• 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.

Atlas Optics Intrepid review. (1 Viewer)

Steve C

Well-known member
I have an Atlas Optics Intrepid for a few days now and have done much comparing of them to my ZEN ED and my Promaster ELX ED. There are more similarities than there are differences, so let’s list those first.

The Atlas looks more like a Green Promaster than it does the ZEN. The armor is the same green as the ZEN, but is the same smooth cover as the Promaster. Like The Promaster, the Intrepid’s armor is thicker than the ZEN and thus there is a bit more space between the barrels in the ZEN. The Intrepid has the same eye cups as the Promaster, leaving the ZEN the only one of these with the more smoothly rounded cups.

The Intrepid is advertised as having oil repellent coatings, called See Clear by Atlas. There is no mention of water repellency that I can find. Promaster advertises oil repellent coatings they advertise as Repellemax. These have been represented as water repellent as well. The ZEN ED has neither oil nor water repellent coatings. Zen Ray once mentioned that their tests showed these coatings showed a slight lowering of the light transmission.

There is indeed an apparent difference in the color of the objective coatings of the three binoculars. The Atlas has dark green coatings, the Promaster has coatings with a Violet or Purple color, and the ZEN is primarily green with definite purple undertones.

From the ocular end, the Atlas is still green. The Promaster is primarily purple with a green undertone. The ZEN is green with purple undertones.

The Atlas and the Promaster advertise themselves a having 42 mm objectives and the ZEN with 42 mm. All three of mine seem to measure 42mm.

The field of view is listed as 393’ @ 1,000 yds with the Promaster, 420’ with the Atlas, and 426’ for the ZEN. I did not check the field of view over a precisely measured distance, but using a measuring tape across the field of view from top to bottom shows the Atlas falling between the others, so the specification is probably close.

Now the ergonomics are the same, again which should be no surprise. There is a bit of difference in the focus travel in the Atlas. This one I have moves through 2.7 turns. However the extra .2 turns on the Atlas that I have comes after infinity, so the focus from infinity to close focus is the same on all three.

The Atlas Intrepid 8x42 is a very inconspicuously marked binocular; the only thing on it says Atlas; 8x42; Intrepid ED on the focus knob.

The images are also more similar than different, but there are some differences if you look. The Atlas seems to have a bit more edge distortion than the ZEN or the Promaster. It sounds more like the Hawke descriptions on image. The Promaster has a bit more warm bias, and the ZEN appears brighter. The process of separating practical differences in image is probably fruitless.

What we have here it seems to me is another source to produce a top notch image in the mid range price. The image on the Atlas will stand up to the high end alpha just as well as the others of its type before it. Here we have it picked up and offered for the first time by a well established optical company with an outstanding warranty reputation. It probably carries some differences from the others of its lineage, but the truly outstanding optics for the money binocular now has another source.

It is hard to provide a unique product review here. These are at the same level and worth of the same accolades given to the ZEN, Hawke, and Promaster binoculars. Some people may simply prefer to deal with Eagle Optics on these, and that is now their option.
 
Last edited:
Steve,

I'm working on a review of both the 8x42 and 10x42 Atlases. It will be a few days before I can post it, but from what I've seen so far I can say that the FOV of the 8x42 is quite a bit smaller than the 420' spec. It's about 390', maybe a few feet more.

Henry
 
Hi Steve...I am interested in how these different coatings deal with stray light,inner reflections and glare in general..and also if there is anything related with FOV that could affect in any manner the way glare shows in the image..Have you noticed if there are differences in the way these binoculars perform in regard to this issue?..
 
Thanks Henry. Since you are doing that, I will now go and do it from a measured 10 yards. I'll post what I get.

Mayoayo, there seems to be no noticeable difference in how they handle light, inner reflections, or glare. My guess, and it is just that is that the color differences have to with either the lack of repellent coatings in the ZEN, oil only in the Atlas, and both in the Promaster. As far as I know there is not much about quality and performance that can be foretold by the color of the coatings.
 
Henry,

I look forward to hearing your comments.

Steve,

Nice review. I look forward to handling these bins myself. Based on your comments it sounds very much like these compare optically to the Hawke Frontier EDs. The edge performance in particular.

Isn't it great to have another binocular out there with such excellent optical performance in this price range?
 
Henry,

I think this is ample illustration that some things need to be measured. I apologize for posting guestimations. After using Kimmo's post as a method, I measured 30' from the objective as precisely as I could. The fov of the three I have is as follows:

Atlas Intrepid-396' @1,000
Promaster ED-404'
ZEN ED 408'

For those who remember Kimmo's post on the subject, these are a different ZEN ED than I used for those measurements.

Frank,
It is nice to see another label on this binocular. Some folks will purchase from EO that otherwise might not. I would not be surprised to see another label put on this binocular. However, at some point the manufacturer needs to realize the some caution on the numbers of labels they contract with for the same binocular will become counterproductive. This basic binocular is too good to be ignored.
 
True Steve. What I now find fascinating is the subtle differences in each design. From what I remember of the Promaster it had good edge performance and color with a bit of a sacrifice in field of view versus the Hawke or Zen. The Hawke had a noticeably wider field of view but with softer edges. The Zen had the better aspects of both so it would be the one I would look to compare the Intrepid to.

Also, I just received notification that the Bushnell Legend Ultra HD 8x42s are in stock. I should have a pair for review before the week is out.
 
I've never looked through a Zen or Promaster, but I did look through a Bushnell Legend Ultra HD 8x42 today and compared it against the Atlas Intrepid. There's a significant difference in edge sharpness between the two, the Intrepid being discernibly better. Therefore, I don't think the Ultra HD is of the same stock as these other three binoculars. I'll be interested in reading other opinions about the Bushnell.

Mike M.
www.birddigiscoper.com
 
I've never looked through a Zen or Promaster, but I did look through a Bushnell Legend Ultra HD 8x42 today and compared it against the Atlas Intrepid. There's a significant difference in edge sharpness between the two, the Intrepid being discernibly better. Therefore, I don't think the Ultra HD is of the same stock as these other three binoculars. I'll be interested in reading other opinions about the Bushnell.

Mike M.
www.birddigiscoper.com

I think that might be a fair assessment. One of the reasons I did not try and pre-order a Bushnell Legend HD was because it has been my understanding that the ED glass worked better at longer focal lengths rather than shorter ones. The Intrepid and its kin are longer than the Legend HD.

I once talked to the technical people at Vortex about the Vipers and they said while the Viper's XD glass was true ED glass (Abbe number over 90), the CA suppression was better in the 50mm Vipers than the 42 mm because the extra length worked to the advantage of the ED glass.

Also it would seem to be hard not to give up some edge distortion to the wide field of the Legend HD when keeping the price in the $300 range and using ED glass to boot. It seemed to me that there were too many compromises to balance there. I also look forward to the comments about the Legend HD.

But at any rate, the Intrepid seems to be a top quality binocular that seems to control CA quite well.
 
Now the ergonomics are the same, again which should be no surprise. There is a bit of difference in the focus travel in the Atlas. This one I have moves through 2.7 turns. However the extra .2 turns on the Atlas that I have comes after infinity, so the focus from infinity to close focus is the same on all three.

Thanks for the review Steve. But that seems like too slow a focus to be a really good birding binocular. I get frustrated with the 1.5 turns on my vipers, so I don't think I would be happy with 2.5. I think I'll wait until they come out with a fast focusing model before I try one of these Chinese EDs.


Best,
Jim
 
Remember the focusing rate over a normal birding distance (10 feet or 3m to infinity) is about 1.5 turns on these bins. Still on the slower side but they work fine for birding. Not quite as slow as you might infer from the 2.5 to 2.7 turns with both under and overrun for long and short sighted.

I don't find them excessively slow but I'd like for them to be a little faster. Maybe 1 turn 3m to infinity (say like the Zeiss FL).
 
I think I'll wait until they come out with a fast focusing model before I try one of these Chinese EDs.

Though I have never had a problem with it personally I think a slightly faster focusing model (1.5-2 turns) would probably be preferrable to alot of people. I am surprised the Intrepid did not go this route after all of the comments about this issue with the other three.

As for the Legend Ultras...I had heard something similar to what Mike and Steve posted. I don't really expect the Ultras to better the open-bridge EDs from a performance perspective especially when you are considering that they are selling for between $120 and $70 less expensive depending on where you buy them. Their attraction will probably be in their more compact design plus their centerfield performance. I should have mine tomorrow or Thursday at the latest so more comments will follow.
 
I have had a few days with the Atlas Intrepid 8x42 now and thought I would share a few comments/experiences so far.

One, my thoughts tend to pretty much mirror Steve's. The differences between the Zen Ray and the Atlas Intrepid are few and far between optically. The images are practically identical in just about every way. I have tried to note something of a difference between the two but the closest actual difference I have been able to come up with is maybe a slightly brighter image in the Zen Ray and a difference in the color bias between the two bins. The latter is something I am not entirely sure of though as I cannot always duplicate that experience. I will try to explore it further and comment more on it as time allows.

Physically there are three areas I noted differences. One, the eyecup difference is immediately noticeable. As Steve referenced the Intrepid shares the same eyecup design as the Promasters though I don't seem to mind the "edge" as much as I did on the Promaster. Two, the rubber armor texturing is drastically different in my opinion. The Intrepid's armor is noticeably smoother and less "ribbed" for lack of a better word. I do not have a preference either way but both produce noticeably different tactile sensations.

Three, and most noticeable, is the difference in the focusing tension. The tension on the Intrepid is stiffer and the speed is a hair slower than that of the Zen ED. Based on previous experiences with some of these ED open-bridge bins I am sure this is not a problem in warmer weather but in colder seasons I wonder what the resulting tension will be like. I wish I actually had a Vortex Razor on hand because I have vague recollections of the focusing tension being similar between these two models. I wonder if it is a change in the lubricant or in the design itself.

Conclusion:

As Steve referenced, anything that has been said about the other open bridge ED binoculars recently to hit the market certainly applies to the Atlas Optics Intrepid 8x42. The image is bright, exceptionally sharp with very good contrast and excellent color fringing control. The field of view seems very large and the overall image quality is certainly up there with some of the very best binoculars currently on the market. I would have no problem recommending these binoculars at any price. At $350 they certainly represent one of the true values in binoculars currently on the market.
 
"Three, and most noticeable, is the difference in the focusing tension. The tension on the Intrepid is stiffer and the speed is a hair slower than that of the Zen ED. Based on previous experiences with some of these ED open-bridge bins I am sure this is not a problem in warmer weather but in colder seasons I wonder what the resulting tension will be like. I wish I actually had a Vortex Razor on hand because I have vague recollections of the focusing tension being similar between these two models. I wonder if it is a change in the lubricant or in the design itself."


Hi Frank, I have noticed this before about people wanting to know what the cold weather focusing tension would be. I would try putting these in the freezer for a while and you could see what happens or try to talk someone else into doing this.;) Where is Sancho? He put his Swarovski EL into water to test the supposed "hole" water proof problem of the Swarovski EL series and maybe he would do this.;)
Regards,Steve
 
I was going to suggest the same thing as Steve (mooreorless) did but rather than going straight for the freezer do the fridge first. That's 5C (or 40F ish) ... depending upon where you live that's fall or winter weather. But it should tell you if the focus tension has a strong dependency on temperature or not.

The freezer test would be the next one after that.
 
Last edited:
Nice. Isn't it funny how we sometimes overlook the obvious.

Refrigerator first...then we will see how the freezer fairs...

;)
 
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