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

[ReinierB]

They do not have to be the best low light glass. I will mostly use them at dark days or at dusk, replacing my NL 10x32. So I still think a Habicht 10x40 will be a good option. I like the style and the looks of it. The more 3D view through porro's is a nice feature as well. I haven't looked through a Habicht still, so I definityly have to do that first, also to decide if it's going to be the gummi one or the black one. Habicht has not for everyone I have read.
I looked through the Conquest 10x42 and it was nice, comfortable and bright (although I like the warmer colours of Swarovski). EL 10x50 would be really nice as well, but too expensive and I am not considering to sell my NL 10x32. I might seel the SLC 8x42, but I think I will regret that later.

So I still think Habicht 10x40 fits the bill... the more comfortable gummi or the more beautiful black. I definitetly have to try them first.

 

[ReinierB]

I've some experience with low light viewing. I have a Conquest HD in 10x42. It's breathtaking in low light and a good option if you gotta have a 42mm bin. It's probably the best at the $1000 in a 42mm. However, it is not brighter in low light than my 10x50 vortex viper (older model made in Japan). They're really good in low light. I have a porro in 8x40 but it isn't in the same league as the others being a lower end model. I have desired to have another 10x50 for low light viewing. The Maven b6 in 10x50 is intriguing to me. I have also considered a maven b2 in 9x45, but I havent had a chance to look through either of them yet. Both have 5mm exit pupils. The main drawback of a 10x50 is the narrower field of view, which is why I sold my vipers. The B6 appeals to me because of a FOV just a little less than the conquest at 341' vs 345' at 1000 yards.The Maven b2 has an outstanding FOV but more bulk. An AK binocular would give a slight advantage over a Schmidt in the same configuration. If you take a page from the astro community, aperature is king in low light. And large aperature AK's would be best but there's a trade offs in weight and bulk. Some have mentioned Vortex UHD which is a good recommendation, but also conquests in 10x56mm could also be an ideal choice if your priority is low light veiwing. Let us know what you picked.

If Zeiss had a 10x50 conquest, that would be the one. But the 10x56 is way too bulky and heavy to me. The SLC 10x56 would be more in consideration. But still, too big for my taste. Again, a SLC 10x50 would fit the bill as well.
1000 gram is where I have drawn the line.

 

[Gijs van Ginkel]

Reinier Bos,
I just returned an investigated Swarovski 10x40 Habicht to House of Outdoor. It was an older one , but the new ones with Central Focus are easy to use, very strong and waterproof . If you want an almost indestructable binocular with excellent optical quality: the 7x42 Habicht and the 10x40 Habicht (both beautiful porros) with very solid rubber armor and around 1000 euros or a little more can be the one you are looking for. Try before yo buy.
Gijs van Ginkel

 

[Viraj]

Having seen an owl yesterday I pulled the trigger on a DDoptics Nighteagle ERGO DX 8x56 Gen 3 Brown binoculars. Now they are priced at about 350 euros in Germany. They are more lightweight (below 1000g margin) than most of the high-end binoculars and this is the amount I can spend right now. My Habicht 7x42 is not much brighter than NL 8x42 at dusk so I expect to see more brightness and details with DDoptics Nighteagle ERGO DX 8x56 with their 43.7% more aperture.

 

[Dennis Mau]

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?

I would try a Vortex Razor or Vortex Viper in 10x50. The Vortex UHD is good, but it is 36 oz. and over your budget so that rules that one out, but the Razor and Viper are only 28 oz. and they are nice binoculars. They are about $1000 for the Razor and $500 for the Viper. I really like the Razor 10x50.

Either the Razor or Viper 10x50 would be better in low light than any 10x42 or 10x40 like the Habicht and way more comfortable to use. The Habicht has hard, uncomfortable eye cups and one of the hardest focusers I have ever used. Not good for following fast moving birds.

A 10x42 or 10x40 is not really an ideal low light binocular. You want at least a 5mm EP and preferably larger, so that means if you want 10x you need a 10x50 or 10x56. I don't even care for a 10x42 in the daytime because I like a 5mm EP because IMO it is still brighter than a 4mm EP.

A 10x56 would be best in low light, but it is going to be heavier and more expensive.

The best low light 10x is probably the Swarovski SLC 10x56 if budget is not a concern.

At your price point, the Vortex Razor 10x50 would probably be the best choice considering low light performance and weight. The 50mm aperture brings in 70% more light than a 40mm aperture like the Habicht so it will really outperform the Habicht 10x40 when the light get's low.

The Habicht 10x40 has higher transmission, but a few % difference in transmission will not make up for a 10mm aperture difference. Aperture rules.

Amazon.com

 

[Binocollector]

@Viraj
Sorry, I never noticed that you had posted some questions to me about the Nighteagle. Just saw it right now.
I mainly bought it for astro use but I don't stargaze all that often anymore so I rarely use it as it is rather heavy. For walks and hiking I prefer something a bit more lightweight, even though it does work well when wearing it "cross-carry" with the strap across the shoulder.

 

[Viraj]

@Viraj
Sorry, I never noticed that you had posted some questions to me about the Nighteagle. Just saw it right now.
I mainly bought it for astro use but I don't stargaze all that often anymore so I rarely use it as it is rather heavy. For walks and hiking I prefer something a bit more lightweight, even though it does work well when wearing it "cross-carry" with the strap across the shoulder.

Thank you so much @Binocollector for your kind post. However, you helped me with PM long ago to make this decision. I hope the Nighteagle 8x56 will provide me with enough brightness at dusk. I think the supplied chest harness with it is a big plus for carrying it for a long period.

 

[Binocollector]

However, you helped me with PM long ago to make this decision.

Oops, I forgot about that.

 

[ReinierB]

I would try a Vortex Razor or Vortex Viper in 10x50. The Vortex UHD is good, but it is 36 oz. and over your budget so that rules that one out, but the Razor and Viper are only 28 oz. and they are nice binoculars. They are about $1000 for the Razor and $500 for the Viper. I really like the Razor 10x50.

Either the Razor or Viper 10x50 would be better in low light than any 10x42 or 10x40 like the Habicht and way more comfortable to use. The Habicht has hard, uncomfortable eye cups and one of the hardest focusers I have ever used. Not good for following fast moving birds.

A 10x42 or 10x40 is not really an ideal low light binocular. You want at least a 5mm EP and preferably larger, so that means if you want 10x you need a 10x50 or 10x56. I don't even care for a 10x42 in the daytime because I like a 5mm EP because IMO it is still brighter than a 4mm EP.

A 10x56 would be best in low light, but it is going to be heavier and more expensive.

The best low light 10x is probably the Swarovski SLC 10x56 if budget is not a concern.

At your price point, the Vortex Razor 10x50 would probably be the best choice considering low light performance and weight. The 50mm aperture brings in 70% more light than a 40mm aperture like the Habicht so it will really outperform the Habicht 10x40 when the light get's low.

The Habicht 10x40 has higher transmission, but a few % difference in transmission will not make up for a 10mm aperture difference. Aperture rules.

I went for the EL 12x50 after trying the EL 10x50. I know, Both twice as much as the intended 1000 euros, but I really wanted a good of binoculars. The Habicht 10x40 should be good and one day I will pull that trigger. The EL 50's were just too attractive to ignore.

The EL 10x50 was really nice and probably the better one concerning lowlight. However, I found that my SLC 8x42 was just a little bit brighter in lowlight. Then I found a good deal on an EL 12x50 and compared it with the EL 10x50. The shorter eye relief of the 12x50 suited me better. With the EL 10x50 I had to use o-rings to get the best fitting eyecup position. I found that I could hold the EL 12x50 steady enough and I really like that extra magnification. The 12x50 is also useable in low light. So no I have the NL 10x32 for easy birding, SLC 8x42 for lowlight and forests and the EL 12x50 for serious birding and lowlight in open fields. I added the Curio 7x21, so now all magnifications and needs are covered.

 

[Dennis Mau]

I went for the EL 12x50 after trying the EL 10x50. I know, Both twice as much as the intended 1000 euros, but I really wanted a good of binoculars. The Habicht 10x40 should be good and one day I will pull that trigger. The EL 50's were just too attractive to ignore.

The EL 10x50 was really nice and probably the better one concerning lowlight. However, I found that my SLC 8x42 was just a little bit brighter in lowlight. Then I found a good deal on an EL 12x50 and compared it with the EL 10x50. The shorter eye relief of the 12x50 suited me better. With the EL 10x50 I had to use o-rings to get the best fitting eyecup position. I found that I could hold the EL 12x50 steady enough and I really like that extra magnification. The 12x50 is also useable in low light. So no I have the NL 10x32 for easy birding, SLC 8x42 for lowlight and forests and the EL 12x50 for serious birding and lowlight in open fields. I added the Curio 7x21, so now all magnifications and needs are covered.

The SLC 8x42 has 2% higher transmission than the EL 10x50 I believe and with equal EP size that is probably why it is brighter, but you can probably see more detail with the EL 10x50 because of the larger Twilight Factor. The SLC is a very bright binocular. Especially the SLC 8x56!

It sounds like you have all your bases covered and more!

 

[jring]

I went for the EL 12x50 after trying the EL 10x50.

Hi,

wow, more power to you if you can hold that steady... I struggle with 10x for more than a few minutes...

Anyways, enjoy the view!

Joachim, who would have gone for a Canon 10x42... or just taken his SE 10x42...

 

[ReinierB]

The SLC 8x42 has 2% higher transmission than the EL 10x50 I believe and with equal EP size that is probably why it is brighter, but you can probably see more detail with the EL 10x50 because of the larger Twilight Factor. The SLC is a very bright binocular. Especially the SLC 8x56!

It sounds like you have all your bases covered and more!

The SLC 8x42 has 91% transmission and the EL 10x50 90% according to the specs. I prefered the view of the EL 10x50 at daylight (but for that I have the NL 10x32 although the 3.2mm exit pupil makes it a bit less comfortable), but when the light gets dimmer the SLC 8x42 has more contract. The view throught the EL's were just a bit "milkier". I don't know how to describe it.

I have never looked through a SLC 56 and I want to keep it that way, because I know I will like it .

I looked through an Meopta Meostar 10x50 and I found it very comfortable, with a very nice view. However, I didn't like the looks and it was even heavier than my EL 50.
I also like the SLC 42's because they are very compact and quite lightweight for a 42. The SLC 56's look so big!

 

[Viraj]

I used the DDoptics Nighteagle ERGO DX 8x56 for a few days and here are my thoughts about it.

In broad daylight, it is not brighter than my Monarch 7 8x30 and has less wow-effect due to its relatively low FOV and a bit less transparency. It has a bit of a worm tint compared to the Monarch 7.

Even though the FOV mentioned on the website is 117m/1000m I feel like it has less FOV compared to the FOV of Habicht 7x42 (114m/1000m). Perhaps it is due to the comparatively lower DOF of DDOptics that resulted from the magnification difference.

During dusk, it performs neck to neck with NL 8x42 in terms of brightness. However, DDOptics has higher contrast probably due to its womer tone. When it is really dark I could see DDOptics outperforming NL by a significant margin, however, it doesn't provide a huge advantage over NL. Perhaps I am one belonging to the minority of having dark-adapted eye pupil diameter around 5.5 mm in my age group. Anyway, I decided to keep it just because I like the nice brown colour and the handling of it.

 

[MikeRottier]

I tried the Zeiss Conquest 10x42. Fantastic big immersive view and it comes really nice and clear into focus too. Nice focusser feel too. Buy only the one you can try out for yourself, and buy the one you hold in your hands, not the one they take out of storage and you didn't look through.

 

[Paultricounty]

I used the DDoptics Nighteagle ERGO DX 8x56 for a few days and here are my thoughts about it.

In broad daylight, it is not brighter than my Monarch 7 8x30 and has less wow-effect due to its relatively low FOV and a bit less transparency. It has a bit of a worm tint compared to the Monarch 7.

Even though the FOV mentioned on the website is 117m/1000m I feel like it has less FOV compared to the FOV of Habicht 7x42 (114m/1000m). Perhaps it is due to the comparatively lower DOF of DDOptics that resulted from the magnification difference.

During dusk, it performs neck to neck with NL 8x42 in terms of brightness. However, DDOptics has higher contrast probably due to its womer tone. When it is really dark I could see DDOptics outperforming NL by a significant margin, however, it doesn't provide a huge advantage over NL. Perhaps I am one belonging to the minority of having dark-adapted eye pupil diameter around 5.5 mm in my age group. Anyway, I decided to keep it just because I like the nice brown colour and the handling of it.

Your also not taking into account that its not an apples to apples comparison of optical quality. Im sure the results would be different if you were comparing the SLC 8x56 or the Zeiss HT 8x54.

 

[Paultricounty]

Id also ad that when it comes to low light binoculars its even more important for performance that the optics be of the highest quality. During a sunny bright day is where a less expensive lower quality optic can perform very close to much more expensive options. One example that always jumps out at me is with the old high-end vintage Bushnell Rangemaster 7x35 SWA bins. Under bright sunny skies these perform unbelievable well in comparison to some very high quality binoculars from Z, S and L. But as soon as a few clouds roll in, then its a different story.

 

[Viraj]

Your also not taking into account that its not an apples to apples comparison of optical quality. Im sure the results would be different if you were comparing the SLC 8x56 or the Zeiss HT 8x54.

You are absolutely right. One day I’d love to try one of SLC or HT. Initially I was afraid to try those big binoculars because of the weight and the size. Even though the DDOptics is close to 1000g, they are well balanced (even more than NLs) in my hands. Perhaps there will be a change to fit one of those high end models into my hands.

Due to the 7mm exit pupil of DDOptics I expected to see a more significant brightness difference in dark compared to an NL with 5.2mm exit pupils.

However, as you said I have to try those high end models before come into a conclusion about my eye pupil dilation (or an eye test).

 

[coolhand68]

Vortex Razor HD, Leica Trinovid HD, Zeiss Conquest, Pentax ZD HD.

 

[adhoc]

ReinierB, interesting, your thread asks for lowlight options in 10x and then after trial you decide on 8x (42) for lowest light. That is what I understand from the foll. as "lowlight in open fields" is not as low. "The EL 10x50 was really nice...However, I found that my SLC 8x42 was just a little bit brighter in lowlight...no[w] I have the...SLC 8x42 for lowlight and forests...and the EL 12x50 for...lowlight in open fields."

Seems to me, what William Lewis writes in post #8 above is critically important to many, as it is to me, but not much written about, that finding focus in very low light is less difficult with lower magnification. On some quick statisticking in low light threads in BF I find for most posting in them, with very good optics, the best configurations are 8x42, 8x56, and 10x56. For an individual 8x vs 10x may depend on steadiness, and, I am not sure of this scientifically, focus accommodation by the eye. (Of course, models in 44, 50, etc. also fit in there but are rarer.)

 

[ReinierB]

ReinierB, interesting, your thread asks for lowlight options in 10x and then after trial you decide on 8x (42) for lowest light. That is what I understand from the foll. as "lowlight in open fields" is not as low. "The EL 10x50 was really nice...However, I found that my SLC 8x42 was just a little bit brighter in lowlight...no[w] I have the...SLC 8x42 for lowlight and forests...and the EL 12x50 for...lowlight in open fields."

Seems to me, what William Lewis writes in post #8 above is critically important to many, as it is to me, but not much written about, that finding focus in very low light is less difficult with lower magnification. On some quick statisticking in low light threads in BF I find for most posting in them, with very good optics, the best configurations are 8x42, 8x56, and 10x56. For an individual 8x vs 10x may depend on steadiness, and, I am not sure of this scientifically, focus accommodation by the eye. (Of course, models in 44, 50, etc. also fit in there but are rarer.)

That is true!
As much as I like higher magnifications, I found the SLC 8x42 very good for low light, especially when walking in dense forests. The greater depth of view of 8 power is nice for that purpose. Less focusing needed and imo focusing is harder when it is darker.

I would love a good 10x56 for low light, but I think it is a bit too dedicated and for that reason I cannot justify adding one in my arsenal. I will not use it a lot. A compact 8x42 is way more allround imo.
I like 10x50 though, but since I already had 8x42 and 10x32 I saw more reason adding a 12x50.
Firstly I wanted to add a cheaper bin, but after being used to "alpha level", I didn't want to compromise too much on quality. The conquest 10x42 or Habicht 10x40 would have been nice contenders, but know I think I am perfectly happy with the SLC 8x42, because it has a larger exit pupil and I appreciate the lower magnification by now.