comparison among the best 8 x 32 (1 Viewer)

[14Goudvink]

From what I've read the SV is 20 grams heavier than the FL. The SV is lighter than the old EL.

 

[Troubador]

From what I've read the SV is 20 grams heavier than the FL. The SV is lighter than the old EL.

Hi Hoodwink

Seems that Zeiss and Swarovski might disagree with you about the weight difference:

Taken from current manufacturer's brochures

Zeiss 8x42 FL: 755 gms
Swaro SV 8.5x42: 835 gms ie. the Swarovision is 80 gms heavier (assuming there are no errors in the brochures)

Lee

 

[14Goudvink]

You're right, I thought you were talking about 8x32, sorry for the confusion.

 

[Troubador]

You're right, I thought you were talking about 8x32, sorry for the confusion.

Hi Hoody

No need to apologise, this thread started off about 32s but in Post 36 it was mentioned that the Swaro 8.5 x 42 was same size and weight as the FL 8x42.

Best wishes Lee

 

[brocknroller]

George,

IMO the features of a binocular are best finally judged while watching birds, which integrates optical, mechanical, and ergonomic characteristics all at once, and from the user's point of view.

Speed of focus is significant in watching birds. Apart from your own eyesight, knowledge of a bird's behaviour, and where you are, getting on to a bird quickly includes the binocular's FOV, DOF, size of exit pupil, speed of focusing, and additional optical qualities which other writers on this forum are better qualified to describe. The second generation Bausch and Lomb Elites, and the Zeiss FLs are examples of binoculars that some birders find too fast. Many birders found the first generation Swarovski's too slow (My wife had her 10x42s upgraded to the quicker focusing speed later introduced by Swarovski.).

The Elites were subject to focus hunting: you'd turn past the point of best focus, then back through best focus, and on the third try get it just right. The longer you take to get to best focus, the more birds you miss. The ideal binocular focus speed and optical quality for you is a binocular that quickly snaps in to best focus on the first try.

Depending on your sample, you may already have that binocular, as there are lots of very good birders in Ontario and other parts of the world who prefer the Zeiss 8x42 and 10x42 FL.

Mike

Mike,

"Focus hunting" is a great term, and the description you gave of it above perfectly describes my experience with the Nikon 8x32 LX.

Also, as Frank mentioned, sample variation also played a role. My first sample LX had looser focuser tension than my second. The second worked well for close up observation of bugs and butterflies and for distance viewing of birds and wildlife, but in between, the distance that I most often look at birds, I had to "hunt" for the best focus, as you described.

I lost my patience with the first sample in less than a year, but due to the more precise focusing in the second sample, I stuck with it for three years. I had other bins, so it wasn't used exclusively. As annoying as the "focus hunting" was, the image was so spectacular that I probably would have kept it if the ergonomics were better suited for my hands. No matter how I held the small but stocky LXs, I couldn't get a comfortable grip. It also showed more CA than my SE or EII.

The advantages it did have were better color saturation and contrast. Whatever combination of glass and coatings Nikon used in the original Venturer LX series was a significant leap forward from anything I had tried before. With the LXL version, they took a step backward, IMO. The colors were a bit too "warm," the CA a bit more bothersome, and the apparent brightness of the image could wash out detail on brightly lit objects. The rubber was also too soft and scuffed very easily, but the nearly 7 oz. drop in weight was a welcomed change in the new version.

Although Nikon gave the LXL a nameplate change, at least here in the US, to the "Premier," AFAIK, it remains essentially unchanged from the LXL. The full sized versions also lack enough distortion to keep the "ball from rolling".

Except for the focuser knob and diopter issues, which created new problems, the Nikon EDG I solved all my niggles with the LX and LXL. Better ergos, lower CA, a bit slower focuser, non-scuff rubber, and enough pincushion to obviate RB while panning.

Although the EDG's apparent brightness still had the tendency to produce "washed out" images on brightly lit surfaces, it was at a much lower level than the LXL. The EDG retained the superb color saturation and contrast, while doing the LX one better with ED glass. Blues are also more striking in the EDG.

<B>

 

[Mike Penfold]

Thanks, but "focus hunting" was borrowed (perhaps from an article by Steve Ingraham or Kimmo Absetz), back when I was struggling with the Elite.

Mike

 

[oleaf]

'Oleaf',
I checked about it. Yeah, it seems pretty good, although i don't read Italian, and the Google translation was a mess.
I checked at the allbinos.com rankings and it was 12th on the list.
Why you consider that so good? Have you compared it with a Swarovski, Zeiss, Leica, Nikon or something? Just wondering why that one, don't misunderstand me.
If i go for a 8x32 finally, that would be the Swarovski Sv 8x32 for sure. I like it's design more than any other, and i see from the reviews that it's great optically, as well as ergonomically.
Otherwise, i am thinking to try the Sv 8,5 x 42. It may be the same size and weight as my FL, but if it feels right on my hands, it's as great as my Zeiss optically, i will gain a 0,5x (a little bit more resolution hopefully), with similar great field of view and still a bright image for all situations..

Thanks for your opinion anyway,
George

Don't place all your trust on a online or magazine review. Here's a practical opinion. http://www.holgermerlitz.de/meopta8x32.html

cheers

 

[brocknroller]

Actually the Meoptas optical performance is at the same optical level as the pre-ED glass alphas. Examples of which would include the Nikon Premier LXL, the Leica Trinovid and the Swaro SLC. What sets it aprst from those though is the ergonomics. The only binocular that felt better in my hand was the original Swaro EL 32 mm.

The Meopta is definitely one of the better 32 mm glasses out there especially considering the price.

Holger seemed to like it too. Your review and his got me interested in this model as a less expensive alternative to the 8x32 EL. However, I was surprised that you were able to hold this tiny bin comfortably when even the 8x32 SE was too small for your hands, and it has a lot more "real estate" and round housings and a semi-open bridge to wrap your hands and fingers around. The Meopta has a wide, flat bridge with stubby barrels and is only 4.4" wide.

But the two things that turned me off toward making the long trek to an optics store that carried the brand was the high level of distortion and the very uneven light transmission graph that Arek reported, which he said caused problems with the bin's color rendition. The bin peaks in the red and it's like a mountain slope from there until you fall off the cliff at the blue. While one might argue that Zeiss puts too much emphasis in the yellow and green, Meopta's steep drop off in this range seems strange for a bin they designed for birders.

What do you think about those two issues? Pincushion and color rendition in the 8x32 Meopta?

http://www.allbinos.com/185-binoculars_review-Meopta_Meostar_B1_8x32.html

<B>

 

[Torview]

Brock, I found the Meopta`s astonishing, lovely in the hand, really bright with a warm colour bias which was very appealing on the overcast March day I tried them, they seemed wider than anything else I tried that day, the image seemed to float just in front of my eyes with the thinnest frame around it, like when I look through a bin with the eye cups down.

Why did`nt I buy one ?, well to be honest I did`nt have the readies back in March, I was, I think now, needlessly concerned about a yellow colour cast and with no local dealer I went Zeiss, but I still regret it, I`m not entirely convinced the Victory is superior, honestly I see them as an EII roof, if that makes sense.

 

[timtagel]

I recommend the Leica 8x32 BN the older 'built like a tank' design Trinovids. A modern classic in every way.

 

[FrankD]

Brock, I found the Meopta`s astonishing, lovely in the hand, really bright with a warm colour bias which was very appealing on the overcast March day I tried them...... I`m not entirely convinced the Victory is superior, honestly I see them as an EII roof, if that makes sense.

Oh boy, now you have him hooked.

 

[looksharp65]

Sadly, I've had no opportunity to try the Meopta 8x32. However, I'm familiar with the immersive feeling that comes with a large ocular lens and only a thin black rim around the image. That's what called "a great PFOV".
In allbino's test, the Nikon HG L tied with the Meopta and I'd say the HG or HGL is the real "E II roof".
I'm quite sure the Meopta is easier to hold. The HG's wide strap lugs extend too far out from the body, and there's too little binocular left in front of them if you have average or larger hands.
On the other hand, the HG/HGL is sharp to the field stop.

//L

 

[Torview]

My friends liked them very much also, without getting techy they may be sub-alpha but we all found them the most "pleasing".

If everything at Cleyspy had been de-branded that day and all presented blind they would have been the pair I walked out with.

 

[brocknroller]

Sadly, I've had no opportunity to try the Meopta 8x32. However, I'm familiar with the immersive feeling that comes with a large ocular lens and only a thin black rim around the image. That's what called "a great PFOV".
In allbino's test, the Nikon HG L tied with the Meopta and I'd say the HG or HGL is the real "E II roof".
I'm quite sure the Meopta is easier to hold. The HG's wide strap lugs extend too far out from the body, and there's too little binocular left in front of them if you have average or larger hands.
On the other hand, the HG/HGL is sharp to the field stop.

//L

LS,

I agree about the HG's strap lug protrusions pushing your hands forward. As I mentioned elsewhere, I ran out of bin before I ran out of hand. I added Bushwackers, which helped a bit in that regard, but it will still hard for me to hold since there was no way to support the bin from below. The Meopta 8x32 has shallow thumb indents.

Fall off at the edge was another complaint that Arek had about the Meopta, but he seems to be pickier than I am when it comes to edge sharpness. As long as the sweet spot is at least 70% and fall off is gradual, I have no problem, it's the steep fall off at the edges where you go from a sharp image to a complete blur within a degree or so that bothers me, because it produces the "Coke Bottle Effect."

The guy who first coined that phrase in regard to bins was William Thompson III in his review of the EO 8x42 Raptor porro, which had a really wide FOV (8.8*?). It was very sharp in the center, similar to the Swift Audubon in both optical quality and ergonomics, but its larger FOV produced "Ring Around the Collar" (my term . So when you pan, and your eyes dart ahead toward the edge, you see alternating sharp and blurry images.

As to the 8x32 LX being sharp to the edges. Well, yes, the lateral edges, but I didn't like the astigmatism on top. Not too bad on the bottom, but I found in the two samples I had, the sweet spot was lopsided, falling off greater at the top than the bottom and sharp to the very edges on the horizontal axis (thin blue ring at the very edge of the field when viewing a high contrast background). More than even Henry's "hairy eyeball astigmatism" would create since I see this is all my bins, just not as severely.

The depth perception was so shallow in the 8x32 LX that I never thought of it as the roof equivalent of the EII. Excellent contrast and color saturation, even better than the EII, but the image was almost 2-D.

One of the two reasons I really liked the 8x32 EL is that while it didn't have that super 3-D porro depth, it was better in that regard than any midsized roof I've tried, and the ergos fit me like a glove. The distortion level seemed closer to the SE than the EII, which has a bit too much pincushion. So in that sense, I would guess it is like the EII.

The price went up about $75-$100 on the 8x32 Meopta.

I will put it back on my "Must check out" list, but I've got a feeling that I'm so spoiled by my porros and so impressed by the EL that my expectations are too high for the Meopta.

<B>

 

[FrankD]

Me thinks you will still like it Brock. The one characteristic I remember being particularly appealing (besides those mentioned above) is the transition into and out of perfect focus. Good depth of focus. It reminded me of a porro in that extent.

Still think you would like the Sightrons as well.