• 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 828 Audubon 8.5x44 vs Swift 929 Ultra 8x42 (1 Viewer)

Sheepdog

New member
Greetings!!

I was wondering about the Swift 828 Audubon 8.5x44 vs the Swift 929 Ultra 8x42. They seem to sell for around the same price. Which is the better binocular?

Also, is the Eaglet worth the extra $$$?
 
Welcome to BF!

I had a brief chance to look at the two side by side a year or so ago. My preference was for the 828, but, then, I am an Audubon format enthusiast. I like the larger 44 mm objective and .5 power increase. Also, the Audubon's AFOV is 54.5 deg. vs. 52 deg. for the 929. Every bit helps when they get below 60 deg. Finally, the Audubon has an integrated focus/diopter control and is still made in Japan by the Hiyoshi Kogaku. The 929 is a Chinese product with an unproven history.

Figure this out. The latest Swift Sport Optics catalog pictures the orignal 828 without an integrated diopter/focus control. One could read nefarious motives into this, but I'll just point it out as a curiosity.

I haven't had a chance to look at the Eaglet. The AFOV is even narrower at 50 deg, but it is reported to have outstanding transmission. Again, the diopter adjustment is not integrated with the focusing wheel, making it less sophisticated in that respect.

Blue skies,
Ed
 
Last edited:
Swift Eaglet

I have not had either of the two Swift Porros you make reference to. However I bought a Swift 7x36 CFT Eaglet about a month ago. I always have some doubts whenever I see something that says that the light transmission is 99.8%, as claimed by Swift for the new Eaglet. I make a living evaluating human engineered systems, and that is just a little too close to perfect for me to take at face value. Having said that this is a very bright glass, much brighter than you will expect for the $450 (Eagle Optics price) you will pay for the binocular. I bought a Vortex Viper 8x42 when I got the Eaglet. I figured I'd let the optics tell me which was best. I was unable to tell a difference. Kept the Eaglet for its nice compact size and returned the 8x Viper for a 10x42 Viper.

While I had them, I was able to find Pentax SP, Kahles, Minox BR, HG, Ziess Conquest, and a Nikon LXL 8x32 at a couple of dealers. Both the Eaglet and Viper were so very close optically to the others, that I would be hard pressed to tell the difference. Certainly I would need to get the glasses out in the field and give them a serious side by side workout. The difference is that the Pentaz, Minox HG and Kahles are more expensive. This pretty much solidifies my opinion that the Swift Eaglet and Vortex Viper are quite probably the best buy for price vs quality.

I was looking to upgrade my Nikon Monarch 8x42, both Eaglet and Viper do that, being both noticeably brighter and sharper to my eye. The Eaglet is also superior in both brightness ans sharpness to my Baush & Lomb 7x26 compact, which is a really fine binocular. I really don't think the world would have noticed if Swift and Vortex would have priced these binoculars $200 higher than they are.

The Eaglet, does however have a couple of potential structural problems. The eye cups are twist up, either in or out, nothing in between. They really need to lock better in the out position, for mine at least, are a little on the weak side. However for me, the all the way out is just right, and using sunglasses or my reading glasses, all the way in works just fine. Also the movement of the center hinge is also looser than I would like. Similarly, the center focus also moves with far too little pressure intentionally applied to the focus wheel, which by the way moves through one revolution.

Some people seem to feel that the 374' FOV is too small. I am a center field binocular user, ant I think the FOV is just right, however that is a strictly personal choice. It is what it is and you will like what you like. Right now, the Swift Eaglet is the one glass I would keep if I had to have only one. There is a definite improvement over the Monarch, and to my eyes, the next "improvement" comes at the Nikon LXL level, or +2x the price of the Swift (or Viper).
 
I'm looking forward to the introduction of the 8x42 Eaglet. I was looking at the 7x36 Eaglet, and it seemed very nice. One concern -- there was more play in the focus wheel than I think should be there for $450. Could have just been that particular unit.

The Swift site says the Eaglet has Kellner occulars, presumably as a selling point. From my amateur astronomy days I remember that Kellner telescope eyepieces are ok but not top of the line for that application. What design do most binoculars use, if Kellner is worth bragging about?
 
Last edited:
The Swift site says the Eaglet has Kellner occulars, presumably as a selling point. From my amateur astronomy days I remember that Kellner telescope eyepieces are ok but not top of the line for that application. What design do most binoculars use, if Kellner is worth bragging about?

I´m not sure if Swift really want to brag out the use of Kellner EPs. I think nowadays eyepieces of the Erfle type are the most common ones in building binoculars. Eyepieces that deliver wide fields of view are an expense factor in binoculars production as well as good coatings and high quality glass are. Some manufactores offer binoculars with wide fields but only avarage light transmission and contrast. Others like Swift with the Eaglet or Pentax with their SP series go about doing it the other way around: binoculars with quite narrow FOV because of a simple eyepiece construction but with state of the art coatings and light transmission.

SteveI
 
Others like Swift with the Eaglet or Pentax with their SP series go about doing it the other way around: binoculars with quite narrow FOV because of a simple eyepiece construction but with state of the art coatings and light transmission.

But that's just the thing -- according to the website the 8x42 Eaglet will have a FOV of 372 ft at 1000 yds -- that's quite wide for a full-size 8x! That's almost as much actual FOV as the 7x36 Eaglet (so much more apparent FOV of course).
 
But that's just the thing -- according to the website the 8x42 Eaglet will have a FOV of 372 ft at 1000 yds -- that's quite wide for a full-size 8x! That's almost as much actual FOV as the 7x36 Eaglet (so much more apparent FOV of course).

Don´t know the 8x42 Eaglet but similar or equal FOVs within the same series of a manufactorer is quite common among binoculars even of the highest class. Firstly the manufactorers can reduce production costs by dividing the same components (e.g. eyepieces, objectives, prisms, housings) for different products. In the development of the product line they use to take one model, for example the 8x42 (cash cow configuration for most manufactorers) and give them the best specs they can for a given price. Other configurations are often only modifications of that models with some kind of trade-offs. Binoculars of low magnification need to be BIG to provide a wide FOV.

Steve
 
Last edited:
I'm sure you're right that they try to keep parts the same throughout the line to save money. However, 7x36 and 8x42 models with nearly identical FOV can't have objectives or eyepieces in common.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 17 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