• 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.

Sightron "Blue Sky" II 8x32 (2 Viewers)

Interesting! I am having trouble comparing them on my IPad because it takes me a few seconds to go from one picture to the next. However, the only thing I thought I noticed was that the ED3 looked much better than the others.

Rip
 
Nix,

Sorry I didn't see this until now. I wasn't online much this past weekend.

All of the pics were taken at the same resolution setting on the camera. I did have to move the target back farther for the Yosemite because the close focusing distance was beyond that of any of the other binoculars.
 
No problemo Frank and I thank you for taking so much time in the presentation. There's obvious differences in various models/quality, yet we also must be mindful that a mite over 100KB is a small representation of resolution compared to optical quality.

Still, they show quite a bit and one can see the sharp center, focus and pic degrade as it moves outward. I like what even low resolution pics tell me in that how close a less priced glass can compare/compete w/more expensive especially under differing circumstances.

By providing the digital examples we can magnify w/software and make further comparisions.

It was no big deal for me to flip the pics once I'd saved them and I had to because otherwise they were distracting to me. I'm not strong willed enough to ignore the letters/words and concentrate on characters.
 
Nix,

I should have some time this evening to try to take some more pics. I will set the print upright and take some more pics through the 7x43, 7x36 ZRs and the 8x32 Sightron. All were taken at a 3 megapixel setting. I can increase it to 10 but will have to change it over to jpeg format and downsize in order for it to fit in these posts.

Lets see how it turns out...as long as time allows.
 
Frank, I appreciate the effort, but please don't do this for my sake. I understand that to come close to optical quality would probably require 18-26 mega-pixels. Even pics in the 6MP-14MP range would need to be saved to a tiff file for the resolution and the size would be well beyond huge. Humongous comes to mind.

I realize sites have image restaints and for good reason. Some people just don't know how to crop vacation/dog pics and if you're not magnifying pics attempting to pull out a detail then big pics just don't do much except slow down dial-up/slower DSL connections and further clog the bandwidth.

However, w/caveat rendered should you go through the trouble of posting I'll copy them and compare. I value your opinion and I'm still pondering the Sightron II 8x32. A fourth the price of the Meopta is my kind of glass for my wallet.
 
This post is a reply to a question over in the binocular bargains thread. I thought it made more sense to post it here....

I agree. That is a good question. I don't have both on hand at the moment so will have to compare by memory at this point.

Optical Differences:

The color bias of the Ultra HD tends to go more toward the blue-green. It reminds me very much of the Zeiss FL in this regard. The Sightron is decidedly warm (reddish but not quite as red as the Excursion 8x28).

Apparent sharpness is slightly better in the Ultra HD..in the center of the sweet spot (see my post in the Bushnell subform on the Ultra HD). The size of the sweet spot is larger in the Sightron so the level of apparent sharpness is better across a wider area in comparison to the Ultra HD. The severity of the distortion outside the sweetspot is also lower in the Sightron so the image appears more relaxed overall.

Apparent brightness favors Ultra HD slightly and only in lower light levels.

Contrast goes to the Sightron.

The field of view is wider on the Ultra HD but because of the percentage of the field of view obscurred by it and the severity of it takes away from the advantage provided by it.

CA control is slightly better with the Ultra HD in the sweet spot. Outside of the sweet spot the Sightron is better.

Ergonomic/mechanical differences:

Both are fairly ergonomic overall. I prefer the open bridge style of the Sightron which makes its 19 oz weight feel much lighter than it actually is. It is hard to describe but the bin feels half the weight that it is. I also tend to prefer the texture/styling of the rubber armor of the Sightron. The large open-ribbing of the Ultra HD just doesn't feel as pleasing in the palms of my hands.

Focusing speed is about the same but I will have to double check that. The tension is a bit stiffer on the Sightron but not objectionable by any means. It gives me a better sense of control to "dial in" perfect focus. Consequently, the depth of focus also appears to be notably better in the Sightron.

I prefer the fit and finish of the Sightron more so than the Ultra HD though there isn't anything truly objectionable about the Ultra HD. That positive "stop" at each end of the focusing range plus the tension level of the Sightron are two characteristics that reinforce this feeling. Everything functions as intended (rotating eyecups, central hinge, diopter adjustment, etc...)

All I can think of for now....
 
Frank, it kinda sounds like you prefer the BSII w/smaller size and weight over the extra 10 MM in ED.

Yes, I do. The larger sweet spot and better ergonomics outweigh the slightly better apparent resolution/CA control in the smaller sweetspot of the Legend Ultras.
 
comparing 8x32, Sightron vs Nikon

A few days ago a friend contacted me for advice on what binoculars to take on an upcoming trip to Patagonia. She knows nothing about optics, except that the Nikon zoom binoculars she had bought at REI were ridiculous. I put her on to this thread.

After reading the raves, she ordered the 8x32 Sightrons from Amazon. I was probably more eager than she was to take them out for a field trip. So this afternoon we walked in the Phoenix Botanical Gardens, she with her new Sightrons, me with my Nikon 8x32 SE. We gazed at flowers, thrashers, and a hummingbird.

I didn't touch the Sightron diopter correction – we both wear glasses and it was right for me too. I was totally impressed with the view through them. The ergonomics are perfection.

She thought the SE was really good too. "It ought to be, it costs three times as much," I told her. I almost felt like asking if she wanted to trade, permanently.

I think I must now buy a pair.
 
I am happy to hear that not only were you confident in suggesting these bins to her but also that she, and you, were enthused about their performance and handling. I really do have to do a double-take every time I use these binoculars. The price is just icing on the cake.

As a side note, I did have the opportunity to compare the Sightrons to one of my other favorite 8x32 models, the Meopta Meostar 8x32. Many of you know that I have always enjoyed the little Meoptas. Their ergonomics (thumb indent positioning, texture of the rubber armor and placement of focusing knob, etc...) are all excellent. The little Meopta has always been one to offer high end optical performance at a price roughly half of what you would expect to pay from many of the comparable quality but more expensive products. Based on that I was really looking forward to comparing the Sightron to it.

Optically:

The two are very comparable in a variety of areas. The both offer a larger than average sweet spot of image in focus and free of distortion. Very comparable. The Meopta may be just a hair larger but, in practical use, I can detect literally no difference. Centerfield apparent sharpness is identical. Both appear to display all the level of detail that you would want or need from the image. Apparent brightness appears to be relatively equal with maybe a slight nod going to the Meopta. Contrast levels are entirely comparable between both units.

They differ in a few noticeable ways as well. The Meopta utilizes field flattener elements in the eyepiece so the view is a bit flatter. As I mentioned in my original comments about the Sightron there is some field curvature in the outer edge of the image. There is a bit in the Meopta as well but it is slightly more well controlled.

CA is relatively well controlled in both instruments though I will have to give the nod to the Sightron in this area. It displays less not only in the center of the field but also along the edge as well. I can detect CA fairly easily in the area outside the sweetspot in the Meopta but not so readily in the Sightron.

Also, as I had mentioned previously the Sightron has a slightly warm bias. It is in the red area of the spectrum. It is only noticeable in direct comparison with a binocular of a different, or neutral, color representation. The Meopta tends to favor the yellow end of the spectrum and possibly a bit of the green

Ergonomics:

This is another toss-up. I enjoy the ergonomics of both but for different reasons. The texture of the Meopta's armoring and the placement of the thumb indents makes this model fit almost as comfortably, and in a similar way, as the the Swarovski EL 8x32. That is high praise in my opinion. The Sightron excels in that the open bridge design allows for perfect hand placement for my hands plus the length of the binocular further contributes to this level of comfort.

I have not checked the physical weight comparison of these two models yet but the Meopta feels heavier despite the fact that it is shorter. Neither feels excessively heavy though the Sightron certainly feels lighter than it is becaue of the open-hinge design.

Mechanics/fit and finish:

The Meostar is entirely comparable in this area with many of the German/Austrian models. It feels extremely solid and has many metal components. The eyecups, central hinge and focusing mechanism are extremely well made and function flawlessly.

The Sightron appears to be made of a plastic/composite material which probably helps in the weight reduction. Its components function equally well in particular the feel of the focusing mechanism.

No complaints with either model.

So, to summarize, I think anyone would be happy with either model when you take into account their individual traits. The question in my mind then is whether or not the Sightron is on the same optical and ergonomic level of the Meopta. In my opinion it is. Different feel but the same level of optical performance in a different package.

A few days ago a friend contacted me for advice on what binoculars to take on an upcoming trip to Patagonia. She knows nothing about optics, except that the Nikon zoom binoculars she had bought at REI were ridiculous. I put her on to this thread.

After reading the raves, she ordered the 8x32 Sightrons from Amazon. I was probably more eager than she was to take them out for a field trip. So this afternoon we walked in the Phoenix Botanical Gardens, she with her new Sightrons, me with my Nikon 8x32 SE. We gazed at flowers, thrashers, and a hummingbird.

I didn't touch the Sightron diopter correction – we both wear glasses and it was right for me too. I was totally impressed with the view through them. The ergonomics are perfection.

She thought the SE was really good too. "It ought to be, it costs three times as much," I told her. I almost felt like asking if she wanted to trade, permanently.

I think I must now buy a pair.
 
what's interesting is that the Vixen New Foresta and the Meopta Meostar are ranked right next to each other in the 8x32 Allbinos rankings.

Allbinos dings the Meopta for the yellow bias in the "whiteness" score, but otherwise they score nearly identically in the optical categories.

The reason that the Meopta scores higher (130 vs 126) is entirely due to the 4 point edge in FOV score. While both claim 8-degrees, the Meopta actually measures at 7.95 whereas the Vixen measures at 7.58. Did you notice any FOV difference in real world use?

Another interesting nugget is your comment about the flat field... whereas Allbinos gives the Meopta a pretty poor score for "distortion" noticing that curvature starts only 32% of the FOV from the center.
 
Well, I've been searching for reviews on the 10x56 Vortex HD Vulture, but realize if I do decide on them that it'll be a while for the prices to drop. So, I ordered the BL 8x32.

I need that size for the light weight/portability and the price along w/reviews was alluring as well.
 
Well, I've been searching for reviews on the 10x56 Vortex HD Vulture, but realize if I do decide on them that it'll be a while for the prices to drop. So, I ordered the BL 8x32.

I need that size for the light weight/portability and the price along w/reviews was alluring as well.

Is that the Minox BL 8 x 32 BR?

Bob
 
I am happy to hear that not only were you confident in suggesting these bins to her but also that she, and you, were enthused about their performance and handling. I really do have to do a double-take every time I use these binoculars.

Frank,

I'm really grateful for your discovery of the Sightrons. I have them now on order from Amazon. My Canon 10x42 IS is now on eBay – unlike many on this forum I try to limit my binocular inventory to three, so it's out with the old to make room for the new.

Checking the specs on the Sightron website, I see the closest focus for the 8x32 is listed as 18, presumably 18 feet. I think this must be a typo, perhaps it should have been listed as 10 feet. Can you set this record straight?
 
aostling

The question on close focus was asked back in post #16 and this is what Frank responded:

Someone else also mentioned that. It is a typo...straight from the manufacturer's website. They actually focus about a foot closer than the Nikon SEs. I haven't done the exact measurement yet but I would estimate 7 feet.

Tom
 
what's interesting is that the Vixen New Foresta and the Meopta Meostar are ranked right next to each other in the 8x32 Allbinos rankings.

Allbinos dings the Meopta for the yellow bias in the "whiteness" score, but otherwise they score nearly identically in the optical categories.

The reason that the Meopta scores higher (130 vs 126) is entirely due to the 4 point edge in FOV score. While both claim 8-degrees, the Meopta actually measures at 7.95 whereas the Vixen measures at 7.58. Did you notice any FOV difference in real world use?

Another interesting nugget is your comment about the flat field... whereas Allbinos gives the Meopta a pretty poor score for "distortion" noticing that curvature starts only 32% of the FOV from the center.

To answer some of your questions.....

No, in practical use I did not notice a difference in the field of view. If I paid specific attention to it, after reading your post, I did note a slightly wider apparent field of view with the Meopta. In practical use I did not notice it. I have not measured either instrument in this regard but I would expect them to be accurate based on their posted specs for field of view.

Interestingly another forum member pointed out that the Sightron website lists the SII BS to have a 420 foot field of view. The bins themselves states 7.5 degrees (393 feet) and this does coincide with my experience comparing them with the SE 8x32 and the ZR ZRS 8x42. I wonder why all three manufacturers (Sightron, Vixen and Kenko) came up with the 420 foot field of view number. In the case of the Sightron, at least they have the correct field of view on the bins themselves. The other two do not.

As for field Meopta's flat field, I don't have an answer for you. I do not notice field curvature except in the smallest percentage of the field of view around the edge. The image appears very flat in regular use.

Also, to further comment on the comparison, after further use in the field I would note that the Sightron actually provides a slightly better apparent sharpness in the center of the field.
 
Thanks for all the work Frank. I look forward to receiving them in a few days. Interestingly the SIII MS 8x32 is listed at 394'
 
Last edited:
thanks Frank. Interesting as I didn't realize the Sightron version was correctly marked at 7.5 degrees (not the optimistic 8 like the Vixen or Kenko)... although amusing that they forgot to change the 420ft part on the website!
 
Yes, it is kind of funny. I wonder what the situation is there. If it was just one company nobody would make that much of it but now there are three.

I wonder if the Minox model also fits into this group. I didn't check the advertised specs though I would be curious it they are accurate.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top