Gearlab’s recommended binoculars (1 Viewer)

[LeadLenses]

Hey everybody, I recently came across this website of binocular recommendations. It seems like they were quite thorough. I especially like how they put some fake birds in a tree to compare the views. Anyways, I have no connection to the publisher, I just thought that it is a fun little read for us optics enthusiasts.

The 7 Best Binoculars of 2024

Over the past decade, our optics experts have tested over 50 of the best binocular sets. Our current review assesses 16 of the top models on the market...

www.outdoorgearlab.com

 

[KevinL]

I agree with their results 100%. I would rank the models about the same in my own comparisons.

 

[[email protected]]

I like Gearlab also. I have been reading their reviews for years and I almost always agree with their results also. Of course, I always recommend you try the binoculars yourself because everybodies eye sockets, eyes and brain are different, but they are an excellent place to start in your search for binoculars. For example, I am sure most birders would agree that the NL, EL, SF and Noctivid are the best binoculars you can buy but choosing between them is personal preference. It depends on things like ergonomics, focus speed, glare, CA, color, transmission, 3D and do you like a flat field design with possible RB or a less flat field design with less RB.

 

[Canip]

Hey everybody, I recently came across this website of binocular recommendations. It seems like they were quite thorough. I especially like how they put some fake birds in a tree to compare the views. Anyways, I have no connection to the publisher, I just thought that it is a fun little read for us optics enthusiasts.

The 7 Best Binoculars of 2024

Over the past decade, our optics experts have tested over 50 of the best binocular sets. Our current review assesses 16 of the top models on the market...

www.outdoorgearlab.com

I never fully trust reviews by people who make money when products they have reviewed get purchased by customers.

See the „About us“ section at the bottom of their website.

I find it natural that products that are reviewed positively will be bought more often, so there must be a tendency not to review products too negatively

I do NOT question the competence of the people involved. But they do not run a charity but a money-making business.

Canip

 

[wllmspd]

There seem to be a profusion of “best XYZ of 202X” which seem to be mostly low quality sites aimed to harvest click through sales.
I agree with KevinL, Ive agreed with their conclusions on a number of other items before

Peter

 

[fazalmajid]

Best of 2015, perhaps. The Victory HT x42 was discontinued, no mention of the Swarovski NL or Zeiss Victory SF.

 

[[email protected]]

Best of 2015, perhaps. The Victory HT x42 was discontinued, no mention of the Swarovski NL or Zeiss Victory SF.

They would probably be number one and number two if they tested them. They are a bit behind the times.

 

[MiddleRiver]

"Editor's Note: The Leica Noctivid 10x42 received an update on December 7th, 2022. We retested this product and updated the stats in the review."

Huh?? Is there something I've never heard elsewhere?

 

[mwhogue]

"Editor's Note: The Leica Noctivid 10x42 received an update on December 7th, 2022. We retested this product and updated the stats in the review."

Huh?? Is there something I've never heard elsewhere?

My guess is it came to their attention that their review contained some errors (e.g, regarding specs) so they updated the review as opposed to discussing an update to the bins themselves.

Mike

 

[Will K]

I'm quite surprised by how high the rating was for the Vortex Viper. I don't entirely believe it would outperform the Monarch, aside from considering the stated price points, which are highly variable anyway.

 

[Will K]

no mention of the Swarovski NL or Zeiss Victory SF.

Hold on, the SF is there. But maybe they've added that in the meantime?

 

[Will K]

To be cynical for a moment, I assume that Vortex and Gear Lab have 'an arrangement'

 

[fazalmajid]

Hold on, the SF is there. But maybe they've added that in the meantime?

They must have updated the article for 2023 (my post was almost a year ago) and the HT was dropped for the SF, but still no Swarovski NL Pure, nor the Zeiss SFL or Nikon Monarch HG, all of which I would consider serious omissions.

Unfortunately they seem to have excluded their site from The Internet Archive so there is no way to know for sure.

 

[Scott98]

Good review, but compromised by comparing different magnifications.

Zeiss SF is my favorite in the test but deserves to take heat for the poor eyecups and difficulty of eye placement. I'm sure the eye placement is easier in 8x42 than 10x42 but it's still the #1 downside of the SF's for me.

on the other hand, they don't mention the focusers much, the SF's focuser has a massive advantage over the EL's, same with the grip/ergonomics

 

[Will K]

the SF's focuser has a massive advantage over the EL

Agreed. The SF's focuser is unmatched.

 

[Zedster]

Hilariously the chart disagrees with the comments on the various bins. FOV is 5 for the SF but specifically called out in the comments as being great. What is the difference between Excellent and Superior for example? The EL is prohibitively expensive but somehow cheaper than the SF which ISN'T prohibitively expensive.

 

[AlphaFan]

Actually began another thread on this OGL review last night. There are many inconsistencies, inaccuracies, and just plain unsubstantiated conclusions presented. Some of the specs listed are inaccurate, they claimed the SFs suffer from poor eye relief (not really), and their brightness (as measured with a light meter) lagged significantly behind the EL, Noctivid, Vortex Diamondback, Monarch 5, etc. (this is not what House of Outdoor found in their scientific brightness tests).

As folks have pointed out here. OGL even rated the EL as having superior ease of adjustment (which they describe as mainly the focus mechanism) and overall comfort in use. The only point I’d agree with it the SF eyecups are their weakpoint, but ergobalance, haptics, focus mechanism all favor the SF.

Another thing I’ve noticed over time is OGL consistently concludes Swarovski and Vortex products as their ”Editor’s Choice” and superior to other products reviewed. This may be at least in part based on bias, testing structure/scoring skewed toward the characteristics of those products, or perhaps some of both. Anyway, this OGL comparative evaluation appears very flawed and its conclusions unconvincing. But unfortunately many will see it as gospel simply because they are a review organization that published this article online.

 

[Richard D]

Actually began another thread on this OGL review last night. There are many inconsistencies, inaccuracies, and just plain unsubstantiated conclusions presented. Some of the specs listed are inaccurate, they claimed the SFs suffer from poor eye relief (not really), and their brightness (as measured with a light meter) lagged significantly behind the EL, Noctivid, Vortex Diamondback, Monarch 5, etc. (this is not what House of Outdoor found in their scientific brightness tests).

As folks have pointed out here. OGL even rated the EL as having superior ease of adjustment (which they describe as mainly the focus mechanism) and overall comfort in use. The only point I’d agree with it the SF eyecups are their weakpoint, but ergobalance, haptics, focus mechanism all favor the SF.

Another thing I’ve noticed over time is OGL consistently concludes Swarovski and Vortex products as their ”Editor’s Choice” and superior to other products reviewed. This may be at least in part based on bias, testing structure/scoring skewed toward the characteristics of those products, or perhaps some of both. Anyway, this OGL comparative evaluation appears very flawed and its conclusions unconvincing. But unfortunately many will see it as gospel simply because they are a review organization that published this article online.

As I tried to point out in your other thread - House of Outdoors tests measure transmission not low light performance- the tests in the review compare a 10x42 SF against an 8.5x42 EL in low light unsurprisingly the EL performs better in low light. Try a 10x42 EL against a 8x42 SF in low light and the SF would win - it's simple physics. Large exit pupil binoculars perform better in low light than small exit pupil binoculars.

Anyone who makes a purchase decision of thousand pound plus binoculars purely on the basis of a general round up on a generalist gear guide is clearly foolish but I don't think there's much to take issue with on the individual reviews. There are far worse sites out there.

 

[AlphaFan]

@Richard D., your continued comments indicate that you either did not thoroughly investigate OGL’s test methods, the data used and their actual conclusions, or you are just attempting to fog the obvious. Claiming there are worse reviews on the web is hardly a ringing endorsement of an obviously flawed evaluation from a long-standing review organization. What OGL attests this review to represent [their published claims], “This in-depth review offers expert recommendations to help you see the fine details of each pair of binoculars.” Since you are defending OGL’s published test and results please directly defend the following obvious flaws (just two - there are many others) from their published review:


FOV RATINGS

EL 8.5x42 = 399ft - OGL Score = 8/10
Noctivid 10x42 = 337ft - OGL Score = 5/10
Zeiss SF = 360ft - OGL Score = 5/10
Viper 8x42 = 409ft - OGL Score = 8/10
Monarch M5 8x42 = 337ft - OGL Score = 6/10

The ratings defy the specs without specific justification. In fact, they even contradict their own findings - in the written summary on the SF as they praise it for having a “great FOV” yet give it their lowest score. Of all the countless reviews of the SF 10x42 (Roger Vine, BirdForum, Rokslide, numerous others) [with several putting specs to the test] this one is unique in attempting to find issue with the SF’s FOV.


BRIGHTNESS

OGL used light meter measured transmission as a significant portion of their comparative scoring on brightness. In fact, they even claim to have weighted brightness/transmission scores to adjust for differences in exit pupil size. This destroys @Richard D.’s repeated claim that OGL did not conduct transmission tests and is simply finding that binoculars with greater sized exit pupils are brighter. In fact, OGL concluded, “Zeiss Victory SF 10x42 did not let in as much observable or measurable light as other models with similar exit pupil diameters and clarity.” They also claimed this difference in brightness/transmission was significant. This runs counter to countless other reviews of the SFs and transmission testing done by House of Outdoor - which found the SF’s transmission neck-and-neck with the EL and Noctivid, but behind the NL Pure (not part of OGL’s test).

That’s just a small sample of issues with the OGL test and conclusions. So, I stand by the observations that this test is terribly flawed and its results dubious. Certain I am not alone in raising an eyebrow to their testing methods and less than solidly substantiated conclusions. If folks want to give merit to or defend OGL’s testing and results that is their own affair.

 

[Richard D]

@Richard D., your continued comments indicate that you either did not thoroughly investigate OGL’s test methods, the data used and their actual conclusions, or you are just attempting to fog the obvious. Claiming there are worse reviews on the web is hardly a ringing endorsement of an obviously flawed evaluation from a long-standing review organization. What OGL attests this review to represent [their published claims], “This in-depth review offers expert recommendations to help you see the fine details of each pair of binoculars.” Since you are defending OGL’s published test and results please directly defend the following obvious flaws (just two - there are many others) from their published review:


FOV RATINGS

EL 8.5x42 = 399ft - OGL Score = 8/10
Noctivid 10x42 = 337ft - OGL Score = 5/10
Zeiss SF = 360ft - OGL Score = 5/10
Viper 8x42 = 409ft - OGL Score = 8/10
Monarch M5 8x42 = 337ft - OGL Score = 6/10

The ratings defy the specs without specific justification. In fact, they even contradict their own findings - in the written summary on the SF as they praise it for having a “great FOV” yet give it their lowest score. Of all the countless reviews of the SF 10x42 (Roger Vine, BirdForum, Rokslide, numerous others) [with several putting specs to the test] this one is unique in attempting to find issue with the SF’s FOV.


BRIGHTNESS

OGL used light meter measured transmission as a significant portion of their comparative scoring on brightness. In fact, they even claim to have weighted brightness/transmission scores to adjust for differences in exit pupil size. This destroys @Richard D.’s repeated claim that OGL did not conduct transmission tests and is simply finding that binoculars with greater sized exit pupils are brighter. In fact, OGL concluded, “Zeiss Victory SF 10x42 did not let in as much observable or measurable light as other models with similar exit pupil diameters and clarity.” They also claimed this difference in brightness/transmission was significant. This runs counter to countless other reviews of the SFs and transmission testing done by House of Outdoor - which found the SF’s transmission neck-and-neck with the EL and Noctivid, but behind the NL Pure (not part of OGL’s test).

That’s just a small sample of issues with the OGL test and conclusions. So, I stand by the observations that this test is terribly flawed and its results dubious. Certain I am not alone in raising an eyebrow to their testing methods and less than solidly substantiated conclusions. If folks want to give merit to or defend OGL’s testing and results that is their own affair.

I am not defending their methodology in anyway - the idea of comparing such a wide range of binoculars of different configurations and price points then ranking them, partially on subjective measures is a pretty daft idea. All I've said is that on the stated methodogy in the test itself the results do not look unreasonable:

Stated methodology in test:

"Our brightness testing involved comparing images from each pair, side-by-side, in mid-day bright light, overcast conditions, and early dawn/late dusk lighting. In each test, we paid attention to how bright each image looked upon first viewing, how faded or dull any colors appeared, and whether subjects were starting to look like silhouettes. In general, the larger the objective lens, the brighter an image seemed, but we noticed significant differences in brightness between some models with the same objective lens size."

I repeat this is not a transmission test in any shape or form. Much of it is highly subjective based on visual perception, and things like colour cast and contrast will also undoubtedly influence results.

I fully agree that a properly conducted transmission test is likely to show an EL and SF of the same magnification and objective size as having very similar transmission results.

Their scores are generally subjective and they're comparing completely different configurations and price points - it's not a scientific review, or a review by a optics experts. I really don't understand why anyone would expect it to be more than a general guide or get upset about the rankings.