Patriot222
Well-known member
I just wanted to post something about a couple models of 8x22 Steiner that I recently tried. This first post will be about the 8x22 Safari "Ultrasharp" models, (quotations mine).
I quick history, so that others will have an idea of my experiences with Steiner. When I was a teenager in the 80's my Uncle introduced me to some model of the 7x50, with compass and I believe it might have been the Military or Military Marine model. At the time, I had never looked through such impressive glass and I knew that some day, when I was able to afford them, I'd get my own. I purchased what I could afford at the time which was a Tasco 7x50 Offshore model with compass. I guess I was about 20 when I saved enough to purchase a 7x50 Military (no compass). I was very impressed and of course it made any less expensive model at the local sporting good stores seem pretty junky. A few years later, I got into archery hunting and wanted something small and light, so I purchased a Steiner 8x30. It might have been the Safari model but I'm not positive. Back then, I was trusting of name brands and didn't even look through it, I just took it home and started using it. From the standpoint of image quality, it was one of the worst binoculars that I've ever owned in my life. The image was dull, grey, blurry on the edges and I figured this was the sacrifice made, going to smaller glass. The information that's available to us today, didn't exist back then, or if it did, it wasn't easily attained without personally knowing an expert. Shortly after, one of my friends showed me their 8x30 with a funny Austrian name, my optics perceptions were wrecked thereafter. After trying some Zeiss Porro's, I realized that my Steiner 7x50 was pretty unimpressive as well. I let both of them go and put the money toward a 10x50 Trinovid BA, which was a fairly new model at the time. It served me very through many years of hunting and shooting.
Throughout the years, most of my Steiner experiences have been very similar. They were a fairly well recognized hunting binocular and so many of my friends owned them. Almost every Steiner that cost less than $400 back then was terrible. Although some of the more expensive Porro's did provide a decent view, now that I had experience binoculars from Swarovski and Leica, and a Zeiss 15x60BGA, I had little use for the Steiner. For a short time, I owned a 20x80 model which might have been the "Military" model but the more I used it, the more unacceptable I had perceived it's performance. I've ignored the brand ever since however, I understand that there are happy Steiner owners and that some models are actually still made in Germany. Not that the place of manufacter means much, today. They're either acceptable quality at a given price point or they are not. In some ways, it seems as if there are two Steiner regimes. One sells professional instruments and the other "markets" to the uniformed masses. By the way, I was never duped by Steiner's advertising rhetoric. I understood and experienced the realities of parallax, as a teenager due to my rifle shooting. Rather I purchased those first Steiner's because I was exposed to them and trusted the name.
Recently, I've been trying out various 8x20 and 8x22 class binoculars, trying to see if there's something out there that can give reasonable images at say, 1/4 to 1/2 of what the 8x20 Ultravid costs. When I purchased this (8x22 Safari Ultrasharp model) they were $115. The same model in 10x26 was $247 during the same period of time. As most are aware, binocular models of the same class don't usually vary in price this much and typically we see a 5-10% difference between 8x and 10x versions of the same model. I'm mentioning this because it was the $247 price point of the 10x25 Ultrasharp, that I suspected the 8x22 model might just be a really good deal and "under priced" in its category. Thus, I was hoping it would be $250 worth of optics. It's my understanding that this model has been discontinued as it's not currently on Steiner's website at time of posting. As a price point example on a current model, the Steiner 8x22 and 10x26 Blue Horizon models are $194 and $199 respectively. Again, I was keeping my fingers crossed that perhaps this was a $250 class optic, that was on close-out or perhaps wasn't a popular seller, so I took a chance. Unfortunately, it just doesn't deliver optically.
On the positive side, they are fairly light at 242grams or 8.5oz (not including neck strap). Also, the hinge tension between the two barrels is just about perfect and leaning toward the firm side. This is nice on a pocket binocular because it's not uncommon that compact binoculars loosen a bit with extended use. The focus is smooth but not very linear and different amounts of resistance are felt throughout the focus range. Overall, the appearance, fit and finish is quite nice. Reasonably sharp for a roof prism at this price point but only in the middle of the FOV (Field of View). Lastly, the nylon case was fantastic! It wasn't overly large or small, it was sturdy and had a very usable belt loop. Even the color was pleasing and it kind of reminded me of the 8x25CL case.
On the neutral side, the two barrels don't come all the way together in the folded position and leave about 12mm gap in the center, at the fully closed position. This isn't uncommon in its category but some models do fold fully together, making them even more compact. The diopter adjustment ring, which is placed on the left barrel, is far to loose and moves around too easily. The slightest touch or movement against your shirt while hanging from your neck, shifts the adjustment. This might be tolerable by some but it was a bit disappointing considering how nice the barrel hinge tension was. The tint was fairly neutral but leaning slightly to the warm side. Greens and yellows appear a touch amplified but not bad at all compared to other optics in this class.
The negatives points are all in the area of the optics but at least one deficiency was inexcusable, maybe two but you decide. The sharpness in the center of the FOV (field of view) is reasonable but probably behind most inexpensive, compact porro's from Nikon and Pentax. The images don't pop in and out of focus with any snappiness. You sort of turn the focus wheel past the point of focus and then have to back it up a few degrees, hunting back and forth with the focus while your brain figures out exactly where the image is sharpest. Most Nikon Trailblazer's (for example) at $75 have a less ambiguous point of focus. Next, the blurring at the edge of FOV is really noticeable. I'd estimate the blurring begins at 50-60% from the center of the FOV and rapidly deteriorates. The blurring at the last 15% of the edge of FOV is positively horrendous and completely unusable. Because of this, you really need to steer objects to the center of the FOV in order to get satisfactory view. Some moderately price roof prism binoculars will allow some wandering of your eye within the FOV but not these. Lastly, is the major issue of internal reflections. In fact, they're so distracting that it makes this binocular a chore to enjoy, despite it's nice size, fit and finish. It's most noticeable past the edge of FOV, in what would normally be the blackened area of the image. In the black, directly adjacent to the actual FOV, there are all kinds of bronze colored reflections that dance around as you pan or tilt the binocular while viewing. These internal reflections sweep, dance and swim around the edge of the black circle like a reflection from a bulb or glass. The only binocular I've used that's ever come close to this level reflection problem was a $60 Simmon, 7-12x25 porro. That's right, a variable! The average or inexperienced binocular user might not even notice this type of thing initially, but once you know it's there, it's really difficult to ignore. The exit pupils might be a visual evidence to this issue. When you hold the binocular are arms length, instead of one small dot of light coming from each occular, asymmetrical waves of reflections are present. Additionally, the exit pupils are slightly truncated. Perhaps the prisms are too small for the eye piece they've chosen. To top things off, there are some fine glue or polymer strands visible in the right barrel when shinning a flashlight through the objective side. They don't appear to be loose or floating however, they are in the optical path between the objective an prism. Also, there were several area between the objectives and prisms with shiny spots and it was obvious that no care was taken to fully blacken the internals.
At the $115 (current price point) it's not the worst binocular that I ever experienced but if the 10x26 suffers from the same optical properties at $247 (current pricing) then this just reaffirms the issues with Steiner's perceived quality vs. reality. If forced to chose between this and a $70 Nikon TrailBlazer 8x25, I'd take the TrailBlazer every time.
When I get some time, I'll post my findings on the more expensive $195 8x22 Blue Horizon model.
I quick history, so that others will have an idea of my experiences with Steiner. When I was a teenager in the 80's my Uncle introduced me to some model of the 7x50, with compass and I believe it might have been the Military or Military Marine model. At the time, I had never looked through such impressive glass and I knew that some day, when I was able to afford them, I'd get my own. I purchased what I could afford at the time which was a Tasco 7x50 Offshore model with compass. I guess I was about 20 when I saved enough to purchase a 7x50 Military (no compass). I was very impressed and of course it made any less expensive model at the local sporting good stores seem pretty junky. A few years later, I got into archery hunting and wanted something small and light, so I purchased a Steiner 8x30. It might have been the Safari model but I'm not positive. Back then, I was trusting of name brands and didn't even look through it, I just took it home and started using it. From the standpoint of image quality, it was one of the worst binoculars that I've ever owned in my life. The image was dull, grey, blurry on the edges and I figured this was the sacrifice made, going to smaller glass. The information that's available to us today, didn't exist back then, or if it did, it wasn't easily attained without personally knowing an expert. Shortly after, one of my friends showed me their 8x30 with a funny Austrian name, my optics perceptions were wrecked thereafter. After trying some Zeiss Porro's, I realized that my Steiner 7x50 was pretty unimpressive as well. I let both of them go and put the money toward a 10x50 Trinovid BA, which was a fairly new model at the time. It served me very through many years of hunting and shooting.
Throughout the years, most of my Steiner experiences have been very similar. They were a fairly well recognized hunting binocular and so many of my friends owned them. Almost every Steiner that cost less than $400 back then was terrible. Although some of the more expensive Porro's did provide a decent view, now that I had experience binoculars from Swarovski and Leica, and a Zeiss 15x60BGA, I had little use for the Steiner. For a short time, I owned a 20x80 model which might have been the "Military" model but the more I used it, the more unacceptable I had perceived it's performance. I've ignored the brand ever since however, I understand that there are happy Steiner owners and that some models are actually still made in Germany. Not that the place of manufacter means much, today. They're either acceptable quality at a given price point or they are not. In some ways, it seems as if there are two Steiner regimes. One sells professional instruments and the other "markets" to the uniformed masses. By the way, I was never duped by Steiner's advertising rhetoric. I understood and experienced the realities of parallax, as a teenager due to my rifle shooting. Rather I purchased those first Steiner's because I was exposed to them and trusted the name.
Recently, I've been trying out various 8x20 and 8x22 class binoculars, trying to see if there's something out there that can give reasonable images at say, 1/4 to 1/2 of what the 8x20 Ultravid costs. When I purchased this (8x22 Safari Ultrasharp model) they were $115. The same model in 10x26 was $247 during the same period of time. As most are aware, binocular models of the same class don't usually vary in price this much and typically we see a 5-10% difference between 8x and 10x versions of the same model. I'm mentioning this because it was the $247 price point of the 10x25 Ultrasharp, that I suspected the 8x22 model might just be a really good deal and "under priced" in its category. Thus, I was hoping it would be $250 worth of optics. It's my understanding that this model has been discontinued as it's not currently on Steiner's website at time of posting. As a price point example on a current model, the Steiner 8x22 and 10x26 Blue Horizon models are $194 and $199 respectively. Again, I was keeping my fingers crossed that perhaps this was a $250 class optic, that was on close-out or perhaps wasn't a popular seller, so I took a chance. Unfortunately, it just doesn't deliver optically.
On the positive side, they are fairly light at 242grams or 8.5oz (not including neck strap). Also, the hinge tension between the two barrels is just about perfect and leaning toward the firm side. This is nice on a pocket binocular because it's not uncommon that compact binoculars loosen a bit with extended use. The focus is smooth but not very linear and different amounts of resistance are felt throughout the focus range. Overall, the appearance, fit and finish is quite nice. Reasonably sharp for a roof prism at this price point but only in the middle of the FOV (Field of View). Lastly, the nylon case was fantastic! It wasn't overly large or small, it was sturdy and had a very usable belt loop. Even the color was pleasing and it kind of reminded me of the 8x25CL case.
On the neutral side, the two barrels don't come all the way together in the folded position and leave about 12mm gap in the center, at the fully closed position. This isn't uncommon in its category but some models do fold fully together, making them even more compact. The diopter adjustment ring, which is placed on the left barrel, is far to loose and moves around too easily. The slightest touch or movement against your shirt while hanging from your neck, shifts the adjustment. This might be tolerable by some but it was a bit disappointing considering how nice the barrel hinge tension was. The tint was fairly neutral but leaning slightly to the warm side. Greens and yellows appear a touch amplified but not bad at all compared to other optics in this class.
The negatives points are all in the area of the optics but at least one deficiency was inexcusable, maybe two but you decide. The sharpness in the center of the FOV (field of view) is reasonable but probably behind most inexpensive, compact porro's from Nikon and Pentax. The images don't pop in and out of focus with any snappiness. You sort of turn the focus wheel past the point of focus and then have to back it up a few degrees, hunting back and forth with the focus while your brain figures out exactly where the image is sharpest. Most Nikon Trailblazer's (for example) at $75 have a less ambiguous point of focus. Next, the blurring at the edge of FOV is really noticeable. I'd estimate the blurring begins at 50-60% from the center of the FOV and rapidly deteriorates. The blurring at the last 15% of the edge of FOV is positively horrendous and completely unusable. Because of this, you really need to steer objects to the center of the FOV in order to get satisfactory view. Some moderately price roof prism binoculars will allow some wandering of your eye within the FOV but not these. Lastly, is the major issue of internal reflections. In fact, they're so distracting that it makes this binocular a chore to enjoy, despite it's nice size, fit and finish. It's most noticeable past the edge of FOV, in what would normally be the blackened area of the image. In the black, directly adjacent to the actual FOV, there are all kinds of bronze colored reflections that dance around as you pan or tilt the binocular while viewing. These internal reflections sweep, dance and swim around the edge of the black circle like a reflection from a bulb or glass. The only binocular I've used that's ever come close to this level reflection problem was a $60 Simmon, 7-12x25 porro. That's right, a variable! The average or inexperienced binocular user might not even notice this type of thing initially, but once you know it's there, it's really difficult to ignore. The exit pupils might be a visual evidence to this issue. When you hold the binocular are arms length, instead of one small dot of light coming from each occular, asymmetrical waves of reflections are present. Additionally, the exit pupils are slightly truncated. Perhaps the prisms are too small for the eye piece they've chosen. To top things off, there are some fine glue or polymer strands visible in the right barrel when shinning a flashlight through the objective side. They don't appear to be loose or floating however, they are in the optical path between the objective an prism. Also, there were several area between the objectives and prisms with shiny spots and it was obvious that no care was taken to fully blacken the internals.
At the $115 (current price point) it's not the worst binocular that I ever experienced but if the 10x26 suffers from the same optical properties at $247 (current pricing) then this just reaffirms the issues with Steiner's perceived quality vs. reality. If forced to chose between this and a $70 Nikon TrailBlazer 8x25, I'd take the TrailBlazer every time.
When I get some time, I'll post my findings on the more expensive $195 8x22 Blue Horizon model.
