• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Best 8x Bino’s for the money (3 Viewers)

For example, I currently own both NL and SF 42mms. Which one I’ll reach for on a given day will vary with the task at hand. If on a tripod, slowing picking apart a distant landscape or for astronomy I’d certainly reach for the NL. If viewing waterfowl, waders or searching for warblers on a bright, sunny day, I’d reach for my SFs.
Are both SF and NL you have in 8x42 format (I guess they are, because this thread discusses about x8 binoculars and unless otherwise, it is an apple-to-orange comparison)? Then why NL is more suitable for astronomy than SF? I am just curious.
 
Personally not a fan of a 32mm as a main glass. To that end, I’m a huge fan of the 42mm SF / 40mm SFL and enjoy the 42mm NL but not the 32mm SF. I tried them out and just did not find the same easy view as from the 42mm and also experienced considerable blackouts. Other well-experienced birders on this forum love them. Again, although the NL and SF lines are both exceptional which specific configurations within those products lines will suit you best is ????????
That depends on how the 32mm fits your eye sockets. If the 32mm fits your facial structure perfectly, a 32mm can have as good eye placement comfort and fewer blackouts than a 42mm. You just haven't found a 32mm that fit's you good yet. The SF and NL 32mm's fit my eye sockets perfectly, so I don't notice any difference between them and a 42mm, as far as, eye placement or blackouts.
 
Are both SF and NL you have in 8x42 format (I guess they are, because this thread discusses about x8 binoculars and unless otherwise, it is an apple-to-orange comparison)? Then why NL is more suitable for astronomy than SF? I am just curious.
An NL 8x42 would be a little better for astronomy than an SF 8x42 because it has sharper edges and a flatter field. Binoculars with sharp edges and flat fields show star fields better because the stars are sharp and crisp right to the edge of the FOV.
 
Yes, but neither the Zeiss Conquest HD 8x32, Nikon EDG 8x42 or SFL 8x40 gives me the big FOV of the NL 8x32. Why not have one alpha binocular that gives you the best view instead of a bunch of binoculars that aren't quite as good.
It's true, EDG and Leica won't budge past that 7.7 degree benchmark in their 8x42's. If ultra-wide field is your cup of tea they don't have it....I figured any $3,000 bino should be excluded from the "value" discussion :) $1400 binos probably don't belong in there either.....

I've always thought binos had to be 42mm or more to be "serious" but the 8x32 EL's were pretty nice. I liked the glass but not the body & mechanics in those. Those and the 10x35 E2's showed me that small exit pupil doesn't necessarily mean difficult eye placement. The 8x42's SF have a fairly large exit pupil and some of the worst struggles with eye placement of any bino I've used.

Ease of eye placement is the #1 advantage of the 8x42 EDG over the SF for me. near-total lack of CA would be the other. The SF is slightly sharper in the middle and wider field. But more CA, more warping distortion, and weird artifacts from your eye not being in precisely the right spot.
 
It's true, EDG and Leica won't budge past that 7.7 degree benchmark in their 8x42's. If ultra-wide field is your cup of tea they don't have it....I figured any $3,000 bino should be excluded from the "value" discussion :) $1400 binos probably don't belong in there either.....

I've always thought binos had to be 42mm or more to be "serious" but the 8x32 EL's were pretty nice. I liked the glass but not the body & mechanics in those. Those and the 10x35 E2's showed me that small exit pupil doesn't necessarily mean difficult eye placement. The 8x42's SF have a fairly large exit pupil and some of the worst struggles with eye placement of any bino I've used.

Ease of eye placement is the #1 advantage of the 8x42 EDG over the SF for me. near-total lack of CA would be the other. The SF is slightly sharper in the middle and wider field. But more CA, more warping distortion, and weird artifacts from your eye not being in precisely the right spot.
SF's are really sharp on-axis, aren't they. My SF 10x32 is ungodly sharp in the center. They are sharper than the SFL or Conquest HD, easily.
 
Great value from the Nikon Monarch and the Vortex binoculars. With Vortex I would avoid the bottom end with the Diamond back and go with the Viper or the Razor HD. The Razor UHD is not any better than the older HD version that costs $500 less.
 
I second the Monarchs and Vipers , and even better the MHG and Razor HD’s. But I have to disagree on the UHD’s , they’re phenomenal glass. I did side by side comparisons with HD’s and UHD’s in both 8x and 10x42 for a few weeks. The UHD’s are right up there with the Alphas, these are about the brightest 42mm binoculars I’ve ever used, and with AK prisms. But they are more than a $500 bump.
 
The Maven 8x30 are pretty darn nice. Military and first responder discounts. Bought a set for my wife and I end up using them all the time. Could use a bit more eye relief, but couldn’t they all (for us old bespectacled folks)
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top