Nikon Monarch HG 8x42 user review
I recently bought the Nikon Monarch HG 8x42 and have had a couple of days to field test them in both bright and dull conditions. Previously I’d been using Zeiss 8x32 FLs for 8 years but wanted something brighter for birding in low light conditions so I was looking for a pair of 8x42s. However I still wanted something light and compact, preferably less than 700g. I also wanted a good field of view (FoV) and a close focus of 2m for insects and small animals. I narrowed my choice down to the Nikon Monarch HG 8x42 at £800 ($1,060) and the Vortex Razor HD 8x42 at £1,000 ($1,325).
I bought the Nikon Monarch HG 8x42 which weigh 660g, are compact with similar dimensions to the Leica Ultravid, have a FoV of 145m and a close focus of 2m. The rubber armour is a very thin black faux leatherette style which covers most of the barrels excluding the inner portion and a thin section at the top and bottom. It feels less robust than the more substantial armouring on other models, but the build quality still feels very good. Perhaps I will be a bit more careful with them than with a well armoured model but that may not be a bad thing! One oddity is that it comes fitted with rubber lens caps attached to rubber rings at the end of the barrels. I tried these for a few days and found one tended to flop open and I also forgot when I’d closed them and when I hadn’t. After three days I changed them for the supplied rubber rings which fit the ends of the barrels; I expect many owners will do likewise. The eyecups have two intermediate positions and although I wear glasses, I raise them to look through binoculars, so I use binoculars with eyecups fully extended. The eye relief is 17.8mm so they should be OK for those who keep their spectacles on. One physical feature which is really excellent is the focus wheel. It is very precise and smooth with just the right amount of resistance. It is probably the best focusing wheel of any binocular I have ever tried.
In terms of optical quality my first comparison was to my Zeiss 8x32 FL. The Nikon Monarch HG 8x42s are significantly better. OK I’m comparing a 32mm against a 42mm lens which equates to about a 60% increase in light gathering. However the gain in image quality is not just due to brightness, the colour saturation and contrast combine to give the Nikon a superb clarity which just has more ‘Pop’ than the Zeiss 8x32 FL. I was amazed at just how much better the Nikons were compared to my Zeiss 8x32.
I compared the Nikon to the Vortex Razor HD in a shop with outdoor viewing on an overcast day with light rain, focussing both close and middle distance. The two binoculars are similar in terms of physical properties with the Vortex Razor HD being only 5mm longer and 20g heavier. It also has thin, but plain green rubber armour which is more extensive giving it a slightly more durable feel.
Optically there are two obvious differences between the Nikon and the Vortex. The Vortex has a brighter image than the Nikon but it has a smaller FoV of 129m against 145m for the Nikon. Also the Nikon has field flattener lens which mean that a greater proportion of the image is sharp with only the extreme edge on the very periphery of your vision being soft. The Vortex, without field flattener technology has a wider margin which is soft and this is more noticeable due to the smaller image circle. Some people have a problem with the rolling-ball effect that some field flattener lenses produce when panning. I’m not familiar with this but did notice a very subtle effect when panning but it’s not an issue for me.
In terms of sharpness I couldn’t tell a difference when standing hand holding normally. However supporting myself against the door frame I think the Razor might just have the edge. In terms of colour saturation and contrast I thought the Nikon was definitely better. As with the Zeiss FL the Nikon just has a greater clarity and ‘Pop’ than the Vortex. I also compared them against the Leica Ultravid HD plus for reference. This was slightly better than both, with a significantly brighter image than the Nikon and more clarity than the Vortex. However the difference was not huge and the poor minimum focus of 3m discounted it.
I had chosen the Nikons after a seven hour journey in heavy traffic and rain on a Saturday. Later when I got to my holiday cottage I wondered if I had been two hasty in my choice and whether brightness or field of view should be my priority. I also thought I might have been a bit prejudiced against the Vortex as I had read a couple of views which mentioned its’ performance into direct sunlight as a weakness. So I went back to the shop on the Monday (still overcast with light rain) and tested them against the Vortex again and also other models. Against the Vortex it confirmed my view that although the Vortex was brighter, the greater colour saturation, contrast and clarity of the Nikon coupled with the better field of view made it preferable. The Vortex image looked slightly washed out by comparison to the Nikon.
I also compared the Nikons to the Zeiss Conquest HD which is very good but in my view not quite as good as the Nikon. It’s also heavier with a smaller FoV and lacks a locking dioptre adjustment. I finally tried the Nikon against the Zeiss SF, widely regarded as the best birding binocular. The Zeiss SF were better, being brighter and slightly sharper but a lot bulkier. They also weigh 120g more (similar to the Ultravids) but feel surprising light. The Nikon Monarch HGs gave a warmer colour balance than the Zeiss SF and I prefer the Nikons in that respect. The Zeiss SF are more than double the price of the Nikon Monarch HGs – a whole £1,000 ($1,325) more! For my money I did not think the difference was worth anywhere near £1,000. So I left the shop with the same pair of Nikons in my hand, happy that I had made the right choice for my needs. I have since tested the Nikons into late afternoon low direct sunlight and the performance is excellent, no issues at all. In the few days of use in the field I have been delighted with the superb clarity of the image and wonderful precise focussing.
I haven’t compared the Nikon Monarch HG to the Nikon EDG so I can’t comment on any difference in optical quality. However the EDG are 220g heavier, have a smaller FoV and cost £600 more. I also prefer the simple elegant styling of the Monarch HG which reminds me of the 1970’s Leica Trinovids as opposed to the flashier styling of the EDG which one reviewer described as looking like a Batman binocular. I think Nikon have realised that they have not succeeded in breaking into the top of the range big three market and decided to target the next level down with an excellent binocular at a very competitive price.
Everyone’s eyesight and priorities regarding the optical and physical properties of binoculars, as well as budgets are different. For me the Nikon Monarch HG 8x42 are ideal because of their combination of superb optical quality, wide field, precise and close focus, light weight, compactness and value for money. Other users may appreciate subtleties between different models which I have missed and may find other models are better suited to them. That’s fine, but if you’re in the market for a pair of binoculars in the £500-£1,000 category, you should definitely try the Nikon Monarch HG before you buy anything else. Even if you’re looking at the big three top of the range / second tier £1,200 - £2,000, I recommend comparing them against the Nikon Monarch HGs.
