Opticron Aurora 8x42 vs alpha(ish) 8x42s - anything given away in optical quality? (1 Viewer)

[hopster]

Hi all

I have seen some very enthusiastic reviews here and elsewhere about the Aurora 8x42. I looked through a set myself and compared with Zeiss VP 8x25 and Swaro CL 8x30; swapping between them carefully over a 20 minute period. The lack of CA over most of the image was comparable to the Zeiss (perhaps not quite as good) and certainly better than the Swaro. It was easier to to look through than either, presumably nice big exit pupils, and with very nice colour and contrast. The actual one I used had a very stiff and rough focus wheel - bad enough that I think it may have actually been faulty and I have also seen this mentioned a couple of times.

My question here is how does it compare optically to the established competition; either the slightly more compact models which might be direct competitors such as the Zeiss SFL 8x40 (at twice the price) or the really top models from Zeiss and Swaro at 3 times the price. Is anything given away to these? I would assume so but diminishing returns would suggest not much.

Anyone with direct comparative experience of these models are encouraged to share their opinions please.

M

 

[Paultricounty]

Hi all

I have seen some very enthusiastic reviews here and elsewhere about the Aurora 8x42. I looked through a set myself and compared with Zeiss VP 8x25 and Swaro CL 8x30; swapping between them carefully over a 20 minute period. The lack of CA over most of the image was comparable to the Zeiss (perhaps not quite as good) and certainly better than the Swaro. It was easier to to look through than either, presumably nice big exit pupils, and with very nice colour and contrast. The actual one I used had a very stiff and rough focus wheel - bad enough that I think it may have actually been faulty and I have also seen this mentioned a couple of times.

My question here is how does it compare optically to the established competition; either the slightly more compact models which might be direct competitors such as the Zeiss SFL 8x40 (at twice the price) or the really top models from Zeiss and Swaro at 3 times the price. Is anything given away to these? I would assume so but diminishing returns would suggest not much.

That is in the eye of the beholder, and his relationship with his wallet 🙏🏼.
Seriously, once you look through and use a premium (alpha) you can’t ever go back.

Anyone with direct comparative experience of these models are encouraged to share their opinions please.

M

 

[Ratal]

I had the Zeiss SF 8x42.

I now use the Opticron Aurora as my one and done main binocular. I miss nothing and am delighted to have swapped. The main reason I swapped out from the Zeiss SF is the blue ring of death that occours in sunny haze conditions at sea or looking out over the sea. It is like a permanent blue rainbow around the edges.

Now I have the Opticron and it is my one optic I would never trade, sell or loan out.

 

[hopster]

I had the Zeiss SF 8x42.

I now use the Opticron Aurora as my one and done main binocular. I miss nothing and am delighted to have swapped. The main reason I swapped out from the Zeiss SF is the blue ring of death that occours in sunny haze conditions at sea or looking out over the sea. It is like a permanent blue rainbow around the edges.

Now I have the Opticron and it is my one optic I would never trade, sell or loan out.

Yes I saw your posts about this Ratal and that is one thing that led me to compare it to so many of the other alphas, and be impressed and surprised by what I saw. I would like to see what Allbinos and House of Outdoors make of it and have sent emails to both to suggest it but so far no reply from either.

I have written my thoughts elsewhere in more detail, but in summary:

• Having compared with a few SFs (both Mk1 and Mk2) I now think the Aurora has slightly better colour and contrast but less FOV and a much worse focuser.
• It reminds me of the Noctivid but with less CA, perhaps not quite as sharp in the middle and missing a little 'subtlety'/3D?
• The HT is in a different bracket to my eyes to everything else I have seen including the NL - super sharp, no CA at all, very bright, excellent contrast, colours and 'transparency'. Also more 3D than any other roofs but relatively smaller usable FOV and much smaller than SF/NL.
• I'm not sure whether I preferred the SLC/Kahles S or the Aurora but I can hardly get to infinity with the SLC focus and my prescription, so that rules it out for me. SLC more yellow tinted, Aurora has no colour bias apparent to me - the 10x42 has a very similar colour balance to the SW Habicht 10x40 I discovered yesterday.
• I have not yet found one with a good focuser (3x 8x42, 2x 10x42) though I know they do exist. Gritty, flat/stuck spots; a long way from Zeiss HT or SF.
• Eyecups don't seem to stay put that well but I'm sure O-rings could help with that.
• Surprisingly light and small.
• Obviously better than Conquest 8x42 and better than SFL 8x40 for my eyes.

 

[Belumat]

My 8x42 also has an unexceptional focuser, but I find the ergonomics and optics excellent. I am no longer using my El 10x42

 

[Ratal]

what the Opticron delivers to my eyes is a perfect blend of enough of everything, and delivers in large quantities.

My one absolute moment of 'oh, this is blissful' was watching Snow Buntings out up on the Cairngorms - blue skies, morning sun, and the image was just absolute perfection.

With Zero CA. Blacks were black, whites were white, and crisp.

 

[Belumat]

Today after months of exclusive use of the Aurora 8x42 I used my El 10x42 again, here is what I noticed:
The weight is heavier and it is noticeable, the fov and afov appear narrower and 'glare is a bit greater (Aurora controls this very well). Overall the opticron is definitely more pleasant for me

 

[hopster]

Another piece of evidence that the Aurora should be taken more seriously by some on this forum as a genuine competitor for notional 'alphas', in terms of image quality at least.

 

[Paultricounty]

I’m sorry and I really do hate to be a stick in the mud , but Opticron Aurora optically isn’t even in the same league as a swarovski EL. That’s the reason people spend $1000-$1500 more for them. I’m not saying this is just my opinion, I’ve had these binoculars side-by-side with a group of a half dozen people with MHG’s, Zeiss Conquest, Leica Trinovids, as well as Ultravids , EL’s , SF’s and few others. There was not one person that didn’t think the latter group of binoculars were a clear step up in optics.

Anyway, I kept the Nikons and the Conquest , the Trinovids and Opticrons are gone.

 

[paddyluke]

Another piece of evidence that the Aurora should be taken more seriously by some on this forum as a genuine competitor for notional 'alphas', in terms of image quality at least.

and the armor will last longer

 

[Belumat]

I speak for what I see and what I have seen several times during the comparisons I have made. My El is the first model, it is possible that later ones will be better... By the way it has recently been in service so it is as good as new

 

[Belumat]

I am not an optics reviewer, but Aurora's advantage is obvious to me...

 

[hopster]

and the armor will last longer

...though the focuser may not...

 

[hopster]

I’m sorry and I really do hate to be a stick in the mud , but Opticron Aurora optically isn’t even in the same league as a swarovski EL. That’s the reason people spend $1000-$1500 more for them. I’m not saying this is just my opinion, I’ve had these binoculars side-by-side with a group of a half dozen people with MHG’s, Zeiss Conquest, Leica Trinovids, as well as Ultravids , EL’s , SF’s and few others. There was not one person that didn’t think the latter group of binoculars were a clear step up in optics.

Anyway, I kept the Nikons and the Conquest , the Trinovids and Opticrons are gone.

This is your opinion Paul, but many here disagree. We have different eyes. In another post somewhere you said that you couldn't see much difference between Zeiss SF and HT 8x42. They are very different indeed in my eyes, at the least the pair I compared side-by-side were. So perceptions differ. It's a mistake I think to make blanket statements of 'fact' based upon personal perceptions.

 

[Paultricounty]

This is your opinion Paul, but many here disagree. We have different eyes. In another post somewhere you said that you couldn't see much difference between Zeiss SF and HT 8x42. They are very different indeed in my eyes, at the least the pair I compared side-by-side were. So perceptions differ. It's a mistake I think to make blanket statements of 'fact' based upon personal perceptions.

I guess you didn’t read my whole post. This was the opinion of over six experienced observers. What I said was that you can’t tell the difference between the HT AK prisms in comparison the SF SP. But I guess you read into what you want to do.

I guess I should take your advice , somebody who hasn’t compared all the other top binoculars. I guess then I’ll be selling all my Ultravids, SF, Noctivids, EL’s, NL’s , Nikons etc. etc. and buy back the auroras that had major issue with focuser.

All because your opinion is that a $1000 optic is optically superior to the $2000-$3000 offerings from the top optics manufacturers. I’ll also just forget the three defective opticrons that I had, I’m just gonna put that behind me.

Thank you

 

[paddyluke]

I guess you didn’t read my whole post. This was the opinion of over six experienced observers. What I said was that you can’t tell the difference between the HT AK prisms in comparison the SF SP. But I guess you read into what you want to do.

I guess I should take your advice , somebody who hasn’t compared all the other top binoculars. I guess then I’ll be selling all my Ultravids, SF, Noctivids, EL’s, NL’s , Nikons etc. etc. and buy back the auroras that had major issue with focuser.

All because your opinion is that a $1000 optic is optically superior to the $2000-$3000 offerings from the top optics manufacturers. I’ll also just forget the three defective opticrons that I had, I’m just gonna put that behind me.

Thank you

price does not always make one item better than another,it may hurt your feeling when you've paid more than necessary, out of more than twenty Opticron optics i've had over the years i've never had a problems with them, it maybe that you like to be seen with a more recognised name hanging around your neck but that decision is up to you.

 

[Paultricounty]

price does not always make one item better than another,it may hurt your feeling when you've paid more than necessary, out of more than twenty Opticron optics i've had over the years i've never had a problems with them, it maybe that you like to be seen with a more recognised name hanging around your neck but that decision is up to you.

Don’t worry you won’t hurt my feelings, and I apologize that I hurt yours. I’m sure you’ve heard the term you pay for what you get , I fully understand that some people can’t necessarily see the difference and or want to see the difference when it comes to having to spend money you don’t have, or are uncomfortable spending money on what many would say are incremental improvements, regardless of name brands. I have a whole collection of optics you may never have heard of. We also can agree that there are lovely binoculars half the price of the Aurora that are equally good to some. Again I don’t want to hurt your feelings accusing you of any falsities, but I do have to share that I’m shocked that you’ve not had one issue over the years that you recognize with 20 Opticrons , considering how many people have complained about the less than stellar focusers. Its very possible your not recognizing the issues as well. Enjoy your day, I’m off today to go do some observing with a few vintage SWA toys.

 

[paddyluke]

Don’t worry you won’t hurt my feelings, and I apologize that I hurt yours. I’m sure you’ve heard the term you pay for what you get , I fully understand that some people can’t necessarily see the difference and or want to see the difference when it comes to having to spend money you don’t have, or are uncomfortable spending money on what many would say are incremental improvements, regardless of name brands. I have a whole collection of optics you may never have heard of. We also can agree that there are lovely binoculars half the price of the Aurora that are equally good to some. Again I don’t want to hurt your feelings accusing you of any falsities, but I do have to share that I’m shocked that you’ve not had one issue over the years that you recognize with 20 Opticrons , considering how many people have complained about the less than stellar focusers. Its very possible your not recognizing the issues as well. Enjoy your day, I’m off today to go do some observing with a few vintage SWA toys.

that sounds like someone who's been hurt

 

[Paultricounty]

that sounds like someone who's been hurt

Pattyduke, you’ll get over it. 😝

 

[hopster]

Posted elsewhere but I thought it may also be relevant in this thread...

I have bought the Zeiss HT 10x42. It is just superb, despite what I hope is just dust in the left telescope and which I am told will be sorted out for me at no charge.

The balance of extreme sharpness, brightness even in dim light, a natural 'transparency', even colour tone and an almost total lack of CA is beyond anything else I have looked through over the last few months - which has been basically everything at the top of the quality spectrum. I am not used to a 10x but it's remarkable what can be pulled into clear view. For extended viewing I am improving my holding skills, finding natural resting points and have discovered how well one of my telescopic walking poles works as a monopod - easy to set up and very stable. I tend to take one with me anyway so this is for free.

I have already seen Buzzards circling below me when on top of a hill, Kestrels hunting in a nearby field hanging motionless in the stiff coastal breeze, Chough digging for food, ships in the Bristol channel, individual cars on the other side of the channel in Devon (able to distinguish colour and size of each) and a clear moon last night covered in tiny craters and subtle textures - all with a clarity and ease which I have never experienced before with my own optics. I don't think it gets much (any?) better than this and so my search for a 10x is now officially over unless the left telescope artefacts are difficult to resolve.

There have not been many x42 optics that gave me such a 'WOW' factor whilst I have been doing my research. The 8x42 HT did and so did the 8x and 10x Noctivids. Their 'wow' was colour saturation, contrast (both of which were a little bit better than the HTs), the ability to 'look into shadows' and a very good central sharpness. However, I found that the CA even in the centre could become distracting unless the eye was positioned exactly right which felt like quite a hassle compared to the HTs where you can basically ignore this issue. Perhaps there is a Noctivid+ on the drawing board somewhere which would address this? I would like to look through that. I also think that the A-K prism provides a kind of unique transparency or immediacy, rather like a good Porro, which even the best S-Ps cannot quite manage.

I should give honourable mentions to some other models that I really liked. The Habicht 10x40 which also had that transparency and a very natural colour tone, though the lack of eye relief and difficult focus wheel could both be a practical challenge for me I think. Perhaps not quite as sharp as the HT over the central 80% usage area either - though I haven't compared them side-by-side. The Kahles Helia S (= late Swaro SLC) which had a very nice image though perhaps with less natural colour balance and a focuser that I didn't like. Also, the Opticron Aurora which in both 8x and 10x seems to provide a package that is smaller and cheaper than this rarified group and yet approximately comparable in some optical qualities. I think of it as Noctivid-lite; lighter, similar colour balance (though with less saturation and contrast), not quite the subtlety looking into shadows but at the same time less CA and easier eye positioning. I didn't yet find one with a really smooth focuser though.

Of course the SF, EL and NL provide a technical masterclass in wide FOV and sharpness too which immediately impress, but after a while the NL view seemed a bit unnatural and glary to my eyes, and the SF was a little too dull in terms of contrast and colour saturation compared to the HT and Noctivid despite the best handling of anything I tried.