10x32 viable alternative to 10x42? (1 Viewer)

[tenex]

The one thing I'll say is that with a "challenging" format like 10x32, quality matters a lot more. I'm not sure my impression would be favorable if I was using an inexpensive 10x32.

I thought likewise until I tried a Maven 10x30 several years ago, as a result of all the praise on this forum. The optics were surprisingly good, although I didn't take time for a thorough evaluation because the mechanicals were completely unacceptable, already failing twice (hinge tension, diopter slip) in the demo unit I tried. With better construction many might find them satisfying.

 

[eitanaltman]

I thought likewise until I tried a Maven 10x30 several years ago, as a result of all the praise on this forum. The optics were surprisingly good, although I didn't take time for a thorough evaluation because the mechanicals were completely unacceptable, already failing twice (hinge tension, diopter slip) in the demo unit I tried. With better construction many might find them satisfying.

I’m not sure that contradicts my point. I’m not trying to assert that only $2000+ “full alpha” glass is required. Presumably the Maven “B” line is comparable optically to “big name brand” Japanese manufactured “sub alpha” level like the Conquest HD or Monarch HG, just at a lowered price point due to their business model... and I would certainly consider those models to be excellent optically.

I tried a Conquest HD 10x32 and found it to be quite excellent, I could have certainly enjoyed it and used it happily.... same with the Genesis 10x33.... but then I got a killer deal for the EDG which is on another level entirely. The EDG is soooo EASY to use for a 10x32, I find it as comfortable than many 8x32. I don’t know if it’s the long eye relief, the nearly perfectly corrected field, or all of the above, but it’s just sublime.

 

[tenex]

Well, I'm not sure I'm trying to contradict you. But Maven B3 is not "sub alpha" class like Conquest, it sells for around $450. (Though I suppose it wouldn't if the physical quality were better...)

 

[Swissboy]

If I have only one pair of binoculars let it be a 8x42.

I would concur with this.

 

[mwhogue]

I would concur with this.

If I have only one pair of binoculars let it be a 8x42.

Given what's currently available new, generally yes 8x42 is the standard recommendation for a single/first/all around bin.

To go a step further though, I like to "pair up" a 7x42 with a (high quality) 10x32. This combination is very versatile, even more versatile IME than pairing an 8x42 with a 10x32.

Mike

 

[[email protected]]

Given what's currently available new, generally yes 8x42 is the standard recommendation for a single/first/all around bin.

To go a step further though, I like to "pair up" a 7x42 with a (high quality) 10x32. This combination is very versatile, even more versatile IME than pairing an 8x42 with a 10x32.

Mike

It is true it is nice to have different binocular formats for different uses just like you would have different size shotguns for different uses. A 8x42 binocular would be a 12 gauge modified choke shotgun for all around use and a 7x42 would be a 12 gauge improved cylinder for closer in fast moving birds and the 10x32 would be a 20 gauge full choke for longer distance shots when you wanted a lighter carry.

 

[eitanaltman]

Given what's currently available new, generally yes 8x42 is the standard recommendation for a single/first/all around bin.

To go a step further though, I like to "pair up" a 7x42 with a (high quality) 10x32. This combination is very versatile, even more versatile IME than pairing an 8x42 with a 10x32.

Mike

Given that my two primary bins are the 10x32 EDG and the 7x42 UVHD, clearly I agree with you

Although if I could only have one binocular, it would be a great 8x32. For ME, the weight / bulk savings of the 32mm far outweigh the exit pupil advantage of the 8x42.

The MHG 8x42 is close to changing the equation, but it’s enough of a gap optically to the EDG level glass that it’s not QUITE there yet. If someone came out with a compact, light weight ~40mm objective binocular with a huge FOV and alpha level optics that would pique my interest, but the best 32mm binoculars are so good that I don’t really miss the extra glass (and weight).

 

[Patudo]

If I have only one pair of binoculars let it be a 8x42.

But that will never happen!!! :king:

Regarding the original question:

I'm wondering if the 32mm objective can gather enough light and resolve enough detail to make an alternative to a heavier 10x42 bino?

...so much depends on the conditions you'll be using it in. I can't help but observe at this point that for many months of the year the light in the UK is very different to the conditions you might expect in San Diego (Eitan), Australia (Chosun), Colorado (tenex) or the other locations where those who have voiced their support for the 10x32 format live.

Just to throw a spanner in the works, I remember a post from kabsetz some years ago noting that his Canon 10x42 IS-L outperformed everything else in low-light situations. I can't find it off-hand, but it's worth searching for. The gist of it was that the advantages of image stabilization are if anything even greater in iffy conditions. It could well be that something like the Canon 10x32 does indeed equal or outperform most 10x42s even in poor light.

 

[mwhogue]

Patudo,

Point well taken about lighting conditions more often encountered in the US south and southwest, Colorado, southern California, etc., as opposed to the prevailing light in Jollie Olde.

That said, after acquiring 10x32 in Zeiss FL, UVHD+ and SW SV FP, I ran across the Tobias Mennle article which included the Nikon EDG comparison to the European Alpha bins in 8x42. As a result I bought on the bay an EDG 10x32 (they were already out of production) from a quintessential English gentleman. We exchanged some extensive emails discussing the 10x32. He had tried and been utterly unimpressed by any of the European "big Three" 10x32 but loved the EDG. However, he also reported that at his age he could no longer hold the 10x32 steady enough and so was selling to finance the purchase of an EDG in 8x32. He never mentioned having a problem using the EDG 10x32 under English skies.



It seems most of us 10x32 boosters freely admit it's a small club even in bright light locales. But I agree with others - don't dismiss the 10x32 out of hand.

Mike

 

[tenex]

...so much depends on the conditions you'll be using it in. I can't help but observe at this point that for many months of the year the light in the UK is very different to the conditions you might expect in San Diego (Eitan), Australia (Chosun), Colorado (tenex) or the other locations where those who have voiced their support for the 10x32 format live.

It has to get quite dark indeed for the pupil to dilate beyond 3.2 mm... we do actually have clouds here on occasion (songs to the contrary notwithstanding) and I have never found the UV+ 10x32 wanting in any sort of actual daylight.

 

[ZDHart]

I have three pair of 32s, at present:

10x32 NL
8x32 SF
8x32 Conquest HD

They're all really fine binoculars that could serve well as one's only binoculars. Yes, the 42s (my 10x42 SF and 7x42 UVHD+) definitely offer up a superior viewing experience. They are, pretty much, the ultimate. But for that, there is the price of larger size and heavier weight. Always trade-offs, in life, always trade-offs.

I am enjoying the 10x32 NLs, and have a pair of 10x32 SFs inbound this coming week. Yes, you can safely say that I'm all but dismissing 32s, especially 10x32s, out of hand.

I enjoy using the smaller size and lighter weight with the 32s, though they clearly are more finicky when it comes to eye placement. If you adjust them quite well to your face and eyes, place them well when using them, and don't radically sweep your eyes back and forth across the image field... they can be quite enjoyable to use.

I'm looking forward to seeing how I like the 10x32 SF vs. the 10x32 NL, this coming week!

 

[ZDHart]

The 10x32 SF arrived today. Bottom line: I love 'em. Just what I was hoping for. I find them quite easy to use, stellar optics, great feel in the hand/handling, excellent focuser. Definitely qualify as "alpha" grade bins!

Yes, alpha 10x32 is a very viable alternative (addition to) to 10x42!

So, now I have 10x42 SF and 10x32 SF. Of course the 10x42s offer a bit of a step up in the viewing experience! Zeiss 10x42 SF are right there with the state-of-the art in today's binoculars.

But that isn't to say that the 10x32s are not an excellent and very enjoyable choice - they are. Each suited to different situations/user preferences. Both are awesome. Don't be afraid to try them, unless you're afraid you just might decide to buy them!

 

[adhoc]

Another option is the Zeiss Conquest 10x32. Below are comments by two well-regarded reviewers. As well as info. for the OP this is for myself to learn from responses if any.

Zeiss Conquest 10x32 review,
Scopeviews, Roger Vine,
comparison vs Zeiss Victory SF 32:
“[ . . . ]
• The SFs may have slightly higher resolution centre field, but not by much
[ . . . ]
• SFs have a little more eye relief, but much worse blackouts that mean lower overall eyepiece comfort
[ . . . ]
• Zeiss quote identical 90% transmission and indeed brightness seems about the same
• False colour levels are very low in both, with a small advantage to the SFs
[ . . . ]
[Summary:] “For a travel or lightweight birding binocular these 10x32mm Conquests are a Best Buy, just like the 8x model: you’re mostly paying for the really top-notch optics and view, but they’re rugged too. They work outstandingly well for birding, nature viewing or even a spot of casual astronomy.”

Zeiss Conquest 10x32 review (in print and video, auto?-translated from Italian),
Binomania, Piergiovanni Salimberi:
[Summary:] “[ . . . ]The differences compared to the Top of the Range products exist, but they are minimal and often do not justify the higher purchase price. Most likely, even a demanding enthusiast could benefit from the Conquest HD series without necessarily wanting to buy Alpha-class binoculars.[ . . . ]”

 

[ZDHart]

Another option is the Zeiss Conquest 10x32. Below are comments by two well-regarded reviewers. As well as info. for the OP this is for myself to learn from responses if any.

Zeiss Conquest 10x32 review,
Scopeviews, Roger Vine,
comparison vs Zeiss Victory SF 32:
“[ . . . ]
• The SFs may have slightly higher resolution centre field, but not by much
[ . . . ]
• SFs have a little more eye relief, but much worse blackouts that mean lower overall eyepiece comfort
[ . . . ]
• Zeiss quote identical 90% transmission and indeed brightness seems about the same
• False colour levels are very low in both, with a small advantage to the SFs
[ . . . ]
[Summary:] “For a travel or lightweight birding binocular these 10x32mm Conquests are a Best Buy, just like the 8x model: you’re mostly paying for the really top-notch optics and view, but they’re rugged too. They work outstandingly well for birding, nature viewing or even a spot of casual astronomy.”

Zeiss Conquest 10x32 review (in print and video, auto?-translated from Italian),
Binomania, Piergiovanni Salimberi:
[Summary:] “[ . . . ]The differences compared to the Top of the Range products exist, but they are minimal and often do not justify the higher purchase price. Most likely, even a demanding enthusiast could benefit from the Conquest HD series without necessarily wanting to buy Alpha-class binoculars.[ . . . ]”

For the last seven or eight years, I used the Conquest HD 8x32 and 10x42 as my primary, every day binoculars. I have found them to be excellent performers, and would certainly consider the Conquest HD 10x32s to be a viable alternative to the larger and heavier 10x42s.

 

[Maljunulo]

I'm wondering if the 32mm objective can gather enough light and resolve enough detail to make an alternative to a heavier 10x42 bino?

Matt

In general, and during the day, yes.

Where you get into endless (and frequently circular) discussion here is when "low light" use is under discussion.

When I was shopping for my 10X42 EL SV, I compared them with the 8.5X and really did not see any significant difference, and I'm not sure that in a blind test I would have known which one I was looking through.

Note: This test was a comparison of the binoculars, not a comparison of the spec sheets.

 

[dries1]

The 32 is lighter, under bright conditions, the view will be good, however the smaller EP 3.2 compared to 4.2, will inhibit extensive viewing, in other words, it would not be as relaxing on your eyes, quick looks 32 ok, however longer viewing sessions, the 42 wins. 10MM is a large difference in aperture when the light gets low, at least for my eyes. The hindrance for some is the 10X42 is heavy.

 

[ZDHart]

I agree with you, dries, in dim circumstances, for the last few minutes of daylight, the 42mm wins. And the 10x42 is relatively large and heavy.

But the key question here is, by how much does the 42mm actually "win"? Enough to prevent one from buying a 10x32 instead?

Perhaps for some, yes. But I'd say for a lot of folks, may be not so fast. Unless viewing during the last few minutes of daylight is an especially important thing. Today's alpha quality 10x32s are really some fine binoculars, even in fading light.

10x42 does have some enjoyable benefits, of course, but I've found that during daylight hours, an alpha 10x32 is virtually as enjoyable, even for extensive viewing... perhaps more so, given the benefits of smaller and lighter, nimble and quick. 32mm alphas are a joy to use.

Having both 10x42 SF and 10x32 SF (and 10x32 UVHD+)... I like them all, of course, who wouldn't? And I don't choose to give any of them up. But, I think if I had to give one of the two SFs up... there is a chance I might let the 10x42 SF go, nice as it is. It's close. The 10x32 SFs are just too sweet, all around, and so enjoyable to use.

I use bins for a few hours out of every day! That is a lot of use. I rotate among several 10x bins and 8x bins, mostly - and they are all alpha grade bins. Most of the time, I enjoy the 10x32s just as much as I do the 10x42s. Usually, I don't care much about the last few minutes of daylight. And on the possible occasion where the last few minutes of daylight might begin to matter to me, I'd probably pull out the UVHD+ 7x42s.

10x32 vs 10x42 - that's a tough call, depending on the quality of the particular bins... that only each individual can make. Definitely can't go wrong either way. They each have some beneficial qualities that the other does not.

 

[adhoc]

It is often said that in bird/nature viewing the difference in an image through, say, a 32 mm and a 42 mm, with the same magnification and same optical quality, can be seen for about a 5 to 15 minute period at dawn and dusk.

This is only true about viewing something out in the open. In some small areas viewed in certain other settings, such as within woodland, the light during daytime can be comparable, in intensity (though probably not in spectral balance), to light in the open at dawn and dusk, in much of the world much of the year.

Thus, according to where you watch birds/nature, the above-described difference may be seen across all of daytime through binoculars with smaller vs larger apertures.

How much the difference in brightness of 32 vs 42 matters to you will depend on how much you actually try to determine detail in such light, i.e., in those oft-cited few minutes, or in such darkness of shade within foliage.

I would guess that, on the other hand, in such light many of us much of the time do not try, or give up, even with a 42.

That is in regard to brightness. Ease of view is better with a larger exit pupil. But eyepiece design in some 32s does much to relieve that disadvantage.

(Disclosure! I like smaller and lighter instruments, and as my 10x have just bought a Zeiss Conquest 10x32. It will be some time, though, before I get it into my hands.)

 

[ZDHart]

Tonite, I've been doing some very late twilight viewing. And I find the 10x32 SF to be not all-that-much different than the 10x42 SF. Slight difference in brightness to the eyes, but not all that much.

However, there is a substantial difference between the 10x32 SF and the 10x42 SF when it comes to size and weight.

Overall, I'd say the 10x32 SF are a very impressive pair of bins - and quite handy / nimble / quick in handling!

Yes, indeed! 10x32 SF is a very viable alternative to 10x42 SF, especially for those who enjoy a lighter and more compact form factor. And, if comparing 10x32 SF to low cost 10x42 bins... I'd say that the 10x32 SF can likely come close to matching the lower cost 10x42s.

 

[adhoc]

It seems that for 1½(?) decades the Zeiss Victory FL 10x32, which has just been discontinued, has excelled pretty much on all fronts. One gathers this from the few reports by those who used and wrote of them. See the thread linked here for example. It seems to me also that it did not receive wider acceptance only because of preconceived ideas potential buyers had about the 10x32 format.

PS, in edit. I should have first referred to the posts above in this present thread, which comment also on the Nikon EDG 10x32. Sorry I forgot.

PPS. ZDHart, while on the subject of forgetting, thanks for your post #34 above!