Entry/Test 8x32 binoculars (1 Viewer)

[[email protected]]

Depends on where you buy. In the store where I tested them, you could even open a window and look outside, very much like normal conditions in use. Not every store will offer that of course.
I am curious, in the USA can you test binos a week then send them back as if nothing ever happened and get a full refund? Because in Germany that wouldn't fly. Unless some sellers offer a test period allowing that. Otherwise, to get a full refund, the items have to be unused. If not, the seller can charge you for whatever reduction in value you caused by using the item. Which is perfectly fine, otherwise how could the seller sell them again as new if someone already used them for a week to test-drive them?

At most places, you can in the USA. Be sure to check exactly what their return policy specifies though before you buy. Amazon.com has probably the easiest return policy. That is a big reason they are by far the biggest online seller in the world.

 

[Paultricounty]

I agree, I've been paying a lot of attention to AFOV. I think it's the perceived size of the image that gives the sense of immersion, and that is what matters more to me, not the extra foot of view (though that matters to me too). They do generally seem to run together though (most of the time higher FOV correlates to higher AFOV within a magnification class). This intuitively makes sense to me, if the magnification is truly the same and the image displays a larger area, then the image should in theory be larger, right? For example, if a map has the same scale as another map, but covers a larger area, then the map itself must be physically larger. I understand there are complexities in how we perceive it because of eyepiece geometry, etc. but this seems like a reasonable generalization to me. Am I wrong?

Something else to consider when we’re talking about FOV in your two examples the Vortex Razor 8x42 and the Trinovid are , that both have smaller FOV than many in the 8x, they’re are both around 380 ft. Interesting to note the 10 version of the Razor (362) is very large and second only to the NL’s. The Noctivids in 8x at 404ft seem much larger in FOV than the both the Trinovid and the Razor. The Nikon MHG is 435ft, huge in comparison to the V & L.

Tom had posted a few days ago a few binoculars FOV at 100 yards and it’s very telling.

Anothe r interesting thing that I observe is that I don’t notice much of a difference at all in the SF 8x32 466ft and the Swarovski EL at 420 at distances of 100-200 yards that do most of my observing. To me a real wide FOV is over 9°.

Something like these Rangemasters and Swift Holidays at 10° and 11° respectively.

 

[GrampaTom]

I agree, I've been paying a lot of attention to AFOV. I think it's the perceived size of the image that gives the sense of immersion, and that is what matters more to me, not the extra foot of view (though that matters to me too). They do generally seem to run together though (most of the time higher FOV correlates to higher AFOV within a magnification class). This intuitively makes sense to me, if the magnification is truly the same and the image displays a larger area, then the image should in theory be larger, right? For example, if a map has the same scale as another map, but covers a larger area, then the map itself must be physically larger. I understand there are complexities in how we perceive it because of eyepiece geometry, etc. but this seems like a reasonable generalization to me. Am I wrong?

As I wrote, I’m not sure, I should try and explain. As I read what you wrote, I believe you’ve got it. It is what I see in my own 832s with 65 AFOV vs my 1042s with 60.

 

[ngiff3]

Something else to consider when we’re talking about FOV in your two examples the Vortex Razor 8x42 and the Trinovid are , that both have smaller FOV than many in the 8x, they’re are both around 380 ft. Interesting to note the 10 version of the Razor (362) is very large and second only to the NL’s. The Noctivids in 8x at 404ft seem much larger in FOV than the both the Trinovid and the Razor. The Nikon MHG is 435ft, huge in comparison to the V & L.

Tom had posted a few days ago a few binoculars FOV at 100 yards and it’s very telling.

Anothe r interesting thing that I observe is that I don’t notice much of a difference at all in the SF 8x32 466ft and the Swarovski EL at 420 at distances of 100-200 yards that do most of my observing. To me a real wide FOV is over 9°.

Something like these Rangemasters and Swift Holidays at 10° and 11° respectively.

Yeah, the only place I could try bins at locally was Cabelas, so I tried the Trinovids, Conquest HD, and Razor HD's all in 10x42, which was all they had at that level (no 8x at all there). I knew I wanted 8x though, and hadn't done the research to get an understanding of AFOV, etc. and liked the Razor the best of those (though I liked the Conquest pretty well too), which makes sense if the 10x Razors have a large FOV. I then went and bought the Razor HD 8x42 from B&H online. Retrospectively I wish I had bought the MHG alongside them to compare, but c'est la vie.

 

[Paultricounty]

Yeah, the only place I could try bins at locally was Cabelas, so I tried the Trinovids, Conquest HD, and Razor HD's all in 10x42, which was all they had at that level (no 8x at all there). I knew I wanted 8x though, and hadn't done the research to get an understanding of AFOV, etc. and liked the Razor the best of those (though I liked the Conquest pretty well too), which makes sense if the 10x Razors have a large FOV. I then went and bought the Razor HD 8x42 from B&H online. Retrospectively I wish I had bought the MHG alongside them to compare, but c'est la vie.

If you like a wide FOV, you definitely would’ve liked the Nikons better. The conquest is also very nice glass. Another interesting point, the NL 10 x 42 has a larger FOV than the Razor and Trinovids in 8x42. If you didn’t buy the razor too long ago, B & H sometimes will buy them from you and give you a credit. 🤔

Let us know what you wind up with.

Paul

 

[Patudo]

to the OP - hmmm - bit of a tricky question. To look at my own experience - I got an 8x30 (Zeiss Jenoptem porro) years ago after deciding I wanted something with a larger field of view than my 10x42. The East German Zeiss wasn't exactly fantastic, either optically or mechanically, but I used it quite a bit, enough to convince me that 8x30 was worth having. Ended up with an ex-alpha (Zeiss FL 8x32) and also some better versions of the Jenoptem as I found myself missing the light weight and wide field of view of an old 8x30 porro. Ironically my circumstances have changed somewhat and I find myself using the 8x32 much less frequently now. I probably should sell it, excellent though it is.

so, for what it's worth, I think you probably can get some feeling of whether you like 8x32 by trying a lower quality binocular in that format, with the proviso that as you go up in price you'll see quite significant improvements (certainly in image quality but not necessarily in ease of view - eg the Leica Ultravid 8x32 is infamous for pretty tight eye relief and my 8x32 FL can be quite exacting when it comes to eye placement). The big 8x32 alphas eg NL and SF are also somewhat of a different beast compared to most 8x32/30 class binoculars, which emphasize light weight and small size. Ultimately there's no real substitute for trying the exact model you intend to buy, and there's a very good argument for going directly to it, as inferior models will not give you the same experience. If your retailer allows you to try and return I suppose you should take full advantage of it.

This thing about field of view/apparent field of view - I find myself going round in circles sometimes in what I think. I used to think it was the ultimate quality in binoculars and still think it's important, but it often doesn't seem to matter that much in the field - especially in the kind of birding where you spot the bird with the unaided eye first and use your binoculars for a closer look. As for the sense of immersion, I seem to find I feel this when I can get the field stop as far "out" as possible, even if actual FOV is modest. But we all see things differently, etc...

 

[Trinovid]

Any thoughts on the best "starter" 8x32 to help me decide? I'll probably ultimately keep them as a buddy bin, but it doesn't have to be the best since I'm ultimately planning to buy something better for my primary use.

You're already in possession of the best Vortex has to offer and the Viper series would be a much better choice rather than the Diamondback.

Regarding blackouts, the 8x32 Leica is where I first found a binocular that didn't give me any trouble and again, looking at an Ultravid would also probably be a better binocular for you to at least give a try.

 

[Paultricounty]

Another binocular to consider If you don’t mind buying used is the 8x32 EL. Lots of times these come up for sale in real nice condition. These are amazing top of the line ,and imo as good as the SF’ and right there with the NL’s, but not quite in field of view. But these would check many of the boxes your looking for, very goof FOV 420 @ 1000 (were considered wide field bins before the NL’s and SF’s came out), top of the line alpha optics and excellent eye box comfort, if not one of the best in that area, neck and neck with the EDG’s. It’s my choice between the SF’s and Ultravids, although I would say if I hadn’t got the EL first, I would’ve gone for the NL.

Paul

 

[ngiff3]

Yeah, I'm a bit tempted to try the 8.5x42 ELs that are listed on the classifieds right now. Sounds like he is located ~10 minutes from my house. But I also kinda want to try the SF/NL Pure because of the whole FOV thing. I'm debating on whether to order the used Victory SF 8x32s and used NL Pure 8x42s on BH Photo tonight, or just get the new Victory SF 8x42 and used 8x42 NL Pures. I'll decide sometime tonight, planning to place the order when the website ordering comes back online from their holiday.

 

[K-Optic]

I've been researching and thinking about buying my first alpha binoculars (between Victory SF/NL Pure), but I'm a little bit on the fence as to what to buy 8x32 or 8x42. I currently have a pair of Razor HD 8x42's that on the one hand don't feel heavy to me (24oz), but on the other hand I've had them held up for a good 3-5 minutes before (watching a preening Heron, or a Warbler collecting nesting material) and wished I had something lighter. Because of that, I've questioned whether I should go for the ~29oz 8x42 alpha's or the ~22oz 8x32s. I've never used 8x32's and I'm a little concerned I would find the smaller exit pupil annoying to deal with. I don't have anywhere convenient to test nearby so I'm planning to purchase two pairs to compare from B&H and return the other.

Because of my limitations in what I can try, I'm thinking to perhaps buy a pair of entry level 8x32 to use for a month to see if it bothers me or if I adjust to it. Any suggestions on a good test pair? I'm considering the below models already. Generally I've found I like wide FOVs, and I'm not particularly interested Porro's.

1. Nature DX 8x32
2. Vortex Diamondback 8x32
3. Opticron Explorer WA ED-R 8x32

Any thoughts on the best "starter" 8x32 to help me decide? I'll probably ultimately keep them as a buddy bin, but it doesn't have to be the best since I'm ultimately planning to buy something better for my primary use.

I don't have the dough to buy the bigger top Alpha bins, but do own the smaller Leica Ultravid 8x20, Swarovski Curio 7x21, and in the 8x32 range, the Leica Trinovid, Zeiss Conquest, and Nikon Eii 8x30. I like the 8x32's because I spend a lot of time glassing, and the 8x42's are just a bit heavy to hold for 1-3 hours per day.
I recently bought the new Nikon Prostaff P7 in 8x30, and were pleasantly surprized by this little bin. I prefer it to the Leica Trinovid because of the great 152m F.O.V. where the Trinovid only has 124m. The P7 also weighs only 485g vs 630g for the Trinovid and Conquest, and is an absolute pleasure to hold and use for hours on end.
For the price, I believe the Prostaff 7 8x30 to be an exceptional addition the available selection of wide angle roof prism binoculars available, especially at this price point. I can also note that I have no blackout issues with it.

 

[Paultricounty]

Yeah, I'm a bit tempted to try the 8.5x42 ELs that are listed on the classifieds right now. Sounds like he is located ~10 minutes from my house. But I also kinda want to try the SF/NL Pure because of the whole FOV thing. I'm debating on whether to order the used Victory SF 8x32s and used NL Pure 8x42s on BH Photo tonight, or just get the new Victory SF 8x42 and used 8x42 NL Pures. I'll decide sometime tonight, planning to place the order when the website ordering comes back online from their holiday.

It doesn’t get much better than 8.5x42 EL’s. But if your leaning to lighter and very wide FOV, then this may not check all the boxes.

 

[Paultricounty]

I don't have the dough to buy the bigger top Alpha bins, but do own the smaller Leica Ultravid 8x20, Swarovski Curio 7x21, and in the 8x32 range, the Leica Trinovid, Zeiss Conquest, and Nikon Eii 8x30. I like the 8x32's because I spend a lot of time glassing, and the 8x42's are just a bit heavy to hold for 1-3 hours per day.
I recently bought the new Nikon Prostaff P7 in 8x30, and were pleasantly surprized by this little bin. I prefer it to the Leica Trinovid because of the great 152m F.O.V. where the Trinovid only has 124m. The P7 also weighs only 485g vs 630g for the Trinovid and Conquest, and is an absolute pleasure to hold and use for hours on end.
For the price, I believe the Prostaff 7 8x30 to be an exceptional addition the available selection of wide angle roof prism binoculars available, especially at this price point. I can also note that I have no blackout issues with it.

Sounds to me like you got all the bases covered. A lot of good glass there.

 

[MiddleRiver]

Sounds to me like you got all the bases covered. A lot of good glass there.

WHich leads me to wonder: why not thin the collection and apply that to a definitive pair of alpha binos?

 

[K-Optic]

WHich leads me to wonder: why not thin the collection and apply that to a definitive pair of alpha bi

 

[Paultricounty]

WHich leads me to wonder: why not thin the collection and apply that to a definitive pair of alpha binos?

He seems to be enjoying all that good glass, I didn’t want to motivate him to go down the slippery slope of the alpha chase 😔

 

[K-Optic]

Very good point MiddleRiver. I only started enjoying glassing 4 years ago, and never thought it would escalate to the current state of owning 16 pairs of binoculars! The small pocket bins like the UV 8x20 and Curio are keepers, as well as Pentax Papillio 6.5x21. I love the colour pop of the Trinovid 8x32, but not the narrow F.O.V. Zeiss Conquest 8x32 is an amazing litte bin... I have a couple of Nikon Aculon Porro's in 7x35, 8x40, and 7x50, but those were just acquired out of curiosity. The Nikon Eii 8x30 is an exceptional instrument which I will keep for sure. My next acquisition will be the Zeiss SFL 8x40, heading up the price scale and quality scale. It seems I have spent quite a bit on the lot I have, but really enjoy the learning curve and look forward to one day getting to the NL Pure range! Also, here in South Africa the market for selling second hand binoculars are very small, and I'll probably donate the cheaper ones to family and friends.

 

[William Lewis]

Very good point MiddleRiver. I only started enjoying glassing 4 years ago, and never thought it would escalate to the current state of owning 16 pairs of binoculars! The small pocket bins like the UV 8x20 and Curio are keepers, as well as Pentax Papillio 6.5x21. I love the colour pop of the Trinovid 8x32, but not the narrow F.O.V. Zeiss Conquest 8x32 is an amazing litte bin... I have a couple of Nikon Aculon Porro's in 7x35, 8x40, and 7x50, but those were just acquired out of curiosity. The Nikon Eii 8x30 is an exceptional instrument which I will keep for sure. My next acquisition will be the Zeiss SFL 8x40, heading up the price scale and quality scale. It seems I have spent quite a bit on the lot I have, but really enjoy the learning curve and look forward to one day getting to the NL Pure range! Also, here in South Africa the market for selling second hand binoculars are very small, and I'll probably donate the cheaper ones to family and friends.

+1 for the e2. They are REALLY nice. I was out birding with mine for a good few hours yesterday and despite being a year or so into using them intensively they still surprise me with just what a wonderful tool for birdwatching and nature viewing they are.

Wieldy, stable, great to hold, wide fov, bright, top colour rendition and accuracy, sharp, glare resistant to the point of having to consciously check the sun's not about to appear in the huge fov when following birds in flight - just a joy.

It's easy to think of something good being something that you don't realize your using, that just melts away, but then you clock a bird you weren't even looking for near the edge of the field that's still plenty sharp 85% out and they remind you your using something very special - half a century of Nikon's version of evolution. And all for £450, you just can't go wrong with the e2 (unless it's pissing down).

Will

 

[ngiff3]

I have now had about a week with the Victory SF 8x42 and the NL Pure 8x42. I have spent ~5 hrs out birding with the NL Pures and about 1.5 hrs with the Victory SFs. It's unfortunately been a fairly rainy week here in Buffalo, so I've only really had one solid day out, but my impressions so far are that I prefer the NL Pures. I really enjoy the form factor, I find the "wasp waist" fits my hands comfortably and puts my finger precisely on the focus wheel. I like the smaller form factor vs. the Victory SF, which just feel enormous to me. As far as image, both are gorgeous to my eyes and I don't have a strong preference other than the slightly larger FOV of the NL Pures which I love. I want to spend a bit more time with the Victory SF, as I don't think I've given them a fair shake (short birding session in the evening and a brief jaunt on an overcast morning, vs. the NL Pures which had a full beautiful fall morning and into the early afternoon).

I was initially concerned about the weight of both as I sat looking out at the back yard when I first received them and found my arms getting tired, but once I got out in the field I had no problems. I think it has to do with the way you use them out birding, where you are frequently lowering the binoculars to locate the birds, and are moving around to follow the birds. It was only when I was sitting still holding them in the same position for an extended period where I felt any fatigue.

Since glare was brought up, I did notice some glare one time while using the NL Pures in the form of an orange circle in the view (first time ever seeing glare for me), but it was basically while looking a few degrees off from the sun over a pond. I found it went away if I shaded my peripheral view, so I think it was reflections off my glasses into the binoculars, which could easily be solved with winged eye shields if I wanted to. To be honest though, the view was blinding enough anyways with all the reflections off the water that I wasn't getting a great view of the ducks anyways, so I don't really see it as much of a loss.

I'll give it another week and try and get a solid day out with the Victory SFs, but at this point I'm pretty confident the NL Pure are the binoculars for me. Both feel like a big step up from my Razor HDs, but the NLs haptics just take the cake for me, before even talking about the gorgeous image and huge FOV.

 

[Patudo]

It was only when I was sitting still holding them in the same position for an extended period

and if you're sitting, you can brace your elbows on your knees for a really steady view. The stunning optical quality of that class of binocular really shows itself in that situation.