8x32 advice? (1 Viewer)

[Sheepwatcher]

I am a first-time poster after absorbing some of the wealth of information on BF, so please forgive me any breaches of protocol. I am shopping for a high-quality 8x32 pair of binoculars to replace my Nikon SEs that have succumbed to a seemingly fatal fungal incursion. I definitely want something that will be more or less immune to the tropical humidity of Northern New England in the US, so I think porous are off the table. I had been trying to decide between Leica UVDHs (not plus) and Zeiss FLs as I've owned other Ultravids and Zeiss FLs and found the ergonomics of both to work for me and the small size and weight are appealing. The used prices of these 2 seems to be about the same in the US. A recent complication is an opportunity to buy a used pair of Zeiss SF 8x32s for about the same price. The reportedly higher optical quality is appealing while the bigger size is less so. I've tried out the 10x42 SFs and liked them a great deal. Any advice? Thank you!!

 

[NDhunter]

Welcome to Birdforum, and you have a very good question, and don't be bashful, it is good to have you here.
There is no protocol, as your post will be of interest to many. The 8x32 size seems to one of the most popular
all around sizes one could choose.
I have tried several of the models you have listed, and I really like the Zeiss 8x32 Victory SF, it rises to the top. Other than that, I would go with a Swarovski EL 8x32 SV. They also have great optics and handling.
It is nice that there are many great choices you could go with, and it really does come down to personal opinion.
Jerry

 

[Ribbon]

The SF8x32's for me are 'spot on', but I'm aware this can be very personal. They're indeed somewhat large for a x32, but for someone with relatively bigger hands (like myself) this is a pro rather than a con. A smaller size would be just too small...

I used to own a SF10x42 which is fairly large. Best would be to have a side by side comparison with the x32.

Another example that it's very personal is the eyecup/kidney bean thing with the SF's. I wear glasses, but have a fairly small frame. I place the bin's at the lower edge of my eyebrows and turn the eyecups just a little bit up from the 'all the way down position'. Together with the right interpupillary distance this offers me the best FOV without kidney beans. But again; a lot depends on personal preferences and physical aspects.

I use the SF's almost daily in sometimes very humid Dutch conditions, and it does the job for me very well for some years now. No complaints.

 

[Richard D]

My favourite in that configuration is the EL 8x32 (there's a pair from a trusted forum member currently advertised), but what suits me might not suit you best. All the models suggested so far are good binoculars - a lot of it comes down to personal preference.

 

[Mike Crawley]

I only have 8x32 ELs and only have experience with Hawke 8x32 as an alternative (they live in the boot of my car)

My only advice would be to get the binoculars in your hands and make absolutely sure that you actually like them. Forget the manufacturer’s specifications for a few seconds and be sure they are comfortable in your hands and compatible with your eyes and the shape of your face.

 

[crinklystarfish]

I can only agree that at this level of optical quality then personal preference of the package as a whole should be the final arbiter. Optical nuances, fit, finish; even accessories and ongoing factory support can be the difference between satisfaction and a constant niggle. From what you report it sounds like the UVHD works well as a package for you and - given that - you could do far worse in my humble view.

I definitely want something that will be more or less immune to the tropical humidity of Northern New England in the US, so I think porous are off the table.

If that use of 'porous' was intentional, I salute you.

 

[yarrellii]

This is a tough decision to make, since both binoculars you mention (FL and UV) are very good. However, maybe your previous experience with larger FL and UV might not be a perfect reference point, because both 8x32 are pretty stubby and short. Yes, the 42 mm FL and UV are also quite compact for the objective size, but the FL has AK prisms, which kind of makes for a "bottle shaped" tube, and the grip of the 42 mm UV is really different to the 32 mm. I have middle size hands with shortish fingers but wide palms (kind of bear-ish, if you know what I mean), and found the handling of the 8x32 UV to be less adequate than the FL (or other designs for that matter). My fingers would end up a bit crammed on the upper part.

"Try before you buy" is always a great advice, but when dealing with former top dogs (where the quality of the optics is granted) the fit and user experience amounts for a bigger part of the buying decision. I was in the same position as you, and actually bought both the FL and UV and could compare them directly side by side.

Optics-wise, I found the 8x32 FL and UV to be distinctly different. The UV had a lovely crispy view, full of contrast, with more vivid colours (so, the trademark "Leica View"), while the FL was surprisingly bright, but that sort of paid a toll in contrast, or at least the (this is very personal) feeling that the image was a bit washed at times. Overall, I preferred the view through the UV. I had the 8x32 in both UV and UVHD and I don't recall a huge difference.
Focus wheel was OK in both FL and UV, I think I preferred the Zeiss, but neither were a favourite for focusing experience, maybe due to the mechanical nature of both focus wheels, which makes for a "dry" feeling, not as soft as greased wheels.

As a wild card, I don't know if you've tried the Conquest HD 8x32. Yes, it's heavier and bulkier, but the view leaves very little to be desired, the focus wheel is among the softest and fastest I've tried and, depending on your hand size and grip preference, they can offer a great feel on the hands... and can usually be found for way less than the FL or UV. But then, I guess if you're interested in the FL/UV, it probably means that size and weight are a priority.

 

[jring]

Hi,

first of all, welcome to birdforum!

If you can get a used SF 8x32 for what a used UVHD or FL would be, I would strongly recommend to try it and decide for yourself.

Joachim, who likes his FL... a pair of SF was not to be found in budget...

 

[Patudo]

Worth noting too that your Nikon SE can probably be cleaned up - if not by Nikon themselves, then by technicians of which the best known in the U.S. seems to be Corey Suddarth (others will suggest more, I'm sure). I agree I'd look for a sealed/waterproof binocular to supplement it though.

If looking at FLs (and presumably also Ultravids) that are longer in the tooth (the oldest might be 20 years old now), be aware that seals/O-rings etc may have deteriorated.

 

[Maljunulo]

You don’t say where you are, which makes it a bit harder to be helpful.

The only way is to find a place where you can look through one of each, and decide which one “fits you” better.

The other way is to order both, and return the one you don’t want, which means the vendor ends up with an “open box” sample.

Good luck in your search. (and welcome)

 

[chill6x6]

Most folks prefer either the FL 8X32 or the UV 8X32. I tend to prefer the Ultravid BUT some like the FL more and I can see why. 100% personal preference although on paper the Zeiss the better of the two. If you can get a current SF 8X32 and you can try it and it works for you...that's the one I'd get. It's Zeiss's current best so why not? The Zeiss SFL 8X40 would be another good one to try along with with Conquest HD 8X32.

 

[WJC]

I am a first-time poster after absorbing some of the wealth of information on BF, so please forgive me any breaches of protocol. I am shopping for a high-quality 8x32 pair of binoculars to replace my Nikon SEs that have succumbed to a seemingly fatal fungal incursion. I definitely want something that will be more or less immune to the tropical humidity of Northern New England in the US, so I think porous are off the table. I had been trying to decide between Leica UVDHs (not plus) and Zeiss FLs as I've owned other Ultravids and Zeiss FLs and found the ergonomics of both to work for me and the small size and weight are appealing. The used prices of these 2 seems to be about the same in the US. A recent complication is an opportunity to buy a used pair of Zeiss SF 8x32s for about the same price. The reportedly higher optical quality is appealing while the bigger size is less so. I've tried out the 10x42 SFs and liked them a great deal. Any advice? Thank you!!

I have never seen a Nikon 8x32 SE with a "fatal fungal incursion."

However, Cory Suddarth—S.R.O.—can solve your problem. After which, the instrument will need to be collimated. Cory has a collimator, or two ... or THREE and doesn't rely on that stupid "power pole" or "roof line" business that too many people call "collimation." It's not (see attached). That method can make an instrument usable IN SOME INSTANCES. And that's all some people want.

 

[Bill Atwood]

If you can afford up to $1,500 you should take a look at the 8x30 SFL. It's quite small and light. Some people (including me) have issues with eye placement.

Alternatively I'd recommend the 8x40 SFL ($1,800) over the 8x32SF. They are about the same size and weight although with smaller tubes the 8x32SF is likely more comfortable for many.

The SFs have a bit of a reputation as having a green tint. Normally, I poo pooed color issues, but with the SFs it was immediately apparent especially when when comparing them to other high end bins. It definitely affects iding LBJs in low light. With that statement, others will likely chime in screaming that I'm wrong. Regardless you've been informed that it issue an issue for some of us. If the SF didn't have the color issue it might have been my favorite bin.

 

[Pinewood]

...

The SFs have a bit of a reputation as having a green tint. Normally, I poo pooed color issues, but with the SFs it was immediately apparent especially when when comparing them to other high end bins. It definitely affects iding LBJs in low light. With that statement, others will likely chime in screaming that I'm wrong. Regardless you've been informed that it issue an issue for some of us. If the SF didn't have the color issue it might have been my favorite bin.

Hello Bill,

Yes, unfortunately, some people who have invested in a well made binocular, get all excited, even angered, when someone finds a fault in their favourite optic. Colour cast and chromatic aberrations affect people to differing degrees. That is why I always suggest trying before buying.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur

 

[Cest]

I have the Hawke Marine ED 7x32. It is designed to deal with water and wet weather. You might consider it.

 

[Sheepwatcher]

My favourite in that configuration is the EL 8x32 (there's a pair from a trusted forum member currently advertised), but what suits me might not suit you best. All the models suggested so far are good binoculars - a lot of it comes down to personal preference.

Thank you for the lead about the SV 8x32 for sale. That's an intriguing option I hadn't sufficiently considered.

 

[Sheepwatcher]

Worth noting too that your Nikon SE can probably be cleaned up - if not by Nikon themselves, then by technicians of which the best known in the U.S. seems to be Corey Suddarth (others will suggest more, I'm sure). I agree I'd look for a sealed/waterproof binocular to supplement it though.

If looking at FLs (and presumably also Ultravids) that are longer in the tooth (the oldest might be 20 years old now), be aware that seals/O-rings etc may have deteriorated.

Thank you for both of these suggestions! I had heard that Nikon was no longer servicing SEs, so I thought it a lost cause. I will try to find the person you recommend. And I hadn't given sufficient weight to the possible degradation of an older pair of binoculars. Given my sometimes-steamy environment, I think that's an important consideration.

 

[Sheepwatcher]

You don’t say where you are, which makes it a bit harder to be helpful.

The only way is to find a place where you can look through one of each, and decide which one “fits you” better.

The other way is to order both, and return the one you don’t want, which means the vendor ends up with an “open box” sample.

Good luck in your search. (and welcome)

I'm in northern New England (New Hampshire) in the USA. We have a couple of excellent optics retails in the region, but the models I am considering are only available on the used market, and so more challenging to test drive. Any suggestions you might have would be welcome!

 

[Sheepwatcher]

If you can afford up to $1,500 you should take a look at the 8x30 SFL. It's quite small and light. Some people (including me) have issues with eye placement.

Alternatively I'd recommend the 8x40 SFL ($1,800) over the 8x32SF. They are about the same size and weight although with smaller tubes the 8x32SF is likely more comfortable for many.

The SFs have a bit of a reputation as having a green tint. Normally, I poo pooed color issues, but with the SFs it was immediately apparent especially when when comparing them to other high end bins. It definitely affects iding LBJs in low light. With that statement, others will likely chime in screaming that I'm wrong. Regardless you've been informed that it issue an issue for some of us. If the SF didn't have the color issue it might have been my favorite bin.

I have a 10x42 SFL and like it ok -- Zeiss sent it to me as a replacement for a 10x42 FL that they chose not to repair. I would have preferred to have my old Victory FL back... The 8x30 SFL is something I've considered, but it's a bit more money that the others I'm looking at on the used market.

 

[tenex]

It is very hard to "help" someone decide which bin to buy, as everything is so personal you really need to try them yourself -- which sellers of pre-owned FLs may not want to indulge, while for UV you can try the HD+ at a store, then shop for an HD. I've used both (Edit: in 10x) and prefer the ergonomics of FL 32, with no strong preference on the optics, different but both excellent. A good price on SF could be attractive too, but only if you like its handling and find the view comfortable. No option here could be considered a mistake, so good luck.