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

Hi

They are waterproof I have had mine out a good few times in downpours and have been fine. I have not had them out in the extreme cold yet.

The official distributer for the UK is a company called Pyser. The specs are listed on the following link;
http://www.pyser-sgi.com/product.asp?ParentID=383

There is also a good review on them at;
http://www.betterviewdesired.com/march02/index.html

Cheers,
Macca B

No comparison. Swift 820 (I recently evaluated the ED and only found it only very marginally better). The regular swift audubon 820 is a real bargin.
A multi habitat birder is not going to be limited by the FOV or by the slightly poorer optics by the midranged roofs. If you bird venezuelan jungle you are going to notice the advantage big-time of wide FOV. For me the 8.5 Mag was a little High- I tend to prefer 7x.
For those in england the Opticron Aspheric for me wins hands down the low price value for money bin (£80 or approx $145) though I personally didn't get on with them. The Swift Audubon 820 comes next (currently at around $250)
However if you have a little more money to spend, the old classic Zeiss 7x42's you can find for around $600(new although they are now discontinued). Ive never visited Trinidad, but I hear the Asa Wright center and birding in general is terrific. By the way, I have posted a link called the perfect binoculars where some comments you might find helpful

rka said:

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

Click to expand...

Yes ... birding in Trinidad is great! A lot of variety for such a small island. I ended up choosing the 828HHS mainly because of its potential to handle wet and humid conditions better than the 820. So far ... knock wood ... I've been very satisfied with the purchase.

Interestingly, I purchased a cheap Olympus Tracker x8 porro binoculars and it's image was surprisingly crisp at the centre and just a shade inferior to the 828.

It has become the binoculars I keep in the glove compartment.

rka

finfoot said:

No comparison. Swift 820 (I recently evaluated the ED and only found it only very marginally better). The regular swift audubon 820 is a real bargin.
A multi habitat birder is not going to be limited by the FOV or by the slightly poorer optics by the midranged roofs. If you bird venezuelan jungle you are going to notice the advantage big-time of wide FOV. For me the 8.5 Mag was a little High- I tend to prefer 7x.
For those in england the Opticron Aspheric for me wins hands down the low price value for money bin (£80 or approx $145) though I personally didn't get on with them. The Swift Audubon 820 comes next (currently at around $250)
However if you have a little more money to spend, the old classic Zeiss 7x42's you can find for around $600(new although they are now discontinued). Ive never visited Trinidad, but I hear the Asa Wright center and birding in general is terrific. By the way, I have posted a link called the perfect binoculars where some comments you might find helpful

Click to expand...

Looked Thru 828 At Cape May Birding Outing Loved Them And Birding Pros Thought They Are A Great Buy.try To Get Them For Under $300.

I checked with the swift company and they said anything they sell advertised as waterproof must be able to be able to withstand 5 minutes of submersion in 5 feet of water. If the lenses become internally fogged which is possible then they would replace or repair them under warranty.

I'd like ta add my tuppence...I've found over the last 20 yrs (since I became an optics junkie) that generally anything Swift markets gives a lot of "bang for the buck". Their recently discontinued Ultralite 42's and certainly the 820's and 826's can compete head to head with units from other outfits costing 3 & 4 times as much (except for weatherproofing). This new 828 is no exception....for under $300 it's untouchable. While not quite as sharp as the 820, it makes up for in eye relief and better weatherproofing. The afov, at 54*, is just enough to give an "easy" view and 18+mm of er makes it a winner. As I'm reluctantly pushing 60, the eyeballs aren't quite as capable as they once were and I see better sometimes with the specs on (my eyes aren't quite the same day to day....have to make occasional diopter chgs). I'll keep my 820 with its lousy eye relief, but will consider long & hard adding an 828 to my inventory.

Swift 828 HHS 8.4x44 review

Swift 828HHS Audubon 8.5x44 (Swift product code for this is 828 HCF)
This is Swift's first (and so far only) roof prism binocular to carry the Audubon name and size of 8.5x44. Typical retail is $349 as of December 2005 though can be found online several places for just under $300 delivered (incuding shipping). These are fully multicoated Bak4 prisms and phase coated, which is a basic requirement for any roof prism i would consider. Swift's web page for this is: http://www.swift-optics.com/products/birding/eight_power/828

Upon taking it out of the box, the quality of manufacture is clearly high. Well fitted. Smooth moving. Nice feel to focus. Comes with a well fitting dustcap for ocular lenses that attaches to neckstrap. Objective lenses have the standard plastic lens caps. Are nice and compact. Much smaller than Nikon Monarch ATB roofs for example, and even year 2000 Pentax DCF SPs by a touch. The neck strap is comfortable and of generous length.

These are not featherweight binoculars. They feel solid, as made with real metal bodies and hinges and substantial glass. Feel like old-school durable quality. They do not feel too heavy around the neck though I did start to notice the weight in hand while glassing for an extended period while testing focal distances and setting diopter. But no more than I do with the Pentax DCF SPs for that matter. The interpupillary distance on these is as large as any other binocular and as usual for me, I was bringing the barrels quite close together (almost all of the adjustment) to fit my eyes. These would not fit very small faces or children well. The twist up eyecups are fair. Only has click stop at full "out" position or full "in" but twist is firm so will stay where you leave them if you wish a middling spot. For me, the eye relief was perfect at full extension. The eyecup is hard plastic and I found that even pushing against my face I could not 'meld' these to my eyesockets to keep side light out of eye. This is not really an issue for me as i am used to holding binoculars with varying gaps...

Optically, these are very good. Collimation is excellent and center image is clear, bright and clean. Testing alignment by focusing on distant cross, pulling head back and looking eye to eye showed steady same image which did not move one iota! At outside distances, the edge of the Field Of View was well defined and appears as one properly overlapped image. Interestingly, indoors (i.e. looking at the wall about 15' away) the FOV clearly appears as two slightly overlapping cirlces. I feel some slight eye strain inside with artificial lighting and at the indoor distances. Outside, I did not notice any eye strain.

I can confirm what is reported elsewhere that the outside edge of the viewing image is degraded. Doing the math, i estimated that 85-90% of the FOV is excellent with only a thin (but discernable if you look for it) band uniformly around the edge which was both darker and slightly blurred. The image quality was excellent right to this edge band where it dropped off. This contrasts to the Pentax DCF SPs which are to my eyes perfectly clear to the crisp sharp edge of the FOV. (But good luck finding the Pentax much under $600 today! ) However, my usage agrees with the idea that the middle is what is important as i tend to keep what i'm focused on in the center. I only noticed the blurred edge when i looked at it. Outside the FOV, the void is perfectly dark as it should be.

It was flat grey stormy weather today so didn't get to experience/evaluate full color spectrum performance yet, but what color i did get a chance to see was satisfactory. Tomorrow morning will take these along on a duck hunt, so will get to experience some dark->dawn performance. I can't wait! ;-)


Other:
The included soft case is snug fitting and a bit tight when trying to put binocular in with attached neck strap. I would wish a touch more room for accommodating this standard 'accessory' when fitting the case. The case also comes with a belt loop sewn on the back. If you intend to carry this upon a belt (it is small enough!) I would want to tuck the permanently attached carry case shoulder strap into the case as well. But then good luck closing the case if you have the neck strap attached, too. Just too tight. If I actually use the soft case on a belt, it will be easy enough to cut the strap off and add an additional friction buckle. But one wonders why was this designed so?

Good review.
Agree with what you say - really feel good in the hand.
My IPD is tiny and the Swift suit me fine - I've tried many bins that I can't use.
The eye relief is great as a glasses wearer and using them one handed is no problem.

I fold up the strap to store the bins in the case and it only just fits - the common 'slips off the shoulder' strap had to be cured with a home made rubber grip.

I really don't notice any edge degradation as I'm probably not looking for it but the image I do see is very nice.

I do like the hidden dioptre adjustment - worth the price just for that.

Focus is slow but accurate.

I'd be interested if you see chromatic abberation - I see it with black ducks on brightly lit water as a purple fringe but my brother doesn't see it at all.

Nice bins - very pleased with them and thoroughly enjoy using them.

I replaced the strap with a neoprene one, never use the objective caps as they fall off too easily - I could grow old with these bins.

Last weekend I finally got a chance to evaluate the Swift 828 at Scope City in San Francisco. Frankly, for a glass priced at $299.99 I thought they were terrific. Very clear and bright with wonderful eye relief for those with glasses. I'd recommend them any time to someone with a limited budget, or really needs the eye relief. I'm tempted to add one to my collection, or better yet buy one for each of my kids.

Ed
PS. Correction: I'd recommend them to anyone interested in a good birding glass, period.

Sorry about the immersion problems you guys are having.

Have not gotten to see the roofs yet. I checked out the porros, and though it did cut down the field a bit, they were very useable with glasses on. Very bright for the price. The cups pull out and then lock into place for use without glasses. Very few porros are designed for glasses wearers.

I'm keeping an eye on these as I am very interested in 8.5x and there are almost no others in this price range.

elkcub said:

Last weekend I finally got a chance to evaluate the Swift 828 at Scope City in San Francisco. Frankly, for a glass priced at $299.99 I thought they were terrific. Very clear and bright with wonderful eye relief for those with glasses. I'd recommend them any time to someone with a limited budget, or really needs the eye relief. I'm tempted to add one to my collection, or better yet buy one for each of my kids.

Ed
PS. Correction: I'd recommend them to anyone interested in a good birding glass, period.

Click to expand...

does anyone know if these 828's have the same design screws which are used on the porro prism models,i read some where on this forum that the porro's don't hold collumnation to well[something to do with the screws that adjust the internal prism housings?].
i briefly tried a pair and thought they were quite good,they can be had for £229 from warehouse express.any thoughts.

matt

matt green said:

does anyone know if these 828's have the same design screws which are used on the porro prism models,i read some where on this forum that the porro's don't hold collumnation to well[something to do with the screws that adjust the internal prism housings?].
i briefly tried a pair and thought they were quite good,they can be had for £229 from warehouse express.any thoughts.

matt

Click to expand...

My 828's have been bounced around and generally abused (as you do) with no ill effects - lovely glasses.

Chris Oates said:

My 828's have been bounced around and generally abused (as you do) with no ill effects - lovely glasses.

Click to expand...

I now own a pair of 828's. According to Alison Swift (President, CEO) they are made by Hiyoshi Kogaku, Llt., the same company that made all their Audubons for the last 35 years (so I guess that also includes the 820). They have a slightly narrow AFOV, but have very bright and clear images, plus excellent twist-out eyecups and generous eye relief. I really like them.

Ed
PS. Matt, being a roof design I'm sure they don't have the same collimation screws as the 820 porro prism. They actually feel a lot like the Swaro 8x30 SLC.

elkcub said:

I now own a pair of 828's. According to Allison Swift (President, CEO) they are made by Hiyoshi Kogaku, Llt., the same company that made all their Audubons for the last 35 years (so I guess that also includes the 820). They have a slightly narrow AFOV, but have very bright and clear images, plus excellent twist-out eyecups and generous eye relief. I really like them.

Ed
PS. Matt, being a roof design I'm sure they don't have the same collimation screws as the 820 porro prism. They actually feel a lot like the Swaro 8x30 SLC.

Click to expand...

Ed - I thought the original Audubons were designed and made by Tamron in Japan - is that the same outfit as the Hiyoshi folks?

elkcub said:

I now own a pair of 828's. According to Allison Swift (President, CEO) they are made by Hiyoshi Kogaku, Llt., the same company that made all their Audubons for the last 35 years (so I guess that also includes the 820). They have a slightly narrow AFOV, but have very bright and clear images, plus excellent twist-out eyecups and generous eye relief. I really like them.

Ed
PS. Matt, being a roof design I'm sure they don't have the same collimation screws as the 820 porro prism. They actually feel a lot like the Swaro 8x30 SLC.

Click to expand...

did you get the model with the central dioptic adjustment in the focus wheel,how would you compare this with similar designs from swaro/leica.

matt

chartwell99 said:

Ed - I thought the original Audubons were designed and made by Tamron in Japan - is that the same outfit as the Hiyoshi folks?

Click to expand...

Tom,

Yes, indeed, the original Audubons were made by Tamron for the first decade. For the last 35 yrs. they were made by Hiyoshi Kogaku, which is a different outfit. I didn't make that distinction too clearly in my earlier post.

What surprises me is that Hiyoshi (apparently) still make the current 820 porro and 828 roof Audubons, although I can find no indication of that on either binocular. The serial number of my new HHS 828 doesn't seem to be date coded either. From previous BF exchanges I have gotten the impression that the 820 may still be date coded, but that has yet to be verified.

Incidentally, Hiyoshi Kogaku also produced all the large body European Type 3 Audubons, and other B-body formats that didn't have American counterparts. Renze de Vries is the emerging expert in that area. The managing director of Swift is located in The Netherlands.

Swift Optical is considering the development of a museum now that they moved their Boston operation to San Jose and inherited some of the early pieces.

Ed

matt green said:

did you get the model with the central dioptic adjustment in the focus wheel,how would you compare this with similar designs from swaro/leica.

matt

Click to expand...

Matt,

Good question, I hadn't connected with that idea. Yes, I have that model and will report a comparison when there is time. Basically, the overall feel is very similar to my 10x42 SLC, and the focus controls are very much alike (altho opposite in direction). I am quite impressed with them to say the least.

Scryeball did an excellent first impression report on post #27, which is identical to my own impressions.

I usually go through a new-binocular thrill period, but right now I also have an 8x30 E2 that's thrilling me. So, the logical thing to do is compare the two in various ways.

Ed

Matt,

The integrated diopter control on the HHS 828 Audubon in some ways is nicer than the Swaro 10x42 SLC. Once it's pulled out the adjustment can be made easily and then locked by pushing it back. By comparison, the Swaro must be held in for adjustment but locks by itself when released. Six of one half dozen of the other. The Swaro does have a ±5 range to the the Swift's ±3 for those who need it.

Unfortunately, I've come to realize that my view is much improved by using my glasses. Although far sighted, my left and right eyes have opposite astigmatism, which the brain (what little I have left) balances out. However, the extended eye relief of the HHS Audubon (19mm) lets me see the entire field easily. So my glasses improve the apparent size and contrast quite a lot. The 10x42 SLC doesn't have as much eye relief, so the field is slightly cut off. Net result: both binoculars produce different sizes of the same (absolute) visual field. The Swift optics are terrific with only a little more off-axis CA and quite flat. Resolution and color contrast is outstanding and depth of field is excellent. I love 'em.

Ed

thanks for the insight,i wondered how you adjusted the diopter setting on those swaro's,when i tried out the 7+42 and the 10+42 i did'nt have to reset
it as it was already set in the middle position which suits my 20/20 vision.

strangly i've never been that impressed by anything from swarovski and i'm still mithering over a pair of trinovids or ultravids,maybe nickon LXL's.

matt

matt green said:

thanks for the insight,i wondered how you adjusted the diopter setting on those swaro's,when i tried out the 7+42 and the 10+42 i did'nt have to reset
it as it was already set in the middle position which suits my 20/20 vision.

strangly i've never been that impressed by anything from swarovski and i'm still mithering over a pair of trinovids or ultravids,maybe nickon LXL's.

matt

Click to expand...

Matt,

I suspect a lot of binocular preferences are psychological (and beyond further explanation). In my case the Swaros impress me, as do the Zeiss, but Leicas put me off. Go figure. Right now I'm thinking the Swift 828 is gangbusters. It holds its own with the 10x42 SLC, at least for me.

Regards,
Ed