Sightron "Blue Sky" II 8x32 (2 Viewers)

[FrankD]

Tough arguing with that Tom. I had a chance to compare the Sightron to the original Swaro EL 8x32 this morning. A comparison I have been itching to make since I bought the Sightron. Though I will get pounced on I am sure, I thought the Sightron actually had better contrast and subsequently better apparent sharpness as a result. The Swaro had a more immersive impression because of the wider field of view, the larger eyepieces and the narrower eyecups.

 

[brocknroller]

Tough arguing with that Tom. I had a chance to compare the Siggtron to the original Swaro EL 8x32 this morning. A comparison I have been itching to make since I bought the Sightron. Though I will get pounced on I am sure, I thought the Sightron actually had better contrast and subsequently better apparent sharpness as a result. The Swaro had a more immersive impression because of the wider field of view, the larger eyepieces and the narrower eyecups.

I can believe it, newer coatings even on cheaper bins can beat older coatings in more expensive bins in my experience. I almost got a "Siggtron" in a trade + cash deal, but opted for the cash since I needed it more.

The Ziggy Star Dustron is on my Wish List right after a Zager ZAD-80 acoustic guitar and before a house in the Hamptons.

 

[FrankD]

Typo corrected Brock. Thank you.

Besides the contrast the respective color biases between the two is also worthy of being mentioned. The Swaro was from one or two years after it was initially introduced (2001? 2002?) while obviously the Sightron is only 3.5 years "old". A 10 year difference in manufacturing. The Swaro displayed what I would call a hint of yellow/green bias whereas the Sightron displays that warmer reddish tone. The Swaro, as mentioned, had more of an immersive experience but the Sightron appeared sharper and more contrasty. Interestingly enough the size of the sweetspots appeared the same (to my eyes) in relation to the percentage of the field of view. Apparent brightness was about equal. CA control appeared to be a little better in the Sightron.

 

[ads]

I just received a Sightron SII Blue Sky 8x32 in today.

Here are my preliminary thoughts:

Center Resolution: Okay
Sweet Spot Size: Good
Field of View: Average
Brightness: Good
Color rendition: Good
Glare Control: Excellent (better than the Maven B3!)
Focusing: Good
Ergonomics: Excellent
Weight: Excellent
Minimum Focus Distance: Poor
Objective Covers: Okay
Rain Covers: Poor

n = 1, opinions subject to revision.

 

[Geo. G.]

That sounds about right, although I find the min focus distance acceptable. It could be slightly sharper on axis, perhaps, but I really do like its control of glare.

 

[ads]

I measure the minimum focus distance at 8 feet, 6 inches.

At first glance, I'd say the view provided by the Blue Sky is beautiful, but examining it more closely, the center resolution is disappointing. Definitely the poorest resolving Emu on my bino farm. It's not terrible, but it's definitely below some other binoculars of a similar price point. Sweet spot size, contrast, color rendition are excellent for the price point though.

 

[brocknroller]

I measure the minimum focus distance at 8 feet, 6 inches.

At first glance, I'd say the view provided by the Blue Sky is beautiful, but examining it more closely, the center resolution is disappointing. Definitely the poorest resolving Emu on my bino farm. It's not terrible, but it's definitely below some other binoculars of a similar price point. Sweet spot size, contrast, color rendition are excellent for the price point though.

Perhaps not the sharpest Emu on the farm, but certainly the most formidable.

 

[Six Point Five]

Though I will get pounced on I am sure, I thought the Sightron actually had better contrast and subsequently better apparent sharpness as a result.

Frank, consider yourself pounced upon. Them are fightin' words there.
I looked through 3 different Sightrons, i bought one as a gift for someone, i recommended them to more than 10 people, of which maybe 6 or 7 did purchase them and reported that they are very happy and thanked me for my advice, and i still think that the Sightron 8x32 is wonderful.
However, there is something about their color rendition and light transmission that i do not like. Maybe some warm colors like reds, yellows and browns are too obvious, the whites are not white enough, i don't know. What i can say is that the image, while sharp and wide, bird worthy, was also forcefully artificial for me. For me the Sightron is a wonderful binocular for a low budget. I regret very much not being able to buy one decades ago when i went to work in a coal mine to make money to buy binoculars, spotting scope, boots, and backpack. I just ordered one to send to a birder in a less fortunate place. But i am keeping my old battered ELs and i consider myself fortunate and privileged to have them.

 

[FrankD]

6.5,

No worries my friend. We are on the same page. I certainly agree that the Sightrons have a warm color bias and do agree that Reds, browns, etc... are highlighted much more than with a binocular that had a neutral color representation.

 

[jordn613]

I just ordered these as my first pair of "real" binoculars, and I look forward to bringing them with me on my honeymoon to Costa Rica this summer. Quick question: will these hold up ok in Costa Rica, given how misty/rainy the conditions may be?

 

[Six Point Five]

6.5,

No worries my friend. We are on the same page. I certainly agree that the Sightrons have a warm color bias and do agree that Reds, browns, etc... are highlighted much more than with a binocular that had a neutral color representation.

Maybe the coatings on the Sightron would work like some of the oft advertised ones on Steiners, making furry critters more obvious in low light?
When i get the pair i will take them to the farm and look at squirrels and deer in low light.
As it is, with just a bit of update on coatings, the Sightron are very close to perfect. A VERY good buy for anyone.
When i take out groups of beginner birders i have bits of paper with the "Sightron Blue Sky SII 8x32" written on them already to give out to those who ask me what to buy without breaking the bank.

 

[Six Point Five]

I just ordered these as my first pair of "real" binoculars, and I look forward to bringing them with me on my honeymoon to Costa Rica this summer. Quick question: will these hold up ok in Costa Rica, given how misty/rainy the conditions may be?

I would not be concerned about that. I know of one that has been in Venezuela for 2 years. It lives on the bottom of a canoe when not in use.
You have warranty on them.

You found someone to go bird watching with during honeymoon? Hold on to them, nevermind the binoculars.

 

[brocknroller]

Regrettably, I had to sell my two favorite binoculars - the 804 Audubon MC and best-of-three 8x30 EII - to pay outrageously expensive vet bills. Without me asking, the buyer offered to let me buy them back when I'm flush again, and while that is a tempting offer, and I may take him up on it, one thing's for sure, I'm not going to work in a coal mine to buy them back! My grandfather was the last coal miner in the family, and that's the way it's going to stay. Besides, the shale gas industry pays better, and you don't have to work underground.

Just Call Me Marcellus

 

[Tom Bombadil]

There's an oddity about the Sightron for me which defies my understanding. I have significant astigmatism in my right eye, to the point of having some double vision. It is correctable through eyeglasses and contacts.

Through many binoculars this doubling is present when I use them naked eye, preventing me from obtaining a sharp focus. So I need to use eyeglasses.

However I find that I can achieve less doubling in some binoculars than from others. I don't understand why this is the case, but it is true.

It turns out that the Sightron SII 8x32 is the very best of my entire flock at doing this. To the point of where I can get a good sharp image through both eyes. It is so very comfortable to focus and easy on my eyes. The image is better than through my two ED glass binos. Not so when using glasses, but definitely true naked eye.

 

[brocknroller]

There's an oddity about the Sightron for me which defies my understanding. I have significant astigmatism in my right eye, to the point of having some double vision. It is correctable through eyeglasses and contacts.

Through many binoculars this doubling is present when I use them naked eye, preventing me from obtaining a sharp focus. So I need to use eyeglasses.

However I find that I can achieve less doubling in some binoculars than from others. I don't understand why this is the case, but it is true.

It turns out that the Sightron SII 8x32 is the very best of my entire flock at doing this. To the point of where I can get a good sharp image through both eyes. It is so very comfortable to focus and easy on my eyes. The image is better than through my two ED glass binos. Not so when using glasses, but definitely true naked eye.

Tom,

It could be that the Sightron BS II has very low astigmatism so it doesn't add to what you already have in your eye as other bins might.

I also have astigmatism in one eye and when using binoculars for stargazing it's most evident because of it being dark more cornea is exposed and because I'm looking at point source lights, which easily spike with astigmatism.

When I looked through my now sold 804 Audubon, stars were tight pinpoints or balls in the case of brighter stars than they were in my other binoculars even the more expensive ones. Allbinos rated the 820 Audubon's level of astigmatism as a "Pro" because it was "slight." Not sure if the optical formula changed from the 804 to the 820. I would rate the astigmatism in the 804 MC model as "very low."

The 804's astigmatism is so low that on a "good seeing" night, Sirius is a perfectly round ball with no spiking. I've seen spiking in stars on good nights with much more expensive roof prism binoculars.

Try the Sightron on stars on a good night, that is, not windy or not in the winter when the jet stream causes upper atmosphere disturbances. If you get "tight" stars, then you know the astigmatism is low. If not, then it's a perceptual eye/brain thing that perhaps Ed (elkcub) could assess (beware his hourly rates are high, so make sure your OV is covered by insurance).

Brock

 

[OPTIC_NUT]

... I thought the Sightron actually had better contrast and subsequently better apparent sharpness as a result.

This seems to be a widespread function of the year of manufacture...
I'm guessing a little hood that sticks ~3/4" out from the front will put your
Swaros back on the high horse again. Also, wide FOV almost always brings
some cost in contrast. Apples-to-apples is done with about the same FOV.
Nothing as deep and saturated and sharp as a clean 6.5 deg oldie, but then....

 

[brocknroller]

...or as deep and saturated and sharp as a 7x50 Vixen Foresta 7.1* newie but goodie.

Hadn't been out in quite a while due to living at my second home (the vet's office), but it was a really nice day (for a change) on Saturday, so I took my remaining bins, 7x21 Olympus Mons, 7x35 Aqualung, and 7x50 Forest Green to a lookout area near Sam's Club where i could see for miles and miles, miles and miles, and miles, and miles, oh yeah.

The Olympus is surprisingly sharp for its size, but best used at close to medium range due to the small aperture.i used the Aqualung while sitting on a park bench (da, da, da, daaaaa), and it's easy to hold and quite sharp and bright for the price point, but the field curvature is too much for the hardened lens in my left eye to accommodate (pretty decent sweet spot using my right eye with either EP, so it apparently is still young and flexible).

When I put the Vixen up to my eyes, there was more of a WOW! factor than the other two sevens. "Deep and saturated and sharp" aptly describe the view. I'd also add "contrasty," which is not something you usually find in older Porros.

Frank is right about these, at least when using them for distance, the 49* AFOV doesn't seem cramped because of the huge occulars. I'd like to try the 8x42 model. if it's optically on par with the 7x50 (which it may not be since the 7x50 has a triplet objective), I could see it becoming my main birding bin as I downscale my optics to accommodate my lower budget and thinner cushion.

The 7x50 is a bit too heavy and bulky (though still way lighter than the Fuji, Zeiss or Nikon IF EP 7x50s) to be my day in, day out birding bin. I've mostly used it for stargazing and for low light terrestrial observing, which it excels at for both applications, but now I found that it even "shines" in the sunshine while looking at distance objects due to its sharp, saturated and contrasty views. It really preforms above its price point like a good sample Sightron II (to bring it on home).

Brock

 

[NDhunter]

Brock:

You mention a 7x35 Aqualung. I have not heard of that binocular, but I do recall that
song by Jethro Tull, classic rock, I enjoy it every time I hear it. Is there more to the story ?

Jerry

 

[FrankD]

Jerry,

Brock just loves to have his way with words. (Aqualung = Aculon)

Took me a minute to figure out too. At first I thought he was talking about his 7x35 Nikon Action Wide Angle. I didn't think he sold that one.

 

[brocknroller]

Jerry,

Brock just loves to have his way with words. (Aqualung = Aculon)

Took me a minute to figure out too. At first I thought he was talking about his 7x35 Nikon Action Wide Angle. I didn't think he sold that one.

Yes, I still do, so that makes four sevens. I also have a 9x63 roof with Abbe-Konig prisms somewhere, so I'm not binless, but the 8x EII and 804 Audubon were my favorites and most used for birding and for stargazing, respectively. They were the "best of the best."

I couldn't find the WF last Saturday otherwise I would have taken it with me as well. I cleaned out the closet this week and found the WF. Same FOV as the Aqualung, or at least that's what's listed, the AFOV seems tighter, but it could be because of the low ER. I prefer the WF for stargazing, for birding, the Aqualung's newer coatings make for more saturated and higher contrast views. Ideally, I'd like the edge sharpness of the WF with the AR coatings of the Aqualung plus a bit more ER.

The 7x35 is my favorite configuration, but you don't have many good choices today.

Brock