• BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!

    Register for an account to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

MEOPTA MEOSTAR 15x56 HD B1 Plus vs SWAROVSKI SLC 15x56 HD (1 Viewer)

HenRun

Well-known member
Sweden
Hello all!

Starting a new thread instead of cluttering up the previous "Gear Anxiety Thread".

I have the Meopta Meostar 15x56 HD B1 Plus, which is the latest iteration of the Meostar 15x56. It features a new rubber armor and enhanced optical tolerances promising better optical performance than the previous generation. This claim comes from Meopta and my unit was delivered in Jan 2021.
I am very happy with it and only wish it had a little bit better eye relief. It is good enough, but I am spoilt by my Zeiss 10x32 FL which I find excellent in this regard so I was wanting to see if there would be anything to top the Meopta.

Since Swarovski SLC HD 15x56 seems to be the "benchmark" in this category I decided to pit them against each other in a very unscientific but pragmatic test.

Well, I'll jump right in and get to my findings. YMMV and this is my personal experience with my Meopta vs a brand new Swarovski and although you can always argue that more than one sample would be needed to rate anything I personally think at this price level we should be able to expect a binocular performing to factory spec from any of the top tier brands.

Size comparison first:


IMG_2741.jpg IMG_2743.jpg IMG_2744.jpg IMG_2740 (3).jpg

Size and ergonomics differ a bit. My Meopta is a bit taller and as a whole, a bit chunky. Swarovski is much nicer in my medium sized hands with the indentations and allows for a little better hand holding. For this type of binocular hand holding is a bit of a stretch so I don't place as much emphasis on that. The Swarovski is more ergonomic for me. Will add specs later on but I suspect the Swaro is lighter by some margin. It feels that way.

Rubber is thick on the Meopta and feels a bit tacky with very good grip. Swarovski feels a bit harder and more solidly put together but Meopta does not feel "cheap" in any way. Subjectively I think the Meopta green looks better than Swarovski, a bit muted brownish green. Very discreet.

Both binos have eye cups that lock in at various depths and for my eyes both work very well both with and without glasses.

Eye relief is better on Swarovski and makes eye placement easier and more forgiving with and without glasses. The Swarovski is better for sure. Without glasses both are great and I would not hold one over the other though the slightly larger FoV on Swarovski would of course be appreciated by most users. Removing the eyecups on the Meopta brings it closer to the Swarovski as the eye cup housing and rubber adds a bit distance from the ocular lens. I will look into a solution to this as I think it can be remedied.

Focusing wheel is great on both. Silky smooth on Swarovski but with a lot more turning from close range towards infinity than Meopta. Meopta is very smooth and both are among the better focusing wheels I have had or tried. I prefer the Meopta as a whole.

Dioptre adjustment is much better on Swarovski and locks in. Same on the Meopta but it is a bit more tedious to do. When locked in it is "done" so no major issue with the Meopta.

Both binoculars were hot swapped on a Manfrotto tripod with a panoramic head with quick release and Swarovski binocular adapter. Viewing conditions during the day was excellent though with some harsh contrast and back lit conditions. I spent some time with both binoculars before hot swapping and it was very interesting to pit them against each other. Both are excellent and I think the differences are quite small but enough to swing the pendulum either way depending on your preferences.

Eye relief aside both binos are very sharp in the center allowing very minute detail extraction and have fairly similar characteristics.
At closer range the Swarovski is a bit easier on the eyes and is extremely well detailed, spoilt only by minor CA. The Meopta does better in this regard and on medium distances I have a hard time distinguishing between the two as they are both truly excellent.

In harsh contrasty light I prefer the Meopta, not by much, I just prefer the imaging. Swarovski has a tiny amount of a halo around some edges and a little more CA - though never more than I could live with. Except for the Meopta I have never seen a high magnification binocular with so well controlled CA. Props to both Meopta and Swarovski, CA is a non issue for me with both. I am very picky with CA and both are well above my criteria.

For distant viewing both are as good as it gets. What surprised me the most is how well the Meopta does considering the Swarovski pedigree. It is very hard to declare a winner but my impression is that Meopta actually is a little bit sharper in the center. And I mean, just a little bit. This is the opposite of what I found at close range.

Color correction is great on both and I have no means of stating which one is more true to life. My left eye is actually giving me a slight amber tint which is apparent when I switch between the eyes rapidly from left to right. I cannot explain this but it is true. It is like a slight warm up filter on cameras, approximately KR1.5 in difference! I suspect my right eye is the "neutral" one and when I use both eyes they blend in together.

That said the Swarovski has a bit more color "pop" if you will, but I did find the Meopta perhaps a bit more neutral without being "cool" or with any particular hue. I was watching bark patterns on a tree with both and I think the Meopta to me seemed more true or "neutral" and the Swarovski was a little warmer. During this I came to the conclusion I place critical sharpness easier with the Meopta and looking at lichen and birch branches Swarovski would sometimes show a little CA before hitting critical focus while the Meopta would just "snap" to it. Both are very impressive!

In Swarovskis favor I would say viewing at under ten metres is - as a whole - easier on the eyes with glasses.

In back lit conditions Swarovski shows more glare and again, the slight halo around outlines detract a little from the imaging together with a trace of CA. It is still excellent though, it is just that Meopta does it better. Not sharper, but more pleasing to my eyes.

Both are sensitive to glare, both from the front objective and back ocular side. The Swarovski has a worse reaction with a half moon orange to the one side. For both binos I could for the most part block the sun with a free hand. The slight contrast advantage I found initially with the Swarovski was quickly lost during these conditions were the Meopta was the better of the two but neither was stellar in this regard. Without glasses I could block all back ocular reflections with the eye cups extended and the only difference would be that the Meopta was less sensitive to back lit conditions. But not by much.

Later on in the day and peering into the shade I had the feeling that Swarovski felt a little brighter and during a dull two hour period the viewing experience with Swarovski was heightened but the Meopta was still very good to excellent. In harsh back lit conditions the Swarovski was a bit too much when looking at a bird perched up on naked tree where the Meopta was more forgiving to my eyes.

It was during these mixed conditions that I started to slightly favor the Meopta and started to focus on what the Swarovski does better to see if that would help me decide a favorite/keeper. I watched jet planes across the sky, plenty of larger birds hovering over the fields, horses, small details and everything I could at any distance to try to separate the two but I ended up concluding that they are both excellent.

Swarovski has better ergonomics, better eye relief, better close range viewing and a very nice and rewarding imaging at all distances and regardless of lighting conditions. And of course, eye relief, which is actually not "bad" on the Meopta - it is adequate. It is just something Swarovski does better.

Still, all that said I slightly prefer the imaging from the Meopta, the image seems a bit "cleaner" to me. Not as in "sterile" and not implying the Swarovski is not a great piece of equipment. I got the feeling I would regret trading the Meopta and that the shortcomings it has vs the Swarovski is something I can easily live with. The comparison further strengthened my satisfaction with the Meopta and the few things I think the Meopta does better are things I have a hard time giving up.

The price difference is not that big between the two - and for this class not a deciding factor for me. I still had to think "which one would I get if I didn't already have the Meopta?" and that would be hard to answer but I think I would still choose the Meopta.

If anyone was to ask me which one is better I would say the Swarovski has some merits over the Meopta and a "safer bet" and perhaps a better resale value. I don't rank resale value highly in my purchase decision when it comes to binoculars. For the price the Meopta is worth the admission and it does leave quite some spare change over the Swarovski.
Considering the performance of these two high magnification binoculars I think that it is money well spent if you can try before you buy.

I have only tried a few others in this magnification and I have not been impressed by any other I have come across as of yet.
To throw it out there: I generally like and have preferred Zeiss binoculars but I looked through the Conquest 15x56 and was not impressed at all.
It costs roughly the same as the Meopta and I there is no way I would pick the Conquest over the Meostar - or over the Swarovski.
For me the Meopta is the keeper and the Swarovski is going back, with no regrets. I would recommend the Swarovski for eye glass wearers in general but in my case I don't find it worth the "lateral" trade.
 
Last edited:

HenRun

Well-known member
Sweden
As a side note the Swarovski quick release adapter (TAs-SLC) has improved my viewing with the Meopta. The previous loaner adapter I had would not allow me to adjust IPD fully with the Meoptas chunky tubes. No problem with the thinner Swarovski adapter.

As my expensive Leica rubber strap on broke (it does not look good in writing, that sentence) I decided on the more sturdy Swarovski adapter.

IPD adjustment is more forgiving on the Swarovski. I would also like to stress, again, that CA control on the SLC HD is excellent and pitted against any other magnification and brand it is exemplary. The Meopta shows some minor CA under many of the very same circumstances as the Swarovski, it just has a little less. Class leading performance from Meopta? I don't know, I haven't seen all in this segment, it is simply put the best I have seen so far.

Not all, both most specs on the binoculars:

MEOPTA Meostar B1 Plus 15x56 HD specs:
Manufactured Jan 2021 in Czechia.
Prism Type Schmidt Pechan with proprietary coating
Magnification 15 x
Objective Lens 56 mm
Field of view 74m // 221 (m/1000m // ft/1000yds)
Field of view 4.2 °
Eye relief 15 mm
Shortest focusing distance (m / ft) 4.3 // 14.1
Exit Pupil Diameter 3.6 EDIT: calculated at 3.7 but Meopta states 3.6
Daylight Transmission 88 %
Interpupillary Distance 56/74 mm
Dioptric Correction ±3 dpt
Height (mm / in) 201 // 7.9
Width (mm / in) 142 // 5.6
Depth (mm / in) 62/ 2.4
Weight - without caps and strap (g / oz) 1220 / 43

SWAROVSKI SLC HD 15x56
Manufactured in Austria 2020
Prism Type Abbe Koenig
Magnification 15 x
Objective lens 56 mm
Field of View 78m / 234 ft at 100m / 1000 ft
Field of View 4.5 degrees
Eye Relief 16 mm
Short Focus Distance 3.9 m / 12.8 ft
EPD 3.7mm
Daylight Transmission 93%
Height 192mm / 7.5 in
Width -/-
Depth -/-
Weight 1200 g / 42.3 oz
 
Last edited:

HenRun

Well-known member
Sweden
Some more viewing this morning with both, mostly on tripod.
Some more comments on the ergonomics:

Swarovski feels lighter than the mere 20g difference over the Meopta. Swaro armor is more slippery for my dry hands, the Meopta armor is more tacky and sticks to the hand better, especially with wind breaker gloves. Overall ergonomics are superior on Swarovski for hand held viewing.
From near to infinity I gauged 2 1/4 turns on the Swarovski and around two turns and a fraction on the Meopta.

I do prefer the Meopta focusing wheel and I find I snap into focus easier than with the Swarovski - which is not bad at all.

With the Swaro adapter still in place on the Meopta I can hand hold it like a "rifle" and it makes it more comfortable for handholding. One good reason to leave the adapter in place. Of course packing it up in a bag you would have to take it off, which takes two seconds.

Eye relief on the Swarovski is everything I had hoped for. Eye relief on the Meopta when hand holding with glasses is very good, a slightly thicker black edge and I have to press the bino against the glasses. But I get the full image, with nothing to spare though.
With the Swarovski I have a mm to spare - which is excellent. Also the outer black rim is thinner on the Swarovski.

The Swarovskis are brighter. This is for the most part an advantage. However that advantage is quickly lost when lens glare / veiling glare sets in on the Swarovski and kills the contrast. Which it does far too early.

Same set up and same viewing position shows none on the Meopta, which simply isn't as prone to glare as the Swarovski. It is an advantage on the Meopta over the Swarovski - and a very important one in my book.

I did go over my usual torture testing once again and got confirmation on the halo on back lit objects with the Swarovski. It is some CA that causes the halo around the outlines of the object in very contrasty situations and together with the added brightness of the SLC this is a bit head-achey for my eyes. The Meopta is cleaner and viewing back lit objects is easier on the eyes.

As for critical detail extraction I did once again find the Meopta a slice of a hair better. Two steel girders across the field was spotted with the Swarovski which showed great sharpness and a hint of CA, switching to the Meopta presented a clean, artefact free image of the steel girders and an even crisper outline of the steel girders.

Watching the treeline across the field the Swarovski has that rolling ball effect when panning, not nauseating but obvious, the Meopta does not display it. I don't mind it on the Swarovski. But it is there.

Further viewing with both reveal their strengths as top tier binoculars. I quickly forget the magnification I am viewing things at and they are both very well corrected and as sharp as they come. However, the Swarovski loses out on critical sharpness as CA sets in earlier outside the image center and the Meopta holds sharpness on a slightly wider circle at far, with a slightly cleaner image before a very minor CA sets in. Placing the object of interest in the center on the Swarovski renders a beautiful crisp, essentially CA free image. I still have Meopta for the win on this.

Both show CA around the peripheral image and in both cases it does not detract from the imaging at all as it feels very unnatural to look at the outer edge of the image circle.

For general viewing I think most would prefer the Swarovski. I for sure have had a hard time deciding and the thought of keeping the Swarovski popped up in my mind more than once. Pretty much perfect with glasses, bright and great contrast and excellent ergonomics and mid distance viewing is stunning. What's not to like with a 15X binocular which performs as well as or better than most 8-12X binos out there?

However, the objective lens glare on the Swarovski is the deal breaker for me, together with the better CA control and ever so slightly resolution advantage of the Meopta in comparison. For anyone not being an optics nerd I think most could not distinguish between the two and those who can would probably for the most part prefer the Swarovski SLC. For low light viewing it will have an advantage though I find I don't really struggle with the Meopta. There is a difference though. All that said I prefer the daytime viewing ever so slightly with the Meopta.

Meopta has less going for it if you start listing all pros and cons in bullet form but the main advantages of the Meopta makes it a slight winner for my wants and wishes and for my eyes. I think that on the flip side of things I would probably be happy to trade the Swarovski had I owned it - or just kept it for the eye glass wearer comfort. As it is now I am not trading the Meopta for the Swarovski.

If Meopta releases the 15x56 in a B2 version and addresses the few shortcomings, improving eye relief and overall ergonomics, and if they "only" keep the optical performance on the same level of the B1 Plus I will be very tempted to change. Dioptre adjustment is not a deal breaker for me, with glasses I usually have it at "0" and weight is of little concern to me.

Until that happens I am more happy with my Meopta than I was before, after comparing with the Swarovski SLC.
I now know what I have and what I would give up.

IMG_2753.jpg
 
Last edited:

tenex

reality-based
I've spent very little time with Meopta bins, being put off by their generally greater weight, more limited FOV, and backwards focusing... but they clearly have some interesting and exceptional qualities. (As it happens we've just acquired a Meopta S2 scope, largely due to reports here on BF, and think it's excellent.)

If you notice CA in tree bark, you're much more sensitive to it than I. (Do you mean lateral or longitudinal?) Among alpha bins it's not a primary concern for me, but I understand how any difference could tip your decision toward the Meopta.

One of your photos shows an interesting difference, how much more prominent and accessible the Swaro focuser is than the Meopta when folded to a similar IPD. Do you notice this in practice? (Perhaps not if you mainly use a tripod?)

It's good that you've now made a detailed comparison, and thanks!
 

NDhunter

Experienced observer
United States
I have the Meopta Meostar 15x56 HD also, the version before the new armor. I also have the Swarovski 15x56 SLC Neu, and the Swaro.
out performs the Meostar, the FOV is larger and just does everything very well. CA is not an issue in either one for me, the optics are
what is important.

I can imagine the SLC HD is even better yet, but I have not tried one yet.

The Meostar does very well in its price point, I really like it.

Jerry
 

Troubador

Moderator
Staff member
Supporter
I've spent very little time with Meopta bins, being put off by their generally greater weight, more limited FOV, and backwards focusing... but they clearly have some interesting and exceptional qualities. (As it happens we've just acquired a Meopta S2 scope, largely due to reports here on BF, and think it's excellent.)
I only have experience of Meopta's MeoStar line of binos and for sure they are a bit heavier and narrower of view than one might wish, but I am happy to confirm they focus in the conventional way just like my Zeisses: clockwise towards infinity.

Lee
 

tenex

reality-based
I only have experience of Meopta's MeoStar line of binos and for sure they are a bit heavier and narrower of view than one might wish, but I am happy to confirm they focus in the conventional way just like my Zeisses: clockwise towards infinity.
Oops, thanks for that correction! I was quite sure I'd asked and been told that here some time ago, and the S2 scope does go counterclockwise which seemed to confirm that as a Meopta characteristic. (If I grasp the ring from below it confuses me less.)
 

Troubador

Moderator
Staff member
Supporter
Oops, thanks for that correction! I was quite sure I'd asked and been told that here some time ago, and the S2 scope does go counterclockwise which seemed to confirm that as a Meopta characteristic. (If I grasp the ring from below it confuses me less.)
Meopta does have other bino lines below MeoStar and I haven't tried any of those so maybe they 'focus backwards'.
 

HenRun

Well-known member
Sweden
I've spent very little time with Meopta bins, being put off by their generally greater weight, more limited FOV, and backwards focusing... but they clearly have some interesting and exceptional qualities. (As it happens we've just acquired a Meopta S2 scope, largely due to reports here on BF, and think it's excellent.)

If you notice CA in tree bark, you're much more sensitive to it than I. (Do you mean lateral or longitudinal?) Among alpha bins it's not a primary concern for me, but I understand how any difference could tip your decision toward the Meopta.

One of your photos shows an interesting difference, how much more prominent and accessible the Swaro focuser is than the Meopta when folded to a similar IPD. Do you notice this in practice? (Perhaps not if you mainly use a tripod?)

It's good that you've now made a detailed comparison, and thanks!

I agree. I have been interested in Meopta before but have found their designs a bit outdated and I can live with the looks but ergonomics have been so-so and there have been very few around to actually try out. They focus the standard way in the binoculars.
The Meopta 15x56 HD B 1 Plus is a type of binocular where the ergonomics are less important since they are 90% on a tripod. Off tripod they are ok, just not top of the class.

The Meopta tube you have is one I serisously considered but ended up not getting due to the focusing direction!

The focuser is well placed on the Meopta though overall bino balance is better on the Swarovski.
The hand curves naturally to the Meopta focusing wheel so it does not feel like an issue, for this size binocular I would rather have a slightly recessed bino focuser since the fingers curve to it naturally when gripping. If nitpicking I would have put the focusing knob a cm further down, but I use the middle finger on my other binos and the indexing finger on the Meopta.

CA from the Swarovski is lateral and visible to me at medium to close range when approaching critical focus in bright objects. Especially on a tilted plane I can get out of focus CA with the Swaro SLC HD which is a little annoying since it "pokes the eye" in high contrast situations and they eye is drawn towards it. They have similarly excellent CA characteristics other than that, with the Meopta simply having a bit less.
Had I not seen the Meopta I would have been perfectly happy with the Swaro.

EDITED (forgot a word in there)
 
Last edited:

HenRun

Well-known member
Sweden
I have the Meopta Meostar 15x56 HD also, the version before the new armor. I also have the Swarovski 15x56 SLC Neu, and the Swaro.
out performs the Meostar, the FOV is larger and just does everything very well. CA is not an issue in either one for me, the optics are
what is important.

I can imagine the SLC HD is even better yet, but I have not tried one yet.

The Meostar does very well in its price point, I really like it.

Jerry

I have not seen the 15x56 SLC Neu and haven't seen the previous Meopta 15x56 HD. Seems they both have been improved and it is the latest incarnations I compared. Essentially I agree with your conclusion and I think it still holds true for the latest generation of them - it is just that for me I thought that the Meopta suited me better - good enough to send the new Swaro HD back.

Eye relief, ergonomics and field of view are all better on the Swarovski, for field of view in this class I think the difference is very marginal and not a deal breaker - it is just four metres in width. It does not better the Meopta for pure sharpness/resolution though I think most people could not tell them apart.

For fair weather viewing and especially in contrasty light I prefer the Meopta by a larger margin and in poor conditions the Meopta does very well but the Swarovski pops more in subdued light - this is where that extra tranmission comes to effect I guess.

Maybe it is that very high transmission that becomes a little head achey for me in strong backlight and high contrast areas with the Swarovski. It is too much for my eyes. In dull light the Swarovski is outstanding though!

I do think that the Meopta is has more natural color to my eyes - but again - had I not directly compared them on many different subjects I would not call the Swarovski anything but neutral as well. I can't tell which is factually most color correct of the two.

Another plus for the Meopta is that it pans better on a tripod, the Swaro feels a bit "nervous" in comparison.

Since sending the Swaro back I have been glassing with the Meopta every morning and yesterday three deer wandered across the opposite field in the faint morning light, sun was not yet out on the field and the Meopta gave me a fantastic view with a crisp outline of the deer with natural contrast and color and it really put a smile on my face.

Unfortunately the same morning a deer got stuck in the fence across the field and when me and my wife approached the deer it twisted free and left a pool of blood and a two metre wide red streak on the polyester fence line, it had been running side to side to try to break free before we went out and it probably sawed well into the flesh.

I hope it heals and lives to nibble another day!
 

HenRun

Well-known member
Sweden
Meopta does have other bino lines below MeoStar and I haven't tried any of those so maybe they 'focus backwards'.
If so, it would be a big mistake on their part!

And BTW: If I recall correctly - do you have or have had the Victory 8x32 FL?
I am considering replacing my 10X32 FL with it (or keep the 10X). I do think the 10X is a great bino, and I did choose it a few years back over the 8X but then I was after the "reach" of the 10X and now that I have the 15X Meopta I am trying to find me a small-ish 8x32.
 

Troubador

Moderator
Staff member
Supporter
If so, it would be a big mistake on their part!

And BTW: If I recall correctly - do you have or have had the Victory 8x32 FL?
I am considering replacing my 10X32 FL with it (or keep the 10X). I do think the 10X is a great bino, and I did choose it a few years back over the 8X but then I was after the "reach" of the 10X and now that I have the 15X Meopta I am trying to find me a small-ish 8x32.
Hej HenRun
Yes I used to have FL8x32 but I sold it to Seldom Perched and now have SF 8x32. If you want a compact high quality 8x32 then Zeiss FL or Leica Ultravid are both great choices. I preferred the feel of the focuser on the Zeiss.

Hej da
Lee
 

HenRun

Well-known member
Sweden
Thanks Lee, after trying a whole bunch of candidates in every price range I am down to the FL 8x32 which I am familiar with, or the Leica Retrovid 7x35. Two very different binos for sure. I thought the Leica 8x40 was very nice but I just can’t with the 4m minimum distance. 3m on the 7x35 I can live with.

Henrik
 

HenRun

Well-known member
Sweden
Reply from the Meopta agent today was that as far as he knows all binocular series focus in the same direction.
Might pop an email directly to Meopta later today and verify.
 

Troubador

Moderator
Staff member
Supporter
Thanks Lee, after trying a whole bunch of candidates in every price range I am down to the FL 8x32 which I am familiar with, or the Leica Retrovid 7x35. Two very different binos for sure. I thought the Leica 8x40 was very nice but I just can’t with the 4m minimum distance. 3m on the 7x35 I can live with.

Henrik
The FL has close focus of 2m if I remember correctly and I find that a very useful distance.
Do you live anywhere near Värnamo? If so I recommend Store Mosse reserve for birds and dragonflies.

Lee
 

HenRun

Well-known member
Sweden
Hey Lee, yes, the FL has a very useful 2m close focus. After giving it some thought I have decided that it is either the 8x32 FL which is readily available, or the Meopta B1 Plus 8x32 which costs less and I get to try before I buy. Only crux is that delivery time is uncertain at the moment - the agent has none in stock. Much as I enjoyed the Leica 7x35/8x40 the close focus and lack of weather seal is a deal breaker at that cost.

Store Mossen (and Hornborgasjön) is a four hour drive from me (but I am hopefully teaming up with someone to do it this year) but there are a few decent birding sites half an hour away. I am a bit of a novice birder but itching to get going. I am thirty years down the rabbit hole of precision optics and with age I feel like I can't really wait any longer to build my almost perfect binocular set up and I hope I will settle on two, maybe three keepers. The Meopta 15x56 is one and maybe I will keep the 10x32 FL after all, depending on what I have to shell out for a 8x32/42 to my satisfaction.

/ Henrik
 

HenRun

Well-known member
Sweden
Yes, I saw the clip you linked to. The Meopta version in the video is not the latest version B1 Plus though, so probably a small step behind optically. I would have loved to look through it and see how much of a difference there is. Using the Meopta 15x56 almost every day. I really look forward to finding a 8x32 too, the Meopta is currently my only bino.
 

slc_punk

New member
United States
Thanks so much for the comparison review. It's been difficult to find any substantive reviews comparing these two binoculars directly. I haven't found any information to see if the new meopta b2 line will even have a 15x56 offering. However, I'm excited to get a pair of the b1 plus after your informative analysis.

Yes, I saw the clip you linked to. The Meopta version in the video is not the latest version B1 Plus though, so probably a small step behind optically. I would have loved to look through it and see how much of a difference there is. Using the Meopta 15x56 almost every day. I really look forward to finding a 8x32 too, the Meopta is currently my only bino.

I currently use an 8x32 and 25x-50x spotting scope. I love my little 8x32 for looking out my window while working at my desk or hiking around the local mountains. I think a 15x would be a great way to round out my system.

Thanks,
Dave
 

HenRun

Well-known member
Sweden
You are most welcome Dave!
I use my 15x56 almost everyday. The brief test with the 8x32 made me come to the same conclusion as you. I have my desk with a good view at home so the 8x32 will always be within reach. If I spot something of interest at far the 15x56 is ready on the tripod.

I am not sure I need anything inbetween the two, even though I have mainly used 10x before.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top