• 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.

Swift Audubon HHS 8.5x44 Roofs vs Opticron BGA Classic 8x42 vs Nikon Monarch 8x42 (1 Viewer)

Charltonfan

Well-known member
I'm looking to buy some bins and am interested in the Swift HHS roofs but how do they compare to the Opticrons and the Nikons? The extra magnification seems a plus and they are quite light. What are the differences regarding sharpnes,colour,contrast and brightness etc? My budget is £300. I can get the Monarchs for nearer £250 and my local dealer is doing a claimed £100 discount on the Opticrons making them £299. Swift's are £300. Looking through the Swift's along side the others could be difficult as not many dealers seem to stock them in the Uk.
Many thanks
Steve
 
Thanks for the reply Richard. I currently own a pair of Swarovski 8.5x42 El which are superb and the new binoculars are to be a surprise birthday present for my wife. She currently has a pair of Viking 8x42 porros which are ok but I'm interested in the Swifts partly because my wife likes the extra bit of magnification available when she looks through mine!I have checked out the other thread which gives favourable
feed back for the Swifts. Comparing them with the other brands is difficult as not many places seem to stock them. I've emailed In Focus to see if they can get any in. Failing that, Pyser ,who are Swift's UK importer have come up with a couple of fairly local suppliers who they can 'loan' a pair to but those suppliers don't stock the other bins so I wouldn't be able to do a direct comparison! I could take a chance and buy some on line and return them if my wife doesn't like them as a last option.
Ps I know the Swifts or any £300 binocular cannot realistically be expected to match the Swaros but hopefully I can get a pair that will be a big improvement on the Vikings and offer a view much closer to the Swaros! Hopefully my wife,who is an occasional bird watcher, will be impressed enough as I really cannot afford another pair of Swaros!!!!
 
Thanks Ted
I have seen the Better views Desired test which is very favourable. The field of view is quite narrow though(102m or 336 feet) as opposed to say the Opticrons at 360 feet or 110 metres. Not sure how noticeable this would be in the field though
 
The field of view is quite narrow though(102m or 336 feet) as opposed to say the Opticrons at 360 feet or 110 metres. Not sure how noticeable this would be in the field though
The field of view for the Swifts is actually 112 metres not 102. Somewhere along the line it was misquoted on the web and the error has been perpetuated. It is actually embossed on the focus knob and is quoted correctly on Swift's latest website.

I have owned a pair of HHS roofs for around four years and find them excellent. They are very good optically and extremely well made. They feel excellent in the hand and are nicely balanced. I have only a couple of complaints with them: the focusing is excellent but rather slow and mine are the original versions with pull up eyecups and they tend to drop back down a bit to easily. The current version has twist up eyecups which should overcome this problem.

Overall I think they are excellent binoculars for the price and I would recommend them highly. I have since bought a pair of Trinovid 8x32 BLs and, although they are smaller and a bit lighter, with a wider field of view, there isn't that much to choose between them optically. The eye relief on the Swifts is much better than the Leicas too.

Ron
 
Last edited:
Thanks for your comments Ron. I just checked Swifts web site and there does seem to be a bit of a discrepancy. They state the FOV is 336 feet or 112 metres. At 112 metres this would equate to 367 feet which is very good and as that is what is embossed on your bins it has to be the right figure! All I need to do now is try them in the field against the Opticrons and Nikons, If I can locate a pair that is!
 
Thanks for your comments Ron. I just checked Swifts web site and there does seem to be a bit of a discrepancy. They state the FOV is 336 feet or 112 metres. At 112 metres this would equate to 367 feet which is very good and as that is what is embossed on your bins it has to be the right figure! All I need to do now is try them in the field against the Opticrons and Nikons, If I can locate a pair that is!

That would be 367 feet at 1000 meters and 336 feet at 1000 yards, which amounts to about the same thing. The EL has about 60' more FOV at 1000 yards. That is 6 feet at 100 yards. You can do the rest of the math. The shorter the distance the less significant it is.

I had the opportunity to compare the HHS with the Swaro 8.5 x 42EL for about 15 minutes a couple of years ago. The EL is better, but not IMO $1200.00 in US funds better! I liked the ergonomics better on the HHS. If felt better in my hand. It had a big "sweet spot" too. The EL was a bit brighter and had slightly better contrast. I was looking at squirrels in a bird feeder under mixed lighting conditions and into trees. I'm still thinking of getting an HHS!
Bob
 
I have just checked the wording on the focusing knob on my Swifts (I keep them at work so couldn't check last night when I posted.) The exact wording is as follows:
Swift
Audubon
8.5X,44
Waterproof
336ft/1000yds
112m/1000m
Made in Japan​

I forgot to mention that the focusing knob is covered in a knurled rubber finish, which is much less slippery than the Trinovids. Holding them again I have remembered just how much I like them.

Ron
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the advice everyone. Pyser have come back to me with a couple of outlets they will send the bins to for me to test on a 'sale or return basis' so I'll post again once I've tried them out
 
I visited East Hanningfield Reservoir in Essex today to try out the Swift Audubon HHS 8.5x44 roof prisms. Unfortuneately they didn't have them in so I tried out the Opticron 8x42 BGA SE imagics, the Swift audubon EDs porros and the Hawke Frontier 8x43 EDs together with my Swarovski 8.5x42 Els. As to be expected my Swaros were the sharpest brightest and colour natural of the bins looked at. However when I looked through the Hawkes I was amazed at how bright and sharp they were. They were not far behind the Swaros image wise and only cost a third of the price! The Opticrons and surprisingly the ED Swifts were noticeably duller than the other two binoculars and the view was much less appealing.The only issues with the Hawkes was that the build quality was not quite as good as the others,particularly the twist up eye cups, and how good the waranty or after service is. I still intend to view the Swift roofs but at the moment for the price the Hawkes take some beating!
 
Well, the 8.5x does very little for me. If I had otherwise identical pairs to pick from but 8x and 8.5x, I might go 8.5x. Otherwise, some brands of 8x would beat some models of 8.5x, even for resolution.

From the opening post, the Swift most likely is the best.
 
Well, the 8.5x does very little for me. If I had otherwise identical pairs to pick from but 8x and 8.5x, I might go 8.5x. Otherwise, some brands of 8x would beat some models of 8.5x, even for resolution.

From the opening post, the Swift most likely is the best.

Having tried them in the garden over the last couple of days I feel the Swifts are excellent all round binoculars and at just over £300 are difficult to beat for the price optically, apart from by the great optics of the Hawke Frontiers.
But as I have said previously optical excellence is not always enough. The overall 'package' is also important with regards to build quality, usability, and warranty/back up service.
Having been fortuneate to own a pair of Swarovski 8.5x44 Els for about a year now I like that extra bit of magnificaton with minimal loss of Fov over the 8x bins I have tried. To my eyes it does seem to give that extra bit of resolution even if it is just a result of the image being slightly bigger. I notice this has been mentioned on other threads as well
Regards
Steve
 
Warning! This thread is more than 15 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top