New Zeiss 8x32SF as your main binocular (6 Viewers)

[[email protected]]

I love my 8x30MHG but I wouldn't have it as my only bin. It's the bin I use the most, hands down. I use it for all local and almost all domestic birding, for hikes, I have it handy when driving in rural areas, and take it along for casual outings where birding isn't the priority. But for "real birding trips" I take an 8x42 or 10x42 depending on the habitat. I'm curious to see if the 8x32SF can replace an 8x42SF - and I suspect it will be able to. But I personally wouldn't take my 8x30MHG to the tropics for a month instead of my 8x42SF.

"But I personally wouldn't take my 8x30MHG to the tropics for a month instead of my 8x42SF."

Exactly! People that have never birded under a canopy or in a jungle don't realize how much better a 8x42 works than a 8x32.

 

[[email protected]]

My original question (post #1).... was could a 8x32 be your only pair of bins and obviously the answer appears to be yes. But I am going to amend that even further and now state that in my mind, a 8x30 bin can be my only bin. Instead of putting a 8x32SF on pre-order....I found the benefit of a 8x30 Monarch HG at half the price, a lot lot lot lot smaller in dimension and less weight. I find myself moving more in that direction with less weight and physical size while I see the 8x32SF being larger and heavier in all respects (much like the recent NL series too)...so apparently manufacturers are going 'bigger' while I am wanting 'smaller'....

I tried to replace my 8x32 with a 8x30 and the 8x30 just didn't cut it. It depends on how and where you bird. A 8x30 just doesn't perform like a 8x32 or 8x42 in less than perfect situations. Any darker low light birding like in the tropics, or under canopy or in the jungle give me at least a 8x32 or preferably a 8x42. I tried the Monarch HG 8x30 but the Swarovski CL 8x30 was a little better with sharper edges and the EL 8x32 is quite a bit better than the CL 8x30 and actually the EL 8x32 is only a few oz. heavier than the 8x30's but kills them both optically.

 

[Hermann]

I tried to replace my 8x32 with a 8x30 and the 8x30 just didn't cut it. It depends on how and where you bird. A 8x30 just doesn't perform like a 8x32 or 8x42 in less than perfect situations.
Any darker low light birding like in the tropics, or under canopy or in the jungle give me at least a 8x32 or preferably a 8x42.

You can see a difference between an 8x30 and an 8x32? Congratulations. You're probably the only one. Or you're just delusional.

I suspect the latter.

I tried the Monarch HG 8x30 but the Swarovski CL 8x30 was a little better with sharper edges and the EL 8x32 is quite a bit better than the CL 8x30 and actually the EL 8x32 is only a few oz. heavier than the 8x30's but kills them both optically.

Except when viewing against the light.

Hermann

 

[lmans66]

I certainly don't see a difference between a 30 and 32mm......

Up until COVID, I birded down in the tropics for years and years, and in the jungle. I always birded with my 10x42 HT, which many on this forum would never bird in the jungle and tropics thinking they need to have a wide FOV and heavens; a 10 power!~ (110m per 1000, or 330' per 1000')

I have seen many people who I have birded in the tropics who have used the 8x32 EL.....(why does the EL have poor glare control?). so I am not too worried about a 8x30 with a wide FOV and a nice light transmission as well as being physically light / small for hiking around in humid weather.

 

[Swissboy]

............. But I personally wouldn't take my 8x30MHG to the tropics for a month instead of my 8x42SF.

The inside of those forests convinced me to get a x42 model after having missed an ID of my only ever antpitta with my 8x32 Leica. :C

 

[eitanaltman]

I would have no problem using an 8x32 as my full time bin, but I find a lot of the super tiny 8x30 models are just a bit TOO small to hold comfortably for hours of extended field use. I felt that way about the M7 8x30, and also the older Swaro CL 8x30 when I tested it. I've mentioned before I even find the Ultravid 8x32 a bit too small. Totally fine for occasional use or very casual situatons (non-birding walks, light travel) but over several hours of use in the field the small discomforts add up.

For me, something in the 20-23oz range is plenty light to carry around all day and having a little more meat on the bones makes for a more comfortable hold. I've always preferred the ergonomics of slightly chunkier 32's like the Meostar/Euro, Conquest HD, or Kowa Genesis. I also think the Swaro SV 8x32 is a dream to hold with plenty of room to wrap around the barrels without the excessive (for me) length and bulk of the 42mm SV or Zeiss SF.

It's like Goldilocks, I want it "just right". I'm finding I don't like them too big/heavy (my full sized 10x42 Trinovid is wonderful but I don't like to carry it around for hikes or casual birding around local parks) or too small/light (the short and tiny <20 oz types noted above).

 

[[email protected]]

You can see a difference between an 8x30 and an 8x32? Congratulations. You're probably the only one. Or you're just delusional.

I suspect the latter.



Except when viewing against the light.

Hermann

"You can see a difference between an 8x30 and an 8x32? Congratulations. You're probably the only one. Or you're just delusional."

Really! If you can't see the difference between a MHG or CL 8x30 and a EL 8x32 you are blind!


"Except when viewing against the light."

I would rank the three for glare CL 8x30 1st, EL 8x32 2nd and the MHG 8x30 3rd and I have had all three of them.

https://www.allbinos.com/331-binoculars_review-Nikon_Monarch_HG_8x30.html
Nikon Monarch HG 8x30 - Internal reflections - Quite wide and rather light area around the pupil. 2.6/5.0

 

[[email protected]]

The inside of those forests convinced me to get a x42 model after having missed an ID of my only ever antpitta with my 8x32 Leica. :C

I don't think the birders that use a 32 mm binoculars exclusively have ever birded in the jungles or under the canopy of Costa Rica. I have never seen Tarzan with a 32 mm. Maybe Cheetah.

 

[chill6x6]

Sorry folks but I've done the 8X32 vs. 8X42 low-light comparison with same/similar models too many times. I've had both around my neck and when 8X32 couldn't make the ID...neither could 8X42 in the same exact instance.

BTW....my plans ARE to go to Costa Rica/Panama March 2021. Covid may mess that up. If it doesn't my plans are to take the SV 8X32.

 

[NDhunter]

Chuck:

That does help confirm it, back to the original question posted, and the answer is that any
quality size 8x32 can serve as your one and only, one and done, binocular.

I said a similar thing earlier in this thread.

Jerry

 

[[email protected]]

Sorry folks but I've done the 8X32 vs. 8X42 low-light comparison with same/similar models too many times. I've had both around my neck and when 8X32 couldn't make the ID...neither could 8X42 in the same exact instance.

BTW....my plans ARE to go to Costa Rica/Panama March 2021. Covid may mess that up. If it doesn't my plans are to take the SV 8X32.

"If it doesn't my plans are to take the SV 8X32."

You will be sorry! You won't be able to ID the Quetzal or find any Sloths under the canopy. Watch out for the Bullet Ants! They have a nasty bite! Take a rain coat too. They don't call them rain forests for nothing. Keep in mind a 42 mm brings in 70% more light than a 32 mm. Take your EL 8.5x42.

 

[pbjosh]

The level of performance of a 32mm alpha is high enough that in most cases it's not a noticeable difference. Your ability as a field birder is a much bigger difference than the difference between 42mm and 32mm objective. I have birded with my 8x30 MHG in rainforest a fair bit, and I get on just fine with it. I've never felt I missed an ID because I was limited by it. But I have better bins, and if I'm packing for a month long trip to a new destination, I'm going to take the best bin I have, not the MHG.

 

[pbjosh]

"If it doesn't my plans are to take the SV 8X32."

You will be sorry! You won't be able to ID the Quetzal or find any Sloths under the canopy. Watch out for the Bullet Ants! They have a nasty bite! Take a rain coat too. They don't call them rain forests for nothing.

If one can't ID quetzals or sloths to species with an SV 8x32 it says more about field skills than it does binocular choice.

 

[[email protected]]

If one can't ID quetzals or sloths to species with an SV 8x32 it says more about field skills than it does binocular choice.

The Sloths come out later in the evening in the canopy, and they are really hard to make out and the 42 mm gives you a little brighter image which really is helpful. Take my word for it. You have Sloths in Buenos Aires don't you?

 

[lmans66]

When birding around the local area, a 8x30 is just fine...or my Meostar 8x32... When I go to the tropics, in the past I had my HT 10x42 which was my main bin for 7 years. I got really tired of lugging a 30 ounce bin in the tropics for 'full days' for weeks. I look forward to a light, small bin I can use. With the HT, which has excellent light transmission etc....there were so few cases I was in where I saw something that someone else didn't see, so my thinking is that 'what one person see's because of their bins' is over-rated. It is more 'birding skills' and not 'bins'.... Even with my $99 Swift Audubon's, it was birding skills that was more applicable than getting an Alpha.

Ditto when I go to Australia. Nice wide open ground...... a 8x30 will do just nicely as plenty of sun there too. Now I can see 'sea watch' where the bin will make a difference. Let's say between a 10x42 NL compared to a 8x42 SLC ...or my 8x30. Sure...I will give you that. Otherwise, the price isn't worth the difference.

 

[jgraider]

The Sloths come out later in the evening in the canopy, and they are really hard to make out and the 42 mm gives you a little brighter image which really is helpful. Take my word for it. You have Sloths in Buenos Aires don't you?

You've got t be kidding...............

 

[pbjosh]

When I go to the tropics, in the past I had my HT 10x42 which was my main bin for 7 years. I got really tired of lugging a 30 ounce bin in the tropics for 'full days' for weeks. I look forward to a light, small bin I can use. With the HT, which has excellent light transmission etc....there were so few cases I was in where I saw something that someone else didn't see, so my thinking is that 'what one person see's because of their bins' is over-rated. It is more 'birding skills' and not 'bins'....

I agree almost completely, but I do think that inside of a forest field of view is pretty handy, and that contrast is really useful when looking into the canopy. I think it's likely that, for my balance of desires, an 8x32SF will be able to replace an 8x42 in tropical forest and come with some bonus FOV. But of course that's pretty subjective. I am pretty certain I could get by with just an 8x30MHG, but will take a better bin as long as I have one.

Ditto when I go to Australia. Nice wide open ground...... a 8x30 will do just nicely as plenty of sun there too. Now I can see 'sea watch' where the bin will make a difference. Let's say between a 10x42 NL compared to a 8x42 SLC ...or my 8x30. Sure...I will give you that. Otherwise, the price isn't worth the difference.

Again I mostly agree but if I were to go to Australia to bird (where I've not birded yet), I'd still take a 10x42 over my MHG. Price/value impression is of course entirely subjective. For pure performance, sure, the value gets worse the more you pay. But if paying more is worth it, we must each decide for ourselves. Particularly when I'm somewhere new or somewhere that I may only ever visit once, I enjoy having the best view possible.

 

[pbjosh]

The Sloths come out later in the evening in the canopy, and they are really hard to make out and the 42 mm gives you a little brighter image which really is helpful. Take my word for it. You have Sloths in Buenos Aires don't you?

I'll stand by what I said earlier.

 

[eitanaltman]

If one can't ID quetzals or sloths to species with an SV 8x32 it says more about field skills than it does binocular choice.

100% - for almost a decade I ID’d many hundreds of species in tropical rain forests around the world with a dinky Eagle Optics Ranger — narrow FOV, no ED glass or dielectric coatings. Would life have been easier with a an 8x42 FL? Of course.

A modern alpha 8x32 with wide FOV and great optics is a perfectly fine choice for the tropics. Would an 8x42 be brighter and more forgiving of eye placement in low light? Sure, there’s a difference, our resident clown as usual is full of hyperbole.

I’ve been playing with a 10x33 Genesis the past couple days which in theory would be a big problem in low light situations. Yeah at dusk the eye placement gets finicky but these things are so bright and sharp that once you get things lined up they are fine. An 8x32/33 would be even better obviously, but comparing them to my Trinovid 10x42 for example in the dead of night the Kowas are perceptually maybe 10-15% less bright at most.

Considering the benefits of size/weight for travel and hiking, I would happily make that trade off and take a kick ass 8x32 to the tropics instead of an 8x42.

Someone really needs to come out with an alpha 8x36 with super wide FOV and only 22-23oz weight. Then everyone be happy.

 

[eitanaltman]

.... that said, to be clear, the above is MY preference. In no way do I begrudge others for making different choices. Some people are happy to carry a 28oz 42mm binocular all day long because they value the extra 10-20% of low light performance and viewing comfort. Totally cool.

My point is that it’s all a series of compromises, which is inherently going to come down to one’s own subjective priorities, and the differences are much more subtle than it would seem based on the bleatings of certain posters.