Vortex Razor UHD 18x56 ? (1 Viewer)

John,

It seems the feet and metres thing causes more confusion than it should, but then we still buy beer in 568.261ml quantities and want to know my car fuel consumption in miles per 1.20095 US gallon.

I know models like the SP Kite Bonelli 2.0 x42 have an unusually obvious offset, but it normally seems modest in most smaller SP binoculars.

David

typo said:

Chuck,

Are you referring to the Allbino 2011 test of the Viper HD 10x42 that scored 140.9/170? Back then the Viper had dull, distinctly creamy colour balance, the contrast and effective resolution and CA were nothing special. The 2016 Swarovski SLC was yards better on all those points yet scored just 139.8/170. I know as an astrophysicist Arek likes flat fields of view and low distortion so it's no surprise the Vanguard Endeavour EDII 10x42 scored well, but that very odd colour balance kills contrast after sunset, and the super critical eye positioning on the 10x42 makes it a bit of a pain to use. Regardless of a score of 144.8/170 I wouldn't put it anywhere close to the top of my tree.

I should acknowledge the colour of the Viper HD has improved since 2011, but not enough to sway my own opinion on the advantages of the Razor. If you're not convinced that the Razor HD offers better optical performance than the Viper HD, then stick with the Viper. Please, just be wary of justifying it with an Allbinos score.

Cheers,

David

Click to expand...

David,

I'm curious as to what year Vipers HDs you owned? The two I've owned(8X32, still have and 8X42) certainly displayed no creamy color balance. Also, what year Razor HD did you own? There have been several renditions of Vipers/Razors.

As far as the color balance of the Endeavor ED II vs sunset....I would think that would come into play well after most birders are on their way home.

Allbino's test....like any test/review there are some things that is great info and then some items that just doesn't apply to me. For instance I know of only two places to see actual light transmission data. Pretty awesome info. I also know I have never used a binocular tripod mount as I always use either the Snapzoom universal tripod mount or the Swarovski UTA. Of course I wouldn't put the Endeavor ED II in my list of top three binoculars but it certainly is in my top three binoculars less than $500. Regardless it IS impressive that the reviewer DOES think enough of that binocular TO rank it so highly.

Chuck,

If you haven't noticed the colour characteristics I described, or not convinced by the Allbinos spectra, then I don't suppose there is much I can do to persuade you that these colour difference are pretty obvious to some. They not only influence purchases, but users also know which binocular to choose for use in different light conditions.

I've probably tried and compared around 50 MIJ Viper HDs and half that number of thr Razor HD in the last few years and know their characteristics pretty well. I've only tried around 15 samples of the Endeavour EDII, but have owned one for several years, but it only gets an outing on the sunniest of days.

David

P.S. "Regardless it IS impressive that the reviewer DOES think enough of that binocular TO rank it so highly". On the contrary, as has been pointed out many times on the forum, it shows how fundamentally misleading totalling scores can be as a guide to performance.

typo said:

Chuck,

If you haven't noticed the colour characteristics I described, or not convinced by the Allbinos spectra, then I don't suppose there is much I can do to persuade you that these colour difference are pretty obvious to some. They not only influence purchases, but users also know which binocular to choose for use in different light conditions.

I've probably tried and compared around 50 MIJ Viper HDs and half that number of thr Razor HD in the last few years and know their characteristics pretty well. I've only tried around 15 samples of the Endeavour EDII, but have owned one for several years, but it only gets an outing on the sunniest of days.

David

P.S. "Regardless it IS impressive that the reviewer DOES think enough of that binocular TO rank it so highly". On the contrary, as has been pointed out many times on the forum, it shows how fundamentally misleading totalling scores can be as a guide to performance.

Click to expand...

David:
I am curious, where in the world could you find, and have a desire to try that many examples of a Vortex binocular ?

Jerry

Jerry,

I could come up with a long and convoluted answer, but it's really just down to the product of time opportunity, curiosity and a lousy memory for secondary detail.

David

I have gotten pretty obsessed with high magnification in the last year or two, so I wouldn't pass up an opportunity to look through the 18s if it presented itself.

Based on the specs, these binos are really big though (8.3"L x 6.1"W). Too big to be a serious contender for me in any of the configurations currently available.

The 10x42 Razor UHDs are longer and wider than my 12x50 Viper HDs (7"L x 5.6"W vs. 6.5"L x 5.2"W). I see that they are probably AK prisms where the Vipers are not, but still. That's a pretty big penalty when it comes to size.

The 12x50 UHDs are similar in size to my Swarovski SLC 15x5s (7.6"L x 5.8"W vs. 7.64"L x 5.5"W) both with AK prisms.

I'll go with the higher magnification, larger objective in a smaller package.

As far as the 18s go, I would be much more inclined to spend money on the Kaibabs, which are only slightly larger than the SLCs previously mentioned.

-as you were,q

Hiho. Lots of facts and opinions about exit pupils, twilight factors and binos in general. Some comparisons (Viper HD vs Razor HD) also. Lots of mays and mights. But almost no details and experience made in the fields concerning the

Vortex Razor UHD 18x56

So please could someone share some more facts around the 18x56 UHD personally experienced?
Much appreciated: ergonomics in general, colour rendition, chromatic aberration, field curvature, sharpness and contrast center-edge...

Cheers!

Vollmeise said:

...but almost no details and experience made in the fields concerning the Vortex Razor UHD 18x56. So please could someone share some more facts around the 18x56 UHD personally experienced?

Click to expand...

I have the UHD 18x56, and I like it a lot - to me, the ergonomics are excellent for this configuration: the slender barrels are easy to grasp, balance feels great, eye-relief is more than adequate for me (~16mm or better), center-field resolution seems excellent, field curvature is present but the outer edges sharpen nicely with refocusing, and I don't see any astigmatism at the edge of the field.

Lateral chromatic aberration is present at the edge, and although it does improve with careful eye placement, it's there nonetheless - users with a strong aversion to CA should take a test drive before buying; I myself don't mind it particularly.

I can't speak to color rendition, since my eyes see colors differently (left=red, right=blue).

My impression of the UHD's construction quality is excellent; it gives me the same feeling of attention to detail that the earlier, made-in-Japan, Razor HDs did: excellent fit and finish, perfect collimation, and a solid and robust feeling overall.

Cheers,

John

John,

that's helpful and good news indeed. I decided to order a pair of the 18x56 UHDs and may hold them in my hands end of the next week.

I might post a short review and comparison vs Canon 18x50 IS and Swaro SLC 15x56 within the next weeks, as soon as I can arrange a field test with some friends of mine (owning those bins).

Cheers,

Vollmeise

Vollmeise,

I will be curious with the comparison of the three, and let us know how you like them including viewing upstairs.
Thanks John for providing some actual user info, have you used them on the night sky?

Andy W.

dries1 said:

Thanks John for providing some actual user info, have you used them on the night sky?
Andy W.

Click to expand...

Hi Andy,
Not yet; weather and sky conditions here have not been cooperative lately. But I'll do so at my earliest opportunity.
John

You are right about the weather, tonight is the first good night in a while, last night too much moon. Getting in some sky viewing before 2000 or so.

Andy W.

For what it’s worth I have a pair of the 12x50UHDs and think they are pretty strong as well. Many like to compare to Swaros but I haven’t. That said they are better than everything else I have looked through if size and weight aren’t an issue.

I thought personally the UHDs are very strong. Haven’t compared to swaro but lots of others and found them to be superior in everything but weight and size. I was using the 12x50s but based on not many offering 18x I bet they are a great value.

Roger Vine of Scope Views has just posted a review of the Razor UHD 18x56 at: http://www.scopeviews.co.uk/VortexRazor18x56.htm

As always worth reading. It includes direct comparison to the Swarovski SLC 15x56


John


p.s. for some added perspective, BH Photo lists the Vortex for US $1.7k verses the Swarovski at $2.3k

Guess which ones are the Vortex Razor UHD 18x56's?

John A Roberts said:

Roger Vine of Scope Views has just posted a review of the Razor UHD 18x56 at: http://www.scopeviews.co.uk/VortexRazor18x56.htm

As always worth reading. It includes direct comparison to the Swarovski SLC 15x56


John


p.s. for some added perspective, BH Photo lists the Vortex for US $1.7k verses the Swarovski at $2.3k

Click to expand...

I got the Vortex Razor UHD 18x56 for $1.5K with free shipping @ EuroOptics.

Congratulations, Dennis, on this great new acquisition of yours!!

Can you tell us more about the UHD?

As mentioned by John, Roger Vine just did a great review of the 18x56 and calls them „truly and ‚Alpha‘ binocular“, but then lists 3 things that would be no-go‘s for me:

- compared to the SLC, quote „ quite a lot more false colour, again especially off-axis“

- again against the SLC, more stray-light and spikes issues

- worst of all, and this would be an absolute no-go for me, quote „the dioptre setting changes slightly as you focus and re-focus“. That for me would be unacceptable in any expensive binocular.

Maybe Roger got a a bad sample?

Canip

Canip said:

Congratulations, Dennis, on this great new acquisition of yours!!

Can you tell us more about the UHD?

As mentioned by John, Roger Vine just did a great review of the 18x56 and calls them „truly and ‚Alpha‘ binocular“, but then lists 3 things that would be no-go‘s for me:

- compared to the SLC, quote „ quite a lot more false colour, again especially off-axis“

- again against the SLC, more stray-light and spikes issues

- worst of all, and this would be an absolute no-go for me, quote „the dioptre setting changes slightly as you focus and re-focus“. That for me would be unacceptable in any expensive binocular.

Maybe Roger got a a bad sample?

Canip

Click to expand...

These Vortex Razor UHD 18x56 binoculars are stunning as Roger Vine says! I did not expect the resolution, brightness and clarity from this high of a magnification binocular. These are almost like looking through an apochromatic scope. They took me by surprise. These could easily replace a spotting scope. They are very comfortable to hold even for their size because of the slimmer tubes unlike the fatter tubes on the SLC. On-axis CA is very well controlled but they do have more lateral CA than my UHD 8x42's but that is to expected because as you go up in aperture and especially magnification with a short focal length instrument like a binocular you are going to have more CA laterally. They probably do have more lateral CA than the 15x56 SLC as Roger say's but that is most likely due to the big difference in magnification. Going from 15x to 18x is huge! It seems like much more than going from 12x to 15x. I will tolerate a little more CA on the edge for the huge advantage in detail from the higher magnification. The slight CA does not affect the amazing view as far as I can see. I tried them under different lighting conditions and I thought they performed very well for stray light and I saw no excessive spikes. As far as I can see they handle glare very well. I tested the dioptre drift that Roger talks about by looking very closely at the dioptre as I continually rotated the focuser and I saw no movement at all with my pair. Roger either had a defective pair or possibly he didn't have the dioptre in the locked position. I don't really see how the focuser would possibly even change the dioptre as the dioptre is on the right ocular and has no connection with the focuser. Maybe he was touching the dioptre with his hand as he focused. Anyway mine did not move in the slightest. The thing you really notice about these UHD's is the sensational contrast and brightness due to the AK prism. It performs at a much higher level than an SP prism. Even with only a 3.2mm exit pupil these UHD's are amazingly bright so the transmission must be very high. I am surprised more binoculars don't use AK's but it does increase the length and weight of the binocular. The quality was perfect just like the 8x42 UHD's and comparable to any alpha binocular out there. The eye cups work as smooth as a Swarovski and better than a Zeiss SF. Overall this is one awesome binocular and should really perform on the night sky , as well as, for long range viewing. It should be great on a tripod but if you hold it further down by the barrels and steady yourself you can actually get rid of a lot of the shake and the detail on-axis at 18x is incredible. At the 9 foot close focus you are looking at a bird or insect from 6 inch's away. This is a very impressive binocular.

A pair here for sale, interesting reason why they are no longer a "keeper"
.https://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=385924