-
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.
New review of Golden Ring 8x32 (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Fireform
- Start date
Kevin Purcell
Well-known member
THe link is
http://www.birdforum.net/reviews/showproduct.php/product/267
Where did you find them for $450?
http://www.birdforum.net/reviews/showproduct.php/product/267
Where did you find them for $450?
Kevin Purcell
Well-known member
I wasn't sure if that one was real or not. Glad it worked for you.
Thought the weight is a nagging doubt. When I initially scanned that bargain post it was the "big thing". After all I generally would choose a 32mm (and give up some exit pupil) because it's lighter than a 40ish mm bin. But I have a 40ish mm bins that are 4oz lighter than the GR, about the same length and they cost me about the same (Bushnell Elite in this case). I would guess based on reviews I've seen that the Elite equals or betters the non-HD GR optically (though I've never used a GR myself).
Last edited:
CDNN is a real place, but probably not well known among birders because they mostly sell firearms. If they're blowing out GRs below cost, it's safe to say the GRs are being discontinued.
I stumbled upon the GRs because I found that the Zeiss 8x32 FLs did not quite take the optical crown from my SEs, and I didn't want to have more than $1K tied up in what would be foul weather/backup bins. At the price, I couldn't resist the GRs and came away very impressed--they will serve very well. A more conventional choice would have been something like the Minox or the Kahles 8x32 roofs (which CDNN also has on sale)--I've looked through the Kahles and found them very good. The GRs are to my eye optically better--there is an immediacy to the view through them that is seductive, and so many roofs, even the most expensive, have a kind of haze to them that obscures fine detail. I haven't seen this described in reviews much, but when I'm trying to count tines on a deer in deep forest or make out the difference between a the texture of boar or calf fur at 300 yards, the slightest shortcomings of my optics become glaringly evident. There is no undo function on a rifle, and a major role for hunting binoculars is to help you avoid mistakes. The fact that Leupold is a model citizen among companies and that I feel good about supporting US industry also plays a role.
Ironically, Leupold scopes have always been among the lightest in any given format, so the weight of these things is a puzzle. However, they are still a good bit more compact than an 8x42 glass, they feel good in the hand, and the view is superb for the money, so they're going to stay.
I stumbled upon the GRs because I found that the Zeiss 8x32 FLs did not quite take the optical crown from my SEs, and I didn't want to have more than $1K tied up in what would be foul weather/backup bins. At the price, I couldn't resist the GRs and came away very impressed--they will serve very well. A more conventional choice would have been something like the Minox or the Kahles 8x32 roofs (which CDNN also has on sale)--I've looked through the Kahles and found them very good. The GRs are to my eye optically better--there is an immediacy to the view through them that is seductive, and so many roofs, even the most expensive, have a kind of haze to them that obscures fine detail. I haven't seen this described in reviews much, but when I'm trying to count tines on a deer in deep forest or make out the difference between a the texture of boar or calf fur at 300 yards, the slightest shortcomings of my optics become glaringly evident. There is no undo function on a rifle, and a major role for hunting binoculars is to help you avoid mistakes. The fact that Leupold is a model citizen among companies and that I feel good about supporting US industry also plays a role.
Ironically, Leupold scopes have always been among the lightest in any given format, so the weight of these things is a puzzle. However, they are still a good bit more compact than an 8x42 glass, they feel good in the hand, and the view is superb for the money, so they're going to stay.
Kevin Purcell
Well-known member
Thanks for the insights, Fireform.
Tero
Retired
The 8x32s are pretty typical, there are a few other brands out there.
The 10x32 is interesting. I relly have nothing to go for with 10x32s, no experience. If they weighed the same as my 10x42s, I would be OK, it gives steadyness. The typical improvement in fov from 315ft to 356ft or so does not get me all that excited. The 8x32 improves fov more. But the whole package with HD glass and all, I might go for 10x32 at 450 dollars.
The 10x32 is interesting. I relly have nothing to go for with 10x32s, no experience. If they weighed the same as my 10x42s, I would be OK, it gives steadyness. The typical improvement in fov from 315ft to 356ft or so does not get me all that excited. The 8x32 improves fov more. But the whole package with HD glass and all, I might go for 10x32 at 450 dollars.
Kevin Purcell
Well-known member
I was assuming they're non-HD. I think all the reviews of optical quality of the GRs have been non-ED.
Looking at the web site they have product number "LEU61400": 61400 is the non-HD product number. The current GR HD 8x32 is 62800 (according to the Leupold Product Ordering Information PDF).
Now the GR 8x32 HD at $450 would be very interesting!
How were they for CA?
One thing I've noticed with non-ED/HD/etc is that the ED objectives really do make a difference for CA (and I suspect CA related sharpness) especially for a bird flapping it's wings (the eye seems to see rapidly moving CA much more ... mine do and a couple of other people have commented on this too).
One of the nice things about the SE (well, amongst the nice thing about the SE ...) is for a non-ED bin they seem to have very little CA.
How would you directly compare the GR to the SE?
What other bins would you compare the GR to?
Did you AB the GR and the Zeiss FL?
Or were you just less than impressed with the FL peformance for the cost?
Just trying to "draw a bead", so to speak.
Thanks for any comments.
Last edited:
No, they definitely are not being discontinued.
The model you have (Non-HD) has been upgraded (to HD) and thus the older stock is being sold off at high discounts. But the GR line is not going anywhere.
FWIW, I have a non-HD 8x42 GR and it performs wonderfully. I do sometimes wish it was the 10x but, it's not enough to make me want to replace the one I have.
Kevin Purcell;1359661 said:
The best binoculars that I have had the chance to directly compare against my 8x42 Leupold GR are:
- Vortex Razor (8x42)
- Swarovski EL (10x42 and 10x32)
- Swarovski SLC (10x42)
With the Swaros, I would have liked to have done a comparison with like-magnification units but, that wasn't available to me at the time.
I saw nothing in these other binoculars to cause me any jealosy or to make me want to "upgrade."
I have also compared the GRs to some other, less expensive models (Nikon Monarchs, Bushnell Discoverers (roof), Nikon Action Extremes, Pentax DCF WPs, etc.) but, these comparisons aren't nearly as telling as the Leupold clearly (and expectedly) bested them all. Considering I got my GR for $500, I think I made out pretty well...
Yes, mine are the non-HD version--I corrected the title of my review, so thanks for that.
It's interesting to me that Leupold improved an area of the GR's optics--chromatic aberration--where there was not much room for improvement. It's my understanding that fluoride glass reduces dispersion but does little or nothing for transmission. The regular GRs already have less CA than any roof I've looked through except the Zeiss FLs. Higher reflectivity in the prism coatings would have made a more significant improvement.
It's interesting to me that Leupold improved an area of the GR's optics--chromatic aberration--where there was not much room for improvement. It's my understanding that fluoride glass reduces dispersion but does little or nothing for transmission. The regular GRs already have less CA than any roof I've looked through except the Zeiss FLs. Higher reflectivity in the prism coatings would have made a more significant improvement.
Nope--they're magnesium framed. Using them has made me re-evaluate the importance of very light weight in binoculars. If you're going to use a harness anyway, a few ounces one way or another are never going to be noticed, and they are easier to hold steady on the target than, for instance, the 8x32 Zeiss FLs I used to have.
I've already given my two cents on another thread, but I will add again my admiration of the GR 8X32. Are there better? I believe that there are. Are there better in today's world under $1800? I doubt it. To use them is a joy. I bought mine for $390 and am grinning every time I think about the options available. If they can still be had for $450, I strongly recommend them. For an "insignificant" price, you are gaining the advantage of near top of the line binoculars.
chartwell99
Well-known member
The GR 10 x 32s are equally impressive but also on the heavy side (which, coupled with my recent acquisition of a Stokes 10 x 42, is why my GR 10 x 32's are presently listed for $365 on that unmentionable online auction site).
