10x low light binoculars for around €1000 ? (1 Viewer)

[ReinierB]

Good day,

I am saving up for a 10 power low light binoculars for around €1000. Secondhand is an option as well.
What would you suggest? I do not wear glasses, so the Habicht 10x40 would be an option. I am also thinking of the Zeiss Conquest 10x42. Which one would be better for low light? Habicht has 96% transmission. Conquest has 4.2mm exit pupil. Or do you have other suggestions? An alpha 10x50 is too expensive I am afraid. A 10x56 is a bit on the heavy site (and still a bit too expensive as well).
I already have an NL 10x32, so I think 40/42mm would already be an improvement in lowlight. The Habicht supposes to be a very bright binocular and havin a porro would also really add something. But maybe a 10x42 with 90% transmission would even be better in low light?

 

[Paultricounty]

Good day,

I am saving up for a 10 power low light binoculars for around €1000. Secondhand is an option as well.
What would you suggest? I do not wear glasses, so the Habicht 10x40 would be an option. I am also thinking of the Zeiss Conquest 10x42. Which one would be better for low light? Habicht has 96% transmission. Conquest has 4.2mm exit pupil. Or do you have other suggestions? An alpha 10x50 is too expensive I am afraid. A 10x56 is a bit on the heavy site (and still a bit too expensive as well).
I already have an NL 10x32, so I think 40/42mm would already be an improvement in lowlight. The Habicht supposes to be a very bright binocular and havin a porro would also really add something. But maybe a 10x42 with 90% transmission would even be better in low light?

Im not to sure I’d consider 10x40/42 low light binoculars. But if I was looking for what might be the brightest I would consider binos with AK prisms, Zeiss FL, Vortex UHD, I think GPO has a 10x50 with AK’s. I think there are a few others as well. My low light bins are my 7x42 Habicht’s, and originally had bought the Leica 7x42, but that turned out not to be such a great low light 7x42 because of a few reasons I believe has been talked about in a few discussions.

I just recently acquired a Vortex UHD 8x42 and was shocked how good of a low light bin it is. I didn’t buy it for that purpose but the last two weeks that’s the one I grab on cloudy days and observing late afternoon and early evenings. If I wanted a dedicated 10x for lowlight, I’d probably look for a 54 HT, or 56 SLC, maybe conquest etc. etc.

Paul

 

[PatR]

I have the GPO/Geco 8x56 bino's with the AK prisms, they also do a 10x56 version.

They are superb in low light albeit on the heavy side but they are well below your budget. I would certainly give them a try.

I do have, or should I say my wife has having relieved them from me, a pair of Habicht 7x42's. They too are superb but whilst not quite as pin sharp as the Habichts, the exit pupil and the much wider FOV of the AK prism GPO's make them my first choice when the light begins to fade.

 

[Richard D]

I've got the Habicht 10x40s and whilst they're a great dull-day or winter's afternoon binocular they've only got a 4mm exit pupil (the same as 8x32) so don't expect miracles into the evening. My pre-dawn/post sunset binoculars are the SLC 7x50s but if I was looking at current stock I'd probably for the 56's (have the 5x56s and they're a delight) but obviously over budget. Meopta Meopro HD 8x56's were discontinued fairly recently and can currently be picked up for a good price - not AKs but othe than a narrow FoV are supposedly good, not 10s though...

 

[ReinierB]

Well, I am not really looking for the best low light binoculars I think. It's just that on dull days or at dawn/dusk, when my 10x32 doesn't really shine, I have to take my 8x42 and allways have the feeling I miss a 10 power. I have been thinking selling the 8x42, but than I am afraid I will regret that because sometimes 8 power has it's advantages. So now I think, a 10x40 or 10x42 with good transmission will complement my 8x42 and 10x32 good enough.
But if you al insist it won't be a big improval, then I might have to consider a 10x50/54/56... and saving up a bit longer.
My hope is that the Habicht with it's 96% transmission and 4mm EP will be quite a bit better than 92% transmission and 3.2mm EP of my NL 10x32.
I have read that the Conquest 10x42 appears to be very bright (scopesview) as well....

 

[Tringa45]

Firstly, I don't think the type of prism is that important. A-K would possibly give about 2% higher transmission than S-P, but in low light that gain is negligible compared to the benefits of large exit pupils.
While out owling at dusk a few weeks back I had my 8x56 SLC with me. I'm an old dog and while my pupils probably don't dilate to 7 mm, there was a very significant gain in brightness compared to a fellow birder's 10x42 Canon IS. I did not notice much difference between the 8x56 SLC and a 10x50 EL, so I think if you want 10x magnification, you should consider a 10x50 at the very least.
Discontinued models to consider are the Leica 10x50 BA or BN, the Swarovski 10x50 WB or the 10x50 Meopta Meostar. None of these would offer optimal CA correction, but that's not an issue in poor light. The older Zeiss Conquests I think were rather mediocre.

John

 

[Richard D]

Well, I am not really looking for the best low light binoculars I think. It's just that on dull days or at dawn/dusk, when my 10x32 doesn't really shine, I have to take my 8x42 and allways have the feeling I miss a 10 power. I have been thinking selling the 8x42, but than I am afraid I will regret that because sometimes 8 power has it's advantages. So now I think, a 10x40 or 10x42 with good transmission will complement my 8x42 and 10x32 good enough.
But if you al insist it won't be a big improval, then I might have to consider a 10x50/54/56... and saving up a bit longer.
My hope is that the Habicht with it's 96% transmission and 4mm EP will be quite a bit better than 92% transmission and 3.2mm EP of my NL 10x32.
I have read that the Conquest 10x42 appears to be very bright (scopesview) as well....

The 10x40 Habichts are definitely brighter than my 10x32 ELs and I think you'll notice the difference on a dull day, but true dusk/dawn I think you'll want 50+

 

[William Lewis]

The other thing to consider with really low light viewing is finding good focus. It becomes increasingly difficult with higher magnifications making a 10x even with a 56mm aperture quite tricky to use. I'd be more tempted by a 7x42 and of these id second Paul's suggestion of the habicht. The depth of field with 7x makes focusing less of an issue. If it's more of an all rounder for cloudy days then a 10x56 is a good choice but the difference until it gets really dark will be quite small compared to a 42.

Will

 

[[email protected]]

Vortex Razor UHD 10x50. You can buy them for $1399.00 at B&H with an email offer. A 10x40 or 10x42 won't be that much better than your 8x42.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1666020-REG/vortex_rzb_3105_10x50_razor_uhd_binoculars.html/reviews

 

[Paultricounty]

Well, I am not really looking for the best low light binoculars I think. It's just that on dull days or at dawn/dusk, when my 10x32 doesn't really shine, I have to take my 8x42 and allways have the feeling I miss a 10 power. I have been thinking selling the 8x42, but than I am afraid I will regret that because sometimes 8 power has it's advantages. So now I think, a 10x40 or 10x42 with good transmission will complement my 8x42 and 10x32 good enough.
But if you al insist it won't be a big improval, then I might have to consider a 10x50/54/56... and saving up a bit longer.
My hope is that the Habicht with it's 96% transmission and 4mm EP will be quite a bit better than 92% transmission and 3.2mm EP of my NL 10x32.
I have read that the Conquest 10x42 appears to be very bright (scopesview) as well....

I think a good combo would be , all things being optically equal an 8x32, 10x42 then a 10 or 8x 54/56 would cover a lot of ground.

 

[Scott98]

It sounds like you're leaning toward the 10x40 habicht, seems like a great idea to me. Very lightweight and a porro to give you something a little different and incredibly high quality. FWIW, I think any 40-42mm is going to take care of providing light versus your 32's, the transmission differences are tiny and only equate to another 1mm in aperture - or less.

For me, the 50-56's are nice for astronomy but not something I want to use a lot for birding, the bulk and weight is too bothersome. Maybe for a woodcock or owl-finding mission, but not something I use on regular basis.

 

[Trinovid]

I just got my second binocular in this magnification yesterday, a Viper 10x42 HD, and was really happy with how usable it was in the dark. Not nearly as bright as my 7x42 Ultravid, but apparently neither one of these are considered to be bright binoculars either.
Still, for my purposes they seem to work well enough.

 

[Maljunulo]

People go on at great length here about brightness and low light, but I could see more with my 10X42 EL SV than with my bare eyeballs after sunset, and when I couldn’t see hardly anything below the horizon.

This is more significant to me than an argument over 2% transmission, or a few mm of aperture.

Almost any binocular, unless it is a real dog, is better than the human eye.

 

[tenex]

https://www.birdforum.net/threads/zeiss-victory-ht-10x54-open-box.438215/

 

[ReinierB]

I think a good combo would be , all things being optically equal an 8x32, 10x42 then a 10 or 8x 54/56 would cover a lot of ground.

My theory was: 10x32, 8x42 (because of the 5.25mm EP) would cover all my needs. (A 10x50 or 10x54 has about the same EP)
I actually still think it does.
But then, there is a desire for more...

 

[ReinierB]

It sounds like you're leaning toward the 10x40 habicht, seems like a great idea to me. Very lightweight and a porro to give you something a little different and incredibly high quality. FWIW, I think any 40-42mm is going to take care of providing light versus your 32's, the transmission differences are tiny and only equate to another 1mm in aperture - or less.

For me, the 50-56's are nice for astronomy but not something I want to use a lot for birding, the bulk and weight is too bothersome. Maybe for a woodcock or owl-finding mission, but not something I use on regular basis.

Yes, I do. Unless people say: a 10x42 Conquest is better in low light, but I doubt that.
A 10x54 or 10x56 would be nice for owls and woodcocks I bet. But you are right, I would only use it once a year for that I think.
But deer, boar, beavers or otters... I think I will use it more for the mammals.

Thanks for your comment.

 

[ReinierB]

Many people consider a 7x42 as being a low light binocular. Is 6mm EP really that much of a difference compared with the 5.25mm EP of a 8x42? You will loose some magnification, so I am reluctant...

 

[Paultricounty]

Many people consider a 7x42 as being a low light binocular. Is 6mm EP really that much of a difference compared with the 5.25mm EP of a 8x42? You will loose some magnification, so I am reluctant...

I think that’s a yes and and a no. It depends on what 7x42 and what 8x42 we’re comparing. I had bought the Leica 7x42 UVHD for the 6mm EP thinking it would be my low light bins , being my eyes are not opening more than 6mm at my age. Of course it was bought for the Leica quality image as well , but Ive learned that its not always a mathematical equation of objective size and EP. I’m sure someone with more knowledge can expand or correctly state my thinking here , but coatings play a large part and how your eyes perceive or responds to the manufacturers coatings goal , if you will. Something to do where the light transmission peaks in the light wavelength and what the coatings are trying to achieve in a color hue will make a difference.

I was discussing this with a fellow BF member and good friend , and he pointed out after a discussion we had about why I felt one of the best binoculars were the not best in low light conditions, that was an EDG 8x42 if curious. He pointed out that the Nikon red leaning color hue will effect the perceived brightness in low light. Another example of this is with my 8x42 Vortex Razor UHD, this is one of the brightest 8x42‘s I’ve ever looked through. The UHD, Zeiss FL and Noctivids are the brightest of all the 8x42’s I own or have tried and that included the EL and possibly the NL, but I never had the latter side by side as I had with the others mentioned. So the question then becomes , is it the AK prisms in the UHD and FL , it the Nocs don’t use AK’s, or is it the coatings? It just can’t be about 1 or 2% difference in light transmission.

My 7x42 Habicht’s are the brightest of all for me. So is that the combination of EP, high light transmission, porro (less glass) design and coatings all combined together , then that would make sense.

Paul

 

[[email protected]]

I think that’s a yes and and a no. It depends on what 7x42 and what 8x42 we’re comparing. I had bought the Leica 7x42 UVHD for the 6mm EP thinking it would be my low light bins , being my eyes are not opening more than 6mm at my age. Of course it was bought for the Leica quality image as well , but Ive learned that its not always a mathematical equation of objective size and EP. I’m sure someone with more knowledge can expand or correctly state my thinking here , but coatings play a large part and how your eyes perceive or responds to the manufacturers coatings goal , if you will. Something to do where the light transmission peaks in the light wavelength and what the coatings are trying to achieve in a color hue will make a difference.

I was discussing this with a fellow BF member and good friend , and he pointed out after a discussion we had about why I felt one of the best binoculars were the not best in low light conditions, that was an EDG 8x42 if curious. He pointed out that the Nikon red leaning color hue will effect the perceived brightness in low light. Another example of this is with my 8x42 Vortex Razor UHD, this is one of the brightest 8x42‘s I’ve ever looked through. The UHD, Zeiss FL and Noctivids are the brightest of all the 8x42’s I own or have tried and that included the EL and possibly the NL, but I never had the latter side by side as I had with the others mentioned. So the question then becomes , is it the AK prisms in the UHD and FL , it the Nocs don’t use AK’s, or is it the coatings? It just can’t be about 1 or 2% difference in light transmission.

My 7x42 Habicht’s are the brightest of all for me. So is that the combination of EP, high light transmission, porro (less glass) design and coatings all combined together , then that would make sense.

Paul

A lot of the brightness comes not only from the peak transmission but how flat the transmission graph is, especially in the blue/green light part of the spectrum where our rods are most sensitive. The rods are mainly the low light receivers in our eyes. I would bet that 8x42 Vortex Razor UHD that is so bright in low light has a flat transmission graph especially in the blue/green part of the spectrum just like the Zeiss HT 8x54. The transmission graph is determined largely by the coatings. From Allbinos.

If you actually compare the transmission graphs of the Conquest HD and the Victory HT, and the coloring of images they provide, you see that they fare differently.

The Conquest HD performs like a typical pair of Zeiss binoculars – its transmission is excellent for yellow-green light, with a bit lower values for blue-purple and orange-red light. The constructors of the Victory HT focused on the flatness of the transmission graph - its maximum value doesn't exceed 92%, but you land above 90% both for purple and orange light, a brilliant performance overall. You gain doubly, with crystal-clear images without any coloring and a great comfort of nighttime observations because our rods are more sensitive to blue-green light than our cones (the rods reaching the peak of their possibilities at 500 nm wavelength and the cones – at 550 nm). It seems the coatings of the Victory HT can be easily described as outstanding.

 

[Gijs van Ginkel]

Dennis, post 19,
The spectra we measured from the HT 8x54 do not match the spectrum you show in your post.
Gijs van Ginkel