• 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.

My Quest for the Perfect 8x32 (1 Viewer)

[email protected]

Well-known member
Supporter
I think my final thinking on this evolves around the Meostar 8x32 and 10x32. The Meostar (Meopta brand) just doesn't promote their products too heavily like Swaro and Zeiss, even Nikon. But the glass....is great. The price is great. Now might be the time to act upon the Meostars while there is a change in the line-up with the Men-air and updated Meostars sometime down the road.

While the Nikon HG is great....the Swaro perhaps greater.... they change, they give us 'new and improved' etc...flashy adds and video etc...the Meostar just plugs along.
I tried the Meopta Meostar 8x32 and I wasn't that impressed with it. The Meostar 8x42 and 15x56 are a lot better IMO. I think Allbino's has the Meopta Meostar 8x32 at about 19th place and that is where I would put it. I don't understand the love for that binocular. It eludes me. I mean c'mon a $250.00 MIC Vanguard Endeavor II 8x32 is ranked above it.

https://www.allbinos.com/allbinos_ranking-binoculars_ranking-8x32.html
 
Last edited:

lmans66

Out Birding....
Supporter
United States
Haven't they done just that with the new Meostar B.1 Plus?

Does anyone know? ....

If the 'plus' has done that, what will the B2 line look like? How different will the current Meopta line look like in a few years?

Also...here is a shot of the Conquest, CL and HG ..... If one is looking for lightness, less bulk...the HG is the way to go. The Conquest in my thinking just 'looms'.... too big.
 

Attachments

  • Conquest CL HG.jpg
    Conquest CL HG.jpg
    84.5 KB · Views: 143
Last edited:

[email protected]

Well-known member
Supporter
Does anyone know? ....

If the 'plus' has done that, what will the B2 line look like? How different will the current Meopta line look like in a few years?

Also...here is a shot of the Conquest, CL and HG ..... If one is looking for lightness, less bulk...the HG is the way to go. The Conquest in my thinking just 'looms'.... too big.
That is an SLC not a CL in the middle. That's unfair!
 

eitanaltman

Well-known member
Meopta has updated the MeoBright coatings to MeoLux coatings in the B1 Plus.

See:
https://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=387471

George

Well that's interesting. Are these binoculars even available yet?

The biggest flaw (and IMO the only real optical flaw) of the Meostars is the weak blue transmission which is substandard compared to the coatings used by Swaro, Leica, etc. My Cabelas Euro HD supposedly have newer coatings which are improved from the original B1 but they still have a bit of yellow cast which mitigates their otherwise excellent transmission.

I see the B1.1 are out with the locking diopter, but from what I can tell the B1 Plus is just an announcement at this point.
 

Patudo

Well-known member
Or try the Canon 8x20 IS. Shows you more detail than any of the alphas once you press that button. It's also cheap, and if it doesn't last as long as any of the alphas you just buy a new one.

I'm assessing the 8x20 IS at the moment, following Canips impressive review (https://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=384155), and it looks as though I may be done with buying any more conventional binoculars. Sure, I wouldn't take it as my only binocular on long birding trips abroad or while seawatching or when I expect the going to get really rough, but OTOH I've got several good binoculars I can use in those situations or as a backup.

Kimmo has been right all along.

Hermann

Hi, Hermann - back in 2013 you wrote, regarding your Zeiss 20x60S Mono, that "Having used the Zeiss with its mechanical stabilizer quite a bit, I find it almost impossible to use one of the stabilized Canons anymore. The Zeiss has such a nice, "quiet" and steady image, that I find the quirks introduced by the electronic stabilizer of the Canons highly distracting. So, if someone's thinking about getting a Canon, don't try out the Zeiss …"

It would seem, from your more recent post above, that Canon's IS has made significant improvements between then and now?
 

Hermann

Well-known member
Hi, Hermann - back in 2013 you wrote, regarding your Zeiss 20x60S Mono, that "Having used the Zeiss with its mechanical stabilizer quite a bit, I find it almost impossible to use one of the stabilized Canons anymore. The Zeiss has such a nice, "quiet" and steady image, that I find the quirks introduced by the electronic stabilizer of the Canons highly distracting. So, if someone's thinking about getting a Canon, don't try out the Zeiss …"

It would seem, from your more recent post above, that Canon's IS has made significant improvements between then and now?

In a word - yes. And that applies not only to the 8x20 (which I know by now pretty well) but also to the 10x42 I tried recently. I can't say anything about the other "older" models or about the newer 32mm Canons, but IMO Canon changed the algorithms of the stabiliser in the 10x42 over the years without making a fuzz about it. In the 10x42 I tried a couple of weeks ago I can't see the artifacts I could see quite clearly in the early 10x42s I tried.

In fact, I liked the stabilised image of the 10x42 so much, I'm thinking about getting one despite the weight and even though I can't use it on days when I can't use my contact lens. If the Canon had a wider dipter correction range I'd buy it in a heartbeat.

Hermann
 

lmans66

Out Birding....
Supporter
United States
UPDATE....July 15th 2020.

This has been quite a quest....My final list came down to the Swaro CL, Nikon 8x30HG, Leica 8x32 Trinovid and Ultravid. My wife has the Meostar 8x32. Her pair is wonderful and the focus wheel is loosening up well so of the entire line-up I tested, the Meostar was very strong although not a 'stand-out'....it always seemed to be in the mix not being too high/low in any one area. Just a good all purpose bin.

But between the other 4 I was back and forth. I almost picked the Trinovid but the copy I had developed an issue with the eye-piece so I returned it. I opted to just sit on things for a week or so and let my mind be at ease and to get away from the situation. Ultimately I selected the Nikon 8x30HG.

We all have our reasons.....all great binoculars and if you read thru my initial posting you can see why I might not have liked the Kowa, Conquest, Maven...GPO. Initially I didn't like the Trinovid either but I tried to give these as many 'go arounds' as possible and the Trinovid eventually rose up to be one of my favorites but the more I thought about the weight and bulk, the more I didn't want to go that way. The Ultravid is a beautiful binocular as well as the CL. But one has to decide based upon their eyes, how it feels in their hands, the quality they perceive, the 'pop' generated thru the view, how one birds, what other things you might be looking for in a bin etc etc... So the Nikon fit mine.

Best of luck to all...... it has been an experience. My advice, try them.....order them in and try them out. A hidden benefit of the Covid is that it forced me to use online store return policy and simply order in copies so I could test them out in my 'patch'. I either ordered in Demo's or I ordered in used copies which were discounted but still workable. That allowed me to see as many pairs as I wanted side-by-side to compare and contrast under the same conditions. Good luck.
 

eitanaltman

Well-known member
Congrats on reaching an end point! A few things I’m curious to know more about when you have a chance:

1. Would love to hear more about why the Trinovid ended up being a dark horse late entry contender, since you dismissed it early in the thread and thus haven’t really discussed it and compared / contrasted to the others

2. Since the Ultravid ended up sneaking into this “not alpha” pile... do you prefer the MHG to the UV straight up, or “for the money”?

3. On the MHG 8x30, how do you find the glare / flare? That’s something that killed the Monarch 7 8x30 for me which was otherwise quite nice... B&H has refurb MHG 8x30 for only $649 right now but I’ve been put off thinking the MHG is so similar to the M7 in 30mm guise that it may have the same veiling glare problems.
 

pbjosh

missing the neotropics
Switzerland
Eitan, I have both MHG and M7 in 8x30. I personally see a difference in glare performance, with the MHG performing better, if not perfectly. But the difference is there. Not sure if it's due to glare handling or other optical aspects, but there's no doubt the MHG has better contrast and saturation than the M7.
 

NDhunter

Experienced observer
United States
I'm sure it has been mentioned already, but the Swarovski 8x32 SV is the perfect binocular in this
size. I have experience with many in this size, but this one is the best.

Jerry
 

lmans66

Out Birding....
Supporter
United States
Congrats on reaching an end point! A few things I’m curious to know more about when you have a chance:

1. Would love to hear more about why the Trinovid ended up being a dark horse late entry contender, since you dismissed it early in the thread and thus haven’t really discussed it and compared / contrasted to the others

2. Since the Ultravid ended up sneaking into this “not alpha” pile... do you prefer the MHG to the UV straight up, or “for the money”?

3. On the MHG 8x30, how do you find the glare / flare? That’s something that killed the Monarch 7 8x30 for me which was otherwise quite nice... B&H has refurb MHG 8x30 for only $649 right now but I’ve been put off thinking the MHG is so similar to the M7 in 30mm guise that it may have the same veiling glare problems.

I dismissed the Trinovid early on because of the poor FOV....but I had to give it a try and once I had it in my hands, I found the focus was butter smooth and very concise. I think I could more easily pinpoint tack sharpness with this bin over most others. While bulky and a bit overweight, the ergonomics and armor were very positive. I was impressed but the size / weight, turned me off a bit. While Close Focus was 3' , I rarely found myself taking advantage of that. More like 4-5' is adequate.

I found a used Ultravid at B and H for $1450, so why not? I think light transmission in the UVID is better, and obviously the size over the Trinovid. Good edge to edge = too Trinovid. Optically I could tell little difference other than light transmission over the Trinovid. But the focus wheel on that copy was clunky and I wasn't going that high $ wise to have it optically be equal to the Trinovid. Also the Close Focus was close to 7 ' compared to the 3' Trinovid.

Dollar to dollar ($800 to $1450)...well, the UVID is superior edge to edge, as Nikon HG is not strong but, I bird from the middle and not so much the edges, so figured that this is the feature I have to compromise with in the HG. I found the 'POP' came with the Nikon HG and not the Ultravid. Ergonomics would be the UVID by a hair (even over Trinovid), it feels more expensive and more solid. Size/weight were =.

I found little to no glare on the Nikon HG....same with Ultravid and Trinovid. Bottom line, if Money no problem, I would opt for the Ultravid in a second if I could find one with a smooth Focus. I have tried several stores and neither can provide me with a smooth focus wheel on the UVID.

I think the Monarch 7 and HG are real close from a brief glimpse on this comparison. But I worry about the quality (exterior ) of the Monarch 7 as that appears to be where the main differences are with exception of lens coatings etc.
Jerry....I haven't tried the Swaro 8x32 EL....
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Top