New Viking 8x42 ED FF w fieldflatteners (2 Viewers)

These might be interesting... FOV 8°

http://www.vikingopticalcentres.co.uk/binoculars/viking-8x42-ed-ff

Anders

An 8x42 with a FOV of 420' @ 1000 yards and a flat field too for 399 British Pounds or $625.00 more or less!:smoke:

I would have to see that to believe it.

Bob

Haven't seen these yet, the rep was in not too long ago and no mention of them, perhaps they've been keeping them quiet! Hopefully he'll bring them in next time to look through, they do sound good for under £400!

JoeRawles said:

Haven't seen these yet, the rep was in not too long ago and no mention of them, perhaps they've been keeping them quiet! Hopefully he'll bring them in next time to look through, they do sound good for under £400!

Click to expand...

Meanwhile you can order a Zeiss 8x42 SF with a FOV of 440'@1000yards and a Flat Field for a mere $2000.00 or 1220 British Pounds more!:eek!:

Bob

I am trying to order a pair....
Maybe they will get back to me on monday.

Anders

I did have a very casual look at all 3 EDs in the Viking range, not realising the FF was new. The Pro was easily the best but twice the price of the FF. I think my comment on the FF to the Viking rep at the time was "good colour but not sharp enough". The ED-S I don't remember which is probably not a good sign.

David

David,

So is the vanguard endeavour ED II 8x42 better than the viking 8x42 ED-FF ?
Both cost 399 £.....

Here is some info Viking OC was kind to give me on the 8x42 ED-FF.

- What is the eye relief ? 22mm
- Is it FMC ?Yes ED glass
- Is it water proof ? Yes
- Weight ? 850g
- Warranty period ? 10 years
- Does it have dielectric coatings on the prisms. Yes
- How many turns on the focuser from close to infinity ? Focus direction ? 2.5 turns Left for infinity
- Where is it made, China, Japan? Japan
- FOV looks like 8° on the photo , right ? Yes
- temperature interval for use & storage....it is a bit cold here in Sweden wintertime ? for use -20˚ to 45 ˚ for storage -25 ˚ to 55 ˚
- Are you planning to make an 8x32-ish version, and if so, when will it be available ? Not yet


Anders

Anders,

I'm sure the FF deserves a more considered look. All I can say is at the time I didn't think it as sharp as the ED-Pro and the Vanguard I have is as sharp as it gets. Of course the wider view and slower focus may be prefered by some.

David

David,

If you have looked through the 8x42 McKinley or Prime HD, could you please comment on image performance to the ED II and the ED-FF?

I have noted that when i look through a bin with spectales, sometimes like CA seems much less than when looking without spectacles. My eyes are myopic.
I think it is a good idea to mention using spectacles or not and what type of correction used. I often forget to mention this myself.o

When looking through the ED II and ED-FF, did you use spectacles, type of correction?

Thanks,

Anders

Anders,

Not seen the ZR or Leupold I'm afraid.

The Viking FF was just done with glasses and the Vanguard I've checked thoroughly with and without glasses. My distance prescription is fairly weak, about +1 if I remember rightly, and about half that for astigmatism.

David

Well low and behold the rep has just been in so I've had a chance to have a look through and compare them side by side with similarly priced models. I must say I think they performed incredibly well, the wide field of view is great and with the field flatteners they really make the most of it too. The ED glass performed beautifully, no CA noticeable to my eyes. Brightness and contrast was comparable with other models, perhaps a bit better. The weigh more than some but handle very well and feel balanced in the hand, the thumb rests sitting in the right place for me. The rep was pretty sure they were Chinese made, not Japanese (which their ED Pro models are). All in all I was very impressed, will be interested to hear more opinions as they roll out.

Short review of Viking 8x42 ED-FF

Here is a short review I made of the Viking 8x42 ED-FF.
Some comparisons made with ZR Prime HD 8x42 , Leupy 8x42 McKinley and Viking 6.5x32 MD. Tested with Mark I eye ball armed with spectacles.

The bin is delivered, put in a thin textile bag , and then put in a black binocase similar to the ones for the Prime/Mckinley.

General:
I really like the overall “neat” format of the bin, compared to the McKinley.
Length with eye cups down: 15.2 cm.
Weight with rubber cups : 857 gram
Center of gravity: estimated 80mm inwards from the front.
Dressed with rubber with very good friction so it doesn´t slip. Thumb indents. The Prime is too easy to slip out of the hand, strange they put that slippery rubber on it…
Twist up rubber eye cups has in total three positions and has smaller diameter (45mm) than Prime/McKinley. (47/48mm-ish). Eye cups rounded at top. Eye cups move 9.4 mm to the end position when twisted all way.

Diopter control (at right eye piece ) & hinge not to easy nor too hard to move.
Ocular lens diameter 26 mm, same as Prime/McKinley.
Focus wheel (OD 32,5mm, length 25.8mm, practical length to get traction 20mm) made of metal, same “splines” design as the McKinley. I like that better than the Prime design.

The ring holding the objective lens has an inner diameter of 41mm…so this is not a true 42mm bin.
Looking through the objective end using a flash light I can see small dust particles inside on the optical surface…I don´t think these will effect the image, to small to see from the other side so to speak. QC issue…have you seen dust inside 400-600£ bins assembled in Japan? Maybe these are assembled in China after all ;-)

Focus wheel. Tension similar to Prime/McKinley….not as smooth as the Viking 6.5x32 MD i have, few comes close :smoke:., no slop to talk about. Focus anti-clockwise to infinity, with 1.4-ish turns from end to end. Like 0.3 turns past infinity.

Neckstrap is connected on the outer side of the barrels, good.
Rubber protective cups on objective and ocular sides stays in place, not like on the 6.5x32 MD where they nearly fall off the objective ends, too loose. Cups on ocular side same style as on the Prime/McKinley.

VOC said it was made in Japan, but there is no text on it, nor on the box etc stating that. I guess it should be marked with country of manufacture, right?
It has a serial number.


Flat field, looking at vertical lines, bends slightly when moved towards the edge of the image.
CA slightly more than Prime.
Resolution, almost the same as Prime/McKinley, looking at a test chart, only one test group below. No boosted resolution test. Tests done indoors with artificial light so take result with a large grain of salt…see it as a relative comparison.
Large sweetspot, sharp close to the edge, good enough.
Collimation: When looking at an object far away and then removing the bin quickly, the eyes were looking a bit at different directions…QC issue...It will be sent back to VOC.
Optical coatings looks green on ocular side and on objective side.
Some focus hunting to find best sharpness, may give feeling it is not directly sharp.

Freezer test: After kept in -18° C for 12 hours, the focuser was very hard to move, dioptre adjustment possible. Hinge possible to adjust but hard to do.
I wouldn´t really call it operational down to -20°C....as stated earlier in this thread.

Summing up: A very nice bin for the money, even nicer when looking through without spectacles :t: . If you get the chance, take a closer look at it if you like image style similar to Prime/McKinley.

Anders

Anders,

Many thanks for the report.

How did you think the sharpness compared in daylight? Normally our eyesight wouldn't be good enough in artificial light to spot resolution differences so the even one pattern difference might be quite significant.

I still have the Endeavour ED II and a Prime on the way, but I'm not sure if or when I'll get another chance to look at the D-FF.

David

Typo,

Thanks for your thanks...

I haven´t done that kind of chart resolution test in daylight (yet). I have looked at stationary objects like bark on a tree, and i think it is a little bit easier to get the right focus on the prime/McKinley. Maybe the focus is too fast on the ED-FF and not that smooth causing some difficulties getting perfect focus.

The Prime/McKinley gives a bit better image when looking with spectacles, more forgiving concerning eye/spectacles placement. I like long ER, maybe the ER on the ED-FF isn´t perfect for me., causing some difficilties in focusing. When looking without spectacles it is easier to get better focus more quickly....

I am also getting "older" eyes, maybe "younger" eyes without spectacles get a completely different and better view through the ED-FF :eek!:.

It will be most interesting to hear, if possible, your comparisons of the Vanguard - Prime - ED-FF.

Anders

Binoseeker said:

.....
I haven´t done that kind of chart resolution test in daylight (yet). I have looked at stationary objects like bark on a tree, and i think it is a little bit easier to get the right focus on the prime/McKinley. Maybe the focus is too fast on the ED-FF and not that smooth causing some difficulties getting perfect focus.

Click to expand...

I'm not going to trust a vague memory of a brief comparison to speculate on exactly what the different was when I tried them. All I can say for sure was that I thought ED Pro was really pretty good and the ED FF suffered by comparison.

I'd find it useful if you could do chart comparisons in strong light (boosted and stopped down would be better ) One less technical test I often do is to to just check the line of trees about 300m from our house. There are some bare twigs about 10-20mm thick silhouetted against the sky. Technically these are below the resolution limit of both the binocular and the eye but a quick comparison of how distinct and black they look often gives a strong indicator of combined effective resolution, contrast and CA control.

David

Here are some photos taken from ocular and objective side of the Prime, McKinley och ED-FF.
Maybe a bit too dark but better than nothing

Anders

I checked the ED-FF and Prime HD for center resolution against a resolution chart outdoors today, it was overcast.
Both bins were equally good. I looked without spectacles.

Anders

I have not tried the prime ED but I went binocular shopping with another proffessional ornithologist today and he picked out the 8x42 ED FFs. I would not argue with that; little different from Leicas at twice the price and superior (IMO) to some Zeiss Terras (*the cheaper Chinese licensed Zeiss binoculars) as these suffered from overly sensitive focussing that could make fine focussing difficult. The 10x42s ED FFs were problematic IMO as there was sufficent spherical abberation that during scanning the field swam a bit and was unpleasant (although the look and contrast of the image was very good). Human eyes have spherical aberration also and part of finding a pair that suits you involves compensating for this so do not take my word for this, perhaps they might suit your eyes, but neither of us liked the 10x pair. The 8x42s did not have this problem. I liked the wide-feeling eye-lense distance insensitive feel of these, it's something you tend to notice on the most expensive binoculars. We did not have much in the same price range to compare the 8x42s with but some RSPB 8x42s - we thought these were marginally better (RSPB model had some internal reflection issues) and preferred the feel of them, they are chunkier and heavier but just feel more comfortable to hold. The salesman preffered the marginally cheaper RSPB model but we didn't! We were not so impressed with a cheaper pair of Viking ED S binoculars but that could have been a colimation problem with that pair. The 8x42s struck me as as being an excellent pair of binoculars with a wide field of view, very sharp, very little chromatic abberation and, so far as we could tell, bright. Personally I'd still like a pair of swaros but the price ain't worth it IMO, people buy these things as status symbols but mid range bins are very close to the alphas these days and are also waterproof, armoured, well built etc.

I Have a pair of Viking bins and the spec was wrong - way heavier; I cannot carry them.

Why is the specified exit pupil only 4.2mm for the 8x42s?

They have probably mixed data between 8x42 and 10x42 on VOC homepage.
For 8x they specified fov to 6.4* which is wrong , shall be 8*.