16x and steady views. Sig Zulu6 16x42 (1 Viewer)

[Elpha8888]

You're welcome. Here is a SIG Sauer Zulu 6 16x42 on Amazon.com UK. if that helps. They have a 4.7 star review rating on 38 reviews, which is pretty good also.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Sig-Sauer-Binocular-Schmidt-Pechan-Stabilized/dp/B08SJ3LZ3P

That's great thanks, they have a better price too. These would be imported, my last purchase of a Canon 15x50 from Amazon turned up in a brown paper bag! Not impressed with the packaging.

 

[[email protected]]

That's great thanks, they have a better price too. These would be imported, my last purchase of a Canon 15x50 from Amazon turned up in a brown paper bag! Not impressed with the packaging.

That is how Amazon packages stuff. A $1000 pair of binoculars in a paper bag with no padding.

 

[rdnzl]

They say we're young and we don't know
We won't find out until we grow
Well I don't know if all that's true
'Cause you got me, and baby, I got you

 

[[email protected]]

I was very impressed with the original Sig Sauer Zulu 6 16x42 binocular, but I was tempted to try the newer HDX model and see if it was worth the difference in price. I still say the original model is an excellent bargain if you can find them, but they have been discontinued, and I have upgraded both of my original Zulu 6's for the newer HDX model and I think the upgrade is worth the additional cost and I will explain why in this update.

I have upgraded to the Sig Sauer HDX Zulu 6 in both the 10x30 and 16x42. They are lighter and smaller than the Canon 10x30 IS II, Canon 12x36 IS III, Canon 15x50 or Canon 18x50. I think the optics are a little better with less CA, they are brighter and have better contrast in general than the Canons.

The newer HDX model is supposed to have a little better ED glass which didn't seem to make much difference, they are IPX7 waterproof instead of IPX4 which is nice, and they have a feature I REALLY like which makes the additional cost over the older model worth it. They have a two mode IS system.

One mode is for scanning or when you are panning and searching for something, and the other mode is for targeting or when you have found your target, and you just want to observe it closely. Even the scan mode is slightly better than the Canon, but the target mode takes the IS to a whole different level.

When you put them in target mode, the view is rock solid, I mean ROCK SOLID like a tripod with no artifacts present. It is really nice when you have found the desired object you want to observe, and you can just enjoy watching it as if you were using a tripod.

Another nice feature of all the Sig's is you don't have to hold down a button to keep the IS engaged, like you do in some of the Canon's like the 10x30 IS II or Canon 12x36 IS III. The smaller Canons like the 8x20 IS and 10x20 IS do stay on. With the Sigs you turn a switch and the IS stays on for 5 minutes and then shuts off. By turning the switch again, you can toggle back and forth between target mode and scan mode. The switch defaults to scan mode in the beginning.

I originally tried the Sig Sauer Zulu 6 HDX 20x42 because I wanted to try the higher magnification and I initially liked it but with time I found it to be a little more finicky for eye placement due to the smaller 2.1 mm EP versus the 2.6 mm EP of the 16x42. The 20x42 was bright enough in the daytime, it was just a little too easy to get black-outs, so I decided to go back to the HDX 16x42.

I have tried most of the Canon's, and they are all very good. The Canon 8x20 IS and 10x20 IS are both excellent small IS binoculars with superb optics, but they are not going to be the best choice in low light. I prefer the Canon 10x30 IS III over them optically if you don't mind carrying a slightly larger, heavier binocular because it has a larger AFOV and with its bigger EP it is going to be a little brighter, especially in low light making it a better all around binocular. Many of the Canons, especially the Canon 10x30 IS II also have serious issues with the armor melting when exposed to Deet so that is one thing to be cautious of.

Last edited: Today at 9:48 AM

 

[JOC1]

I was very impressed with the original Sig Sauer Zulu 6 16x42 binocular, but I was tempted to try the newer HDX model and see if it was worth the difference in price. I still say the original model is an excellent bargain if you can find them, but they have been discontinued, and I have upgraded both of my original Zulu 6's for the newer HDX model and I think the upgrade is worth the additional cost and I will explain why in this update.

I have upgraded to the Sig Sauer HDX Zulu 6 in both the 10x30 and 16x42. They are lighter and smaller than the Canon 10x30 IS II, Canon 12x36 IS III, Canon 15x50 or Canon 18x50. I think the optics are a little better with less CA, they are brighter and have better contrast in general than the Canons.

The newer HDX model is supposed to have a little better ED glass which didn't seem to make much difference, they are IPX7 waterproof instead of IPX4 which is nice, and they have a feature I REALLY like which makes the additional cost over the older model worth it. They have a two mode IS system.

One mode is for scanning or when you are panning and searching for something, and the other mode is for targeting or when you have found your target, and you just want to observe it closely. Even the scan mode is slightly better than the Canon, but the target mode takes the IS to a whole different level.

When you put them in target mode, the view is rock solid, I mean ROCK SOLID like a tripod with no artifacts present. It is really nice when you have found the desired object you want to observe, and you can just enjoy watching it as if you were using a tripod.

Another nice feature of all the Sig's is you don't have to hold down a button to keep the IS engaged, like you do in some of the Canon's like the 10x30 IS II or Canon 12x36 IS III. The smaller Canons like the 8x20 IS and 10x20 IS do stay on. With the Sigs you turn a switch and the IS stays on for 5 minutes and then shuts off. By turning the switch again, you can toggle back and forth between target mode and scan mode. The switch defaults to scan mode in the beginning.

I originally tried the Sig Sauer Zulu 6 HDX 20x42 because I wanted to try the higher magnification and I initially liked it but with time I found it to be a little more finicky for eye placement due to the smaller 2.1 mm EP versus the 2.6 mm EP of the 16x42. The 20x42 was bright enough in the daytime, it was just a little too easy to get black-outs, so I decided to go back to the HDX 16x42.

I have tried most of the Canon's, and they are all very good. The Canon 8x20 IS and 10x20 IS are both excellent small IS binoculars with superb optics, but they are not going to be the best choice in low light. I prefer the Canon 10x30 IS III over them optically if you don't mind carrying a slightly larger, heavier binocular because it has a larger AFOV and with its bigger EP it is going to be a little brighter, especially in low light making it a better all around binocular. Many of the Canons, especially the Canon 10x30 IS II also have serious issues with the armor melting when exposed to Deet so that is one thing to be cautious of.

Last edited: Today at 9:48 AM

How do the 16x42’s compare to the 15x50 at night?
It seems the IS is better but I wonder how they do with the brightness of the stars (especially DSO). The only thing that keeps me from seriously considering it is the light gathering of the 15x50.

 

[Paultricounty]

How do the 16x42’s compare to the 15x50 at night?
It seems the IS is better but I wonder how they do with the brightness of the stars (especially DSO). The only thing that keeps me from seriously considering it is the light gathering of the 15x50

I haven't tried the Sig16x42 yet, I have them in the works. But regardless of what Dennis will tell you shortly, there is no way the Sig 42 will be brighter than the Canon 50, even more so for astronomy. Price alone to some degree dictates the optical quality, so although maybe slightly better in one area or another they basically will be very close optically, except for exit pupal and light gathering...

Paul

 

[Elpha8888]

I sent my Canon 15x50s straight back, I've had two over the years. I've been spoilt by viewing the heavens with Swarovski glass this last few years so need to calm my expectations. I do prefer the latest Canons with the power mode, it seems this latest Sigg also has this feature. Just a shame no 50mm models..

 

[[email protected]]

How do the 16x42’s compare to the 15x50 at night?
It seems the IS is better but I wonder how they do with the brightness of the stars (especially DSO). The only thing that keeps me from seriously considering it is the light gathering of the 15x50.

I haven't directly compared the two, but I have tried the Canon 15x50 IS, and they didn't work for me at all. I hated the eye cups on the Canon, and I had issues with the ER not matching the eye cup length. The Canon 18x50 IS didn't work for me either because the eye cups were too long for the ER.

Just because of the bigger aperture of the Canon 15x50, I would imagine it would be brighter on the stars and go deeper and show higher magnitude fainter stars, although many times if you have a lot of sky glow in your area a smaller aperture will actually work better than a larger aperture because it let's in less ambient light.

The higher magnification of the Sig would also help a little with DSO's allowing you to see more detail. The superior IS system on the Sig especially when using target mode would also significantly improve your resolving power. It is just like a tripod mounted telescope.

The Sig really works exceptional on Lunar observations, being some of the best binoculars I have used for observing the moon because they have no CA and superb contrast, and they worked great on M13 the other night which surprised me with our Bortle 7 skies here in Greeley.

 

[[email protected]]

I haven't tried the Sig16x42 yet, I have them in the works. But regardless of what Dennis will tell you shortly, there is no way the Sig 42 will be brighter than the Canon 50, even more so for astronomy. Price alone to some degree dictates the optical quality, so although maybe slightly better in one area or another they basically will be very close optically, except for exit pupal and light gathering...

Paul

I think for comparable apertures like the 30 mm and 42 mm, the Sigs are superior to the Canons. Sig Sauer doesn't make a 50 mm, so there really is no fair comparison there.

 

[Paultricounty]

I think for comparable apertures like the 30 mm and 42 mm, the Sigs are superior to the Canons. Sig Sauer doesn't make a 50 mm, so there really is no fair comparison there.

That’s what said.

 

[Paultricounty]

I sent my Canon 15x50s straight back, I've had two over the years. I've been spoilt by viewing the heavens with Swarovski glass this last few years so need to calm my expectations. I do prefer the latest Canons with the power mode, it seems this latest Sigg also has this feature. Just a shame no 50mm models..

Canon has it on the 10x42L. It’s hard to go back once you’ve experienced paradise. 😃

 

[Paultricounty]

How do the 16x42’s compare to the 15x50 at night?
It seems the IS is better but I wonder how they do with the brightness of the stars (especially DSO). The only thing that keeps me from seriously considering it is the light gathering of the 15x50.

What did I tell you. Look for the sale in a few weeks. It happened on the last Sig 16x42 , never a mention about better ED and water proofing on the newer model when discussing how good the old version were. Until after the sale of course. I got your number Dennis.

 

[[email protected]]

Canon has it on the 10x42L. It’s hard to go back once you’ve experienced paradise. 😃

More like being in purgatory and being punished by having to carry the brick like Canon 10x42 IS-L around.

 

[[email protected]]

What did I tell you. Look for the sale in a few weeks. It happened on the last Sig 16x42 , never a mention about better ED and water proofing on the newer model when discussing how good the old version were. Until after the sale of course. I got your number Dennis.

Just an upgrade. The old Sigs are already sold.

 

[[email protected]]

That’s what said.

I said it better.

 

[albie...]

I said it better.

So sad .

 

[Elpha8888]

Canon has it on the 10x42L. It’s hard to go back once you’ve experienced paradise. 😃

I'm sure only the latest 32mm Canons have the power mode, the new little 8x20 and 10x20 don't have it but the stability is excellent regardless.
I did have the 10x42 and it's a terrific view for sure, shame about the ergos.
This Sigg is really tempting, at 42mm I would like to try it.
I still hold out hope for some new models from Canon one day.

 

[Elpha8888]

Just an upgrade. The old Sigs are already sold.

Did you get that new HDX model? Do you recommend it instead of the older model?

 

[[email protected]]

Did you get that new HDX model? Do you recommend it instead of the older model?

Yes, I have the newer HDX Zulu 6 in 10x30 and 16x42. The HDX is worth the difference for the two different IS modes alone, and the better HDX glass and IPX7 waterproofing is just a bonus. They have a target mode for stationary targets and a scan mode for use when you are panning. The target mode is rock steady, I mean ROCK STEADY, and is really nice once you have locked on your target.

 

[4th_point]

I also took my 15x50 Canon to the store and compared it to the grey 16x42 SIG outside. Not an exhaustive comparison, but long enough to get some impressions.

And for reference, I previously owned one of the 16x42 but sold them shortly before buying the Canon so I didn't own them at the same time. After getting the Canon I definitely felt that they were an improvement over the SIG but I obviously didn't compare side by side until now.

One of the most noticeable things to me was the color. The Canon has a slight yellow cast to my eyes, while the SIG has a strong blue cast. I had never noticed the yellow with the Canon until now. Maybe it was the strong blue in the SIG that made it more apparent.

The blue in the SIG seemed stronger near the edge of the FOV while the Canon seemed uniformly yellow. With objects skylined, the blue seemed even more exaggerated. I remember seeing that in my personal sample of the 16x42 but I don't recall it having that darker blue near the edges like the one at the store.

The Canon also appear sharp towards the edge of the FOV, as I believe Roger Vine noted in his review. This sample of SIG is not sharp near the edge. Neither was my personal sample.

To me, the Canon view is more relaxed, brighter, and appears much larger. Simply due to the larger aperture and 1x less magnification?

I was expecting the SIG stabilization to be better, as that was what I felt was really noteworthy with mine but I didn't feel that it was any better than the Canon today. Maybe I have just gotten better at holding the Canon.

A local store has the non-HDX 16x42 and new HDX 16x42. I took my Canon 15x50 to compare outdoors, but I was really there to see the new 56mm scope from Vortex!

Most of my time and attention was on the scope but I did take some notes.

Conditions were hot and sunny. Lot of heat haze but I was able to look up into some trees and elevated objects.

I didn't notice such a big difference in terms of color or cast like I did with the non-HDX. If I recall correctly, it was more overcast that day though. Maybe that makes a difference.

I could see more detail at several hundred yards with the HDX than my Canon, in the center portion. That was looking at a shaded section of a fir tree. Better resolution or the extra 1x? Or maybe just better contrast, as the bark seemed more uniformly colored with the Canon whereas the SIG showed different shades.

The view was definitely more pleasing with the Canon. More relaxed and sharp to the edges. The HDX definitely was not sharp to the edges just like the non-HDX.

I didn't notice any difference in terms of brightness like I did with the non-HDX, but it was really sunny.

Unlike the non-HDX, I didn't notice any color fringing with the HDX but didn't go out of my way to look for it either. The non-HDX has very noticeable fringing to me.

The HDX still had blue around the periphery, but I think it has to do with the eye relief not working with my glasses. When I owned the non-HDX I was wearing contact lenses and never noticed the blue edge.

I don't know why I would see blue around the edges with the HDX and non-HDX but with both the blue gets noticeably brighter whenever the binoculars are pointed towards a brighter part of the viewing area. Could it be light from the edges of a lens?

I aggressively trimmed the rubber cups on my Canon and get full FOV. It's actually much easier to use than the SIG as crazy as that may seem.

The HDX seems like an improvement. And I still like the weight and size of the SIG over the Canon. The overall view of the Canon is still better to me especially with glasses.

I keep thinking about Roger Vine's review of the Canon. It has a nice flat image that is sharp nearly to the edge but it's not a beautiful image to me. Hard to describe but I can relate to his review. Very utilitarian I guess you could call it but when I examine the entire FOV, it's all sharp.

The HDX strikes me as being very functional. I can see what I need to, but when I examine the FOV it drops off away from center.

I was hoping that the HDX would blow me away right away. It didn't, but is an improvement over the non-HDX.

I may compare again on an overcast day.