• 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.

8x32 v 8x42? (1 Viewer)

A

amh2029

Well-known member
Hi,
Some questions for the technically-minded amongst you...what's the difference between these two sizes? As I understand it, you get a v.wide field of view with 8x32s and they are very bright? Are they brighter than the 8x42s, and if so why would anyone buy an 8x42 over an 8x32? Oh, and why are 8x32s considered the 'ideal' size bin? And the best 8x32 bin is....(cont p12, ed)
Cheers,
Andrew
 
Hi Andrew

8x42 will let in more light than 8x32 but will be a bit larger and heavier. Personally I have Leica 8x32 as I find that after a full day of carrying bins around as well as other equipment that weight counts. If you are young and fit (unlike me!!!) then this might not be important.

As for the best I honestly believe that all peoples eyes are different and you really DO need to try them for yourself. I have tried bins at £600+ that did not suit and some at much less that seemed perfect!

Good luck

James

p.s. If you get a pair of Svarovski and don't like them, send them to me!
 
Hi Andrew,

It depends on the brand and model of binoculars you are comparing. Not all 8x32s and 8x42s perform the same and they don't all weigh the same, for a given size.

The "8" is the magnification. The "32" or "42" is the diameter in mm of each front lens (objective lens) in the binocular. If you are talking about two well made binoculars, the 8x42 should be able to resolve finer detail than the 8x32. The question is, will you be able to see the difference? Maybe or maybe not. Under low light situations the 8x42 will give a brighter view, assuming your eyes can dark adapt well enough. Brightness also depends on the design of the binocular and the materials used to make the optics and the coatings on the optics.

Some may consider an 8x32 "ideal" because in the daytime you may get virtually the same performance as with an 8x42 and not have to have as much weight hanging around your neck.

Usually the 8x32 binocular will be smaller and lighter than an 8x42 model. I've found often the 8x32 binocular will have shorter eye relief. This is not always true but I've found it more often than not. The eye relief is important if you plan to observe with your eye glasses on. Often the wider field of view of an 8x32 vs. an 8x42 is at the expense of eye relief.

I should add, the 8x32 has a smaller exit pupil than the 8x42. The smaller exit pupil makes positioning your eyes behind the binucular a little more critical. The 8x42 may be "faster" to use, when you put it up to your eyes quickly you can get a good view even if you aren't centered 'just right' behind the eyepeices.

I've also found that sometimes too light weight a binocular can be more difficult to hold steady. Buying a binocular is a very personal thing. It is best to try before you buy. Get one that works well for you.

Good luck,
Rich
 
Last edited:
Rich makes a good point; Try before you buy. My ancient and worn out (but optically perfect) Zeiss B*GAT's were purchased from Prestons (long retired) of Harrogate. They actually let me go out birding with them for a day, so did my Kowa telescope provider some years later.

So if you can 'borrow' them and bird the local park for a couple of hours that would be to your advantage. You will then get the 'feel' for them, weight etc.... just don't drop them.

You may be making a costly investment so why should you be expected to stand outside the door and look at the town hall clock for thirty seconds...take them on a test drive and then spend £900!
JB
 
amh2029 said:
As I understand it, you get a v.wide field of view with 8x32s and they are very bright? Are they brighter than the 8x42s, and if so why would anyone buy an 8x42 over an 8x32? Oh, and why are 8x32s considered the 'ideal' size bin? And the best 8x32 bin is....(cont p12, ed)
Click to expand...
In bright daylight a x42 with poor light transmission (cheap multicoating) may appear darker than a well coated x32, but generally the x42 collects so much more light that it is usually noticeably brighter. To me the x32 is the ideal size because it is bright enough, light enough and compact enough to be *easily* taken with me. The best 8x32 bin... Well, the Zeiss FL x32 appears sometimes in my wet dreams, but my Nikon 10x32HGs and my wife's 8x32SEs are very nice and they both have very good eye-relief.

Ilkka
 
I've used my Leica 8x32 BAs for years now and have never- not once - found myself wishing they had a wider objective or were "faster" - and Winter in my part of the world is a dull, murky old time.

This really ties in with Iporali's comments that numbers aren't everything, and that things like coatings, glass quality and whatnot are also relevant.

Of course, Leica bins are "up there", so I'd expect them to be good - but they're better in every way than the (very good in themselves) Pentax 8x42s I replaced them with.
 
I changed my 8x32 BN Leica to 7x42 Zeiss FL a while ago.
The differences in viewing comfort and light transmission are VERY significant to me.
Especially in dull light situations. The resolution is another parameter that is better in the FL:s.
The 7x42:s are also much easier to hold (steady).
A bit more weight (100g) and the longer tubes makes the grip better.
The larger exit pupil also helps.
Also very significant and important is the better eye relief of the 7x42, its about 17mm according to a unscientific measurement, rather than the stated 16mm. The leica 8x32 BN only have 13 mm.
I thought the weight would be a problem with the 7x42, since I dont like heavy binos, but a very good strap is included with the Zeiss. (and the 7x42 Zeiss is quite modest at 740 g)
It works actually better than the far too "flexy" bino suspender I have used earlier. I can wear the binos in a "high" position rather than down on the stomach, which was the case with the "binos suspenders".
I havent seen the 8x32 FL:s but I doubt that I will ever change back to a 8x32. Since water proofness is very important to me the Porros Nikon 8x32 SE have never been a serious alternative even though they are optically one of the best.
 
Exit pupil is the key to it all. A 42mm objective will allow for a larger exit pupil then a 32mm if they are the same power of magnification. Gorank, you may want to try the bino suspenders from Crooke Horn Outfitters. Their bino suspenders are adjustable enough that you can wear them as high or low as you want.

ranburr
 
Greetings!

I have done VERY extensive comparisons between 8X32 and 8X42 binoculars and I can say one thing for certain:

In normal viewing light, when comparing binoculars with good coatings and quality lenses, there is absolutely ZERO difference in perceived brightness between the two sizes. The eye will automatically adjust it's pupil size in order to cut down the light level to the same level for both types, even though the 42mm will be delivering more light to the eyepiece.

The real difference will be perceived in the evening or early morning, when there is less light to begin with, before it enters the binocular objectives. In these situations, the 42mm will have a decided advantage over 32mm objective. However, based on other testing I have done that has consumed more hours of my limited time than I would like to admit, I have found that for low light use a 10x binocular with 50mm or larger objectives is required for really good results.

Bottom line? If you are doing most of your birding during daylight hours, the 8x32 is probably the best choice because of the advantage of weight (which is a HUGE advantage when viewing for long periods of time!). If you are doing most of your birding in the evening, in lower light, consider a 10x50 instead of the 8x42. The difference is quite noticable in low light. For the best "all-around" performer in both types of light, the 8x42 is a good compromise, but far from perfect. This is why I ended up purchasing one of each - a 8x32 for day use, and a 10x50 for evenings.

Best wishes,
Bawko
 
Last edited:
Atomic Chicken said:
Greetings!

I have done VERY extensive comparisons between 8X32 and 8X42 binoculars and I can say one thing for certain:

In normal viewing light, when comparing binoculars with good coatings and quality lenses, there is absolutely ZERO difference in perceived brightness between the two sizes. The eye will automatically adjust it's pupil size in order to cut down the light level to the same level for both types, even though the 42mm will be delivering more light to the eyepiece.

The real difference will be perceived in the evening or early morning, when there is less light to begin with, before it enters the binocular objectives. In these situations, the 42mm will have a decided advantage over 32mm objective. However, based on other testing I have done that has consumed more hours of my limited time than I would like to admit, I have found that for low light use a 10x binocular with 50mm or larger objectives is required for really good results.

Bottom line? If you are doing most of your birding during daylight hours, the 8x32 is probably the best choice because of the advantage of weight (which is a HUGE advantage when viewing for long periods of time!). If you are doing most of your birding in the evening, in lower light, consider a 10x50 instead of the 8x42. The difference is quite noticable in low light. For the best "all-around" performer in both types of light, the 8x42 is a good compromise, but far from perfect. This is why I ended up purchasing one of each - a 8x32 for day use, and a 10x50 for evenings.

Best wishes,
Bawko
Click to expand...

What is normal viewing light? I guess its very different for us up here in the dark north as in the american midwest.

The difference in weight between for example the Nikon HG 8x32 and the FL 7/8x42 is only 50g. And the BL ultravids 8x42 are acually lighter than then HG 8x32.

A larger exit pupil also mean less eye strain when you look into your binos for longer periods.

Its probably rather difficult to see differences in "brightness" between 4 and 5 mm exit pupils (32 and 42 mm objectiv) all other parameters the same. The human pupil size adapts and the human eye/brain is pretty coarse in registrating absolute brightness. Nevertheless the image processing in the eye degrades with a larger pupil size. So even if you dont SEE the difference in brightness a larger pupil size can give less resolution.

The same happens at twilight and thus the larger magnification of a 10x50 compensates for the lower resolution in the eye at low light levels.
At that time color vision is pretty bad and my interest in birding by the eye decreases ("at night, all cats are gray"). A 10x50 would be nice then, or even a 8x56, but I only can carry (and afford) one pair of binos on a day-trip or long walk and the best compromise for me is the 42 mm.
 
gorank said:
The difference in weight between for example the Nikon HG 8x32 and the FL 7/8x42 is only 50g. And the BL ultravids 8x42 are acually lighter than then HG 8x32.
Click to expand...

when I bought the HG's the FL's weren't on the market. In the UK the HG's cost say £550 or 800 euros whereas the Zeiss cost about £910 or 1300 euros and the Leica BR cost say £850 or 1230 Euros.
 
gorank said:
The difference in weight between for example the Nikon HG 8x32 and the FL 7/8x42 is only 50g. And the BL ultravids 8x42 are acually lighter than then HG 8x32.
.
Click to expand...

Unless I have read this incorrectly, isn't the FL 7/8x42 (740/755) lighter than the Ultravid 8x42 (765). So if the Ultravid 8x42 is lighter than the Nikon HG 8x 32, then so would the FL 7/8x42.
 
pduxon said:
The Nikon HG 8x32 are 715g
CDK although you are right on the BR the 8x BL are 710g
Click to expand...

Sorry, my apologies, I did not look at that. The BL (leather, I believe). Are they not popular? I mainly see people with the BR version.

Is the Nikon mentioned the new lightweight version. I do not know what the HGL weigh, can someone shed some light (no pun intended).
 
Last edited:
CDK said:
Sorry, my apologies, I did not look at that. The BL (leather, I believe). Are they not popular? I mainly see people with the BR version.

Is the Nikon mentioned the new lightweight version. I do not know what the HGL weigh, can someone shed some light (no pun intended).
Click to expand...

The 8x32 HG L weights 695 g I think. Very little reduction in weight from the old HG that weighs 715 g. compared to the 8x42 HG that goes from 980 to 795 g, if I dont remember totally wrong.

Anyway, I wouldt recommend the Ultravid BL for birding...its waterproof but the leather is rather sensitive to water and may fall off...=)
 
gorank said:
The 8x32 HG L weights 695 g I think. Very little reduction in weight from the old HG that weighs 715 g. compared to the 8x42 HG that goes from 980 to 795 g, if I dont remember totally wrong.

Anyway, I wouldt recommend the Ultravid BL for birding...its waterproof but the leather is rather sensitive to water and may fall off...=)
Click to expand...

yeah I was surprised by how little the x32's were going down in weight.

Still think I'd buy the Nikon x32's today (price is still a big factor) but its closer now that Leica and Zeiss cut the weight down. Don't know what I'd buy if it was a choice between Zeiss and Leica.

Getting back to Andrews original point

I don't think there is an ideal binocular. Most of the top bins are optically excellent. From a purely handling point of view I preferred the Nikon x32 to the x42, the Leica Trinovids x32 to the x42 BUT preferred the Zeiss and Leica Ultravid x42 to the x32.
 
I too have done much more testing of these binoculars than is good for mental health. Left out of the discussion are the Swarovski 8x32 EL. These things are way to expensive and can not compete with the Nikon on a price and quality issue, in fact on pure resolution and color faccuracy the Nikon will win in any case. However, the Swarovski has an amazing field of view (420 feet at a thousand yards) and pretty good eye relief (15MM). The Nikon has the best eye relief at 17mm. Finally, depending on age your eye may not expand it's pupil much beyond 4mm even in twilight conditions. IN many ways, the 7x35 approach was even more ideal than the 8x32. Look through a pair of older Leitz Trinovid 7x35 and you get 450 feet of field, a 5mm exit pupil, light weight, and compact size. Plus they are a bit easier to hold steady. Finally, just for the hell of it, if you ever see a pair of leitz 6x24 take a look just for the field - 636 feet! In the end try as many as you can and don't be too taken in by name of the brand.
 
steve johnson said:
Left out of the discussion are the Swarovski 8x32 EL. These things are way to expensive and can not compete with the Nikon on a price and quality issue, in fact on pure resolution and color faccuracy the Nikon will win in any case. However, the Swarovski has an amazing field of view (420 feet at a thousand yards) and pretty good eye relief (15MM). The Nikon has the best eye relief at 17mm. IN many ways, the 7x35 approach was even more ideal than the 8x32. Look through a pair of older Leitz Trinovid 7x35 and you get 450 feet of field, a 5mm exit pupil, light weight, and compact size. Plus they are a bit easier to hold steady. Finally, just for the hell of it, if you ever see a pair of leitz 6x24 take a look just for the field - 636 feet! In the end try as many as you can and don't be too taken in by name of the brand.
Click to expand...
Steve,

I often use a fifty year-old Leitz Binuxit Porro 8x30. It has a 450 ft field, but not much eye relief. However, it has enough dioptre adjustment that I do not need my glasses.

For bird watching and for astronomical viewing the 8x42 is worth having. I can utilise a high quality 8x32 for most bird watching, but I find there is a little problem looking at birds under branches, on dull days. Observing long eared owls concealed under pine branches, on an overcast, November day showed me the limits of an 8x32. On such days, with the possibility of rain, my waterproof Zeiss Victory 8x40 worked rather nicely.

Are you writing of the 6x24 Trinovid or Amplivid?

Happy bird watching,
Arthur Pinewood :brains:
 
Last edited:
Hi James
I agree,I own a pair of Opticron HR10x42 bins bought about 14 years ago and they are
superb.Buying a new pair for my wife recently,I was pleased to note that anything in the £200-£300 range didn't out perform mine. The only bins i would consider upgrading to is the top of the range models. These are still available for around £170 only £10 more than i paid for them.To see a significant improvement in image quality you really are looking at top of the range.The fact that Opticron are still making them shows they must be a good model!
I also own an Opticron classic 60mm scope with HR eyepieces and again it out performs many more expensive models.
Just goes to show,don't listen to the speil,go with your eyes!

ghostrider
 
Warning! This thread is more than 16 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.

Similar threads

N
Entry/Test 8x32 binoculars
2
Replies
38
Views
4K
Patudo
P
R
New but probably wrong insight about lowlight
2
Replies
35
Views
2K
Swedpat
S
yarrellii
Just how good is the 8x32 Opticron Verano BGA VHD? (Comparisons)
2
Replies
24
Views
3K
Upland
U
M
Bino Advice
2
Replies
32
Views
2K
MurphyLaw
M
C
Binocular advice 8x32 or 8x42
Replies
11
Views
3K
ChaffChiff
C

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top