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.
-
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.
Best 8x Bino’s for the money (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Vinnie45acp
- Start date
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.
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.
On this we agree.
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.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
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.
Elkhornsun
Well-known member
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.
Paultricounty
Well-known member
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.
