning and minor alignment work like it is on a classic porro. Regards, Pat