-
BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!
Register for an account to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Sightron "Blue Sky" II 8x32 (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter FrankD
- Start date
Ok. Thanks.
If it needs repair. Anyone knows where in the United States must it be shipped?
That information will be included with the binoculars, just as it is with all new binos.
Subzero888
Well-known member
Sightron SIII ED
http://info.sightron.com/Binoculars/SIII-ED-Binoculars/SIII832ED%20/
I noticed the new Sightron SIII ED binoculars on their website. I couldn't find a comparable Kekno bin and am not sure if these are also made by Kenko. I am assuming ED in the name means real ED glass. Did anyone try the SIII ED bins?
The 8x32 ED's FOV is 394ft/1000yards. The 8x42ED has 367ft/1000yards. The 10x32 and 10x42 are also in the ED range, but have smallish FOV.
http://info.sightron.com/Binoculars/SIII-ED-Binoculars/SIII832ED%20/
I noticed the new Sightron SIII ED binoculars on their website. I couldn't find a comparable Kekno bin and am not sure if these are also made by Kenko. I am assuming ED in the name means real ED glass. Did anyone try the SIII ED bins?
The 8x32 ED's FOV is 394ft/1000yards. The 8x42ED has 367ft/1000yards. The 10x32 and 10x42 are also in the ED range, but have smallish FOV.
The-Wanderer
Well-known member
FrankD and others,
What improvements over the old Sightron bsII do you hope to see in the new HD model?
What improvements over the old Sightron bsII do you hope to see in the new HD model?
FrankD
Well-known member
I looked at their new SIII ED model. Keep in mind that the new model is an "SIII" series and not an S II like the Blue Sky. Based on their previous designs it basically means that the two have absolutely nothing in common. Different housing, different design, etc... So, I would not expect the new ED model to actually be anything like the S II Blue Sky.
Now if they stuck ED glass in the S II housing and added dielectric coatings instead of the silver then that would turn my head.
Now if they stuck ED glass in the S II housing and added dielectric coatings instead of the silver then that would turn my head.
green_leafs
New member
What other brands are slightly above the SII Blue Sky in price range but has Dielectric coating but not no ED glass? Have you tried the Nikon Monarch 7 8x30 or Zeiss Terra 8x30? I believe both of these have Dielectric coating.. how do they (and others I haven't mentioned and not aware of) perform optically compared to the SII Blue Sky?
The SIII is just so expensive beyond $400.. you may just as well spend it on the Zeiss, Nikon or other better known brands.
The SIII is just so expensive beyond $400.. you may just as well spend it on the Zeiss, Nikon or other better known brands.
Hi green-leafs,:hi:
Welcome to Bird Forum!
The new Vortex Diamondback binoculars claim to have "an all new optical system with enhanced dielectric fully multi-coated lenses..... ."
http://www.vortexoptics.com/product/vortex-diamondback-binocular-8x32
Their MSRP is $239.00.
Incidentally, I noted that you are from Bicol. The 8x32 SII Blue Sky binocular is made in the Philippines.
Bob
Last edited:
mfunnell
Registered Confuser
I've tried the new Diamondback 8x32s. The principal advantages of the Diamondbacks over the Sightron SII Blue Skys are that they're a lot more compact than the Sightrons, have a very close focus and a somewhat wider field of view. But I prefer the Sightrons in pretty much every other way. I don't find much "ease of view" with the Diamondbacks while that's something quite characteristic of the Sightrons, at least to my eyes.
...Mike
Ratal
Well-known member
Short answer: I've tested against M7, Zeiss Terra ED, Hawke Endurance, Frontier, Sapphire, Vanguard Endeavours and Swaro 8x32.
The ONLY bin to be brighter and a sharper is the Swaro.
"Holy sh#t mate, that's a beauty!" Was the Swaro owners first words on looking through them.
If I never buy another bin for birding, I'd not be bothered. They are 100 yards finches in tree canopy easy ID sharp.
mfunnell
Registered Confuser
Mine too. But I suspect it isn't quite as easy as that to change the optical formulation. As has been said in Australia[*] "when you're on a good thing, stick to it".Now if they stuck ED glass in the S II housing and added dielectric coatings instead of the silver then that would turn my head.
...Mike
[*] in ads for a brand of fly-spray
Steve C
Well-known member
That might let water get in between the body casing and the armor, but it should not affect the waterproofing. My suggestion would be a careful application of a couple of drops of super glue to seal the crack. Particularly if you have a very good optical specimen. In my view it is more hassle to go through the return process for a binocular costing what this one does. However that is just my opinion and likely worth just what you paid for it.
Amazon has a return policy whereby if the item is defective.. they would refund even the original shipping you paid and even the pick up fee. Would this be a good ground for being "defective"?
I read the focusing knob has variations in different samples.. my focusing knob is very smooth.. is it 50-50% to get a good focusing knob or is it like 2 times out of 3 tries or 1 out of 3 tries?
Steve C
Well-known member
If you are fine with taking the time it takes to return this as defective, then I'd say that the defect in the armor should likely qualify as a defective item.
I try not to get into the sloppy focus debate. The reason is I think it is a nit picked to death issue. At this price level focus perfection is not going to be there and there is likely some variation. The ones I have seen were fine. But you may NOT get as a good an optical specimen...or you may get a better one. Who knows? Your call.
If it were mine and I liked the optical performance and focus, I'd get some super glue.
Just be aware that that seam may continue to split. I may have more tolerance for fixing that sort of thing than you do. If it bothers you and you don't like the idea of a continuing split on that seam, go for the replacement. Particularly if that is going to be a significant or primary use binocular.
Last edited:
If you are fine with taking the time it takes to return this as defective, then I'd say that the defect in the armor should likely qualify as a defective item.
I try not to get into the sloppy focus debate. The reason is I think it is a nit picked to death issue. At this price level focus perfection is not going to be there and there is likely some variation. The ones I have seen were fine. But you may NOT get as a good an optical specimen...or you may get a better one. Who knows? Your call.
If it were mine and I liked the optical performance and focus, I'd get some super glue.
How about sharpness.. is it 50-50 to get a unit that is sharp or is it 2 out of 3 tries or 1 out of 3 tries?
Has anyone compared the Pentax Papilio II 8.5 x 21 with the Sightron.. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Pentax-Papi...s=Pentax+8.5x21+U-Series+Papilio+II+Binocular
How does the sharpness at center and edge behave in direct comparison? I'm interested in a small reverse porro as my second bino.. my primary one will be an alpha (still collecting budget)...
I never did a comparison of the 2 but I did own a Pentax 8.5x21. It is a unique binocular designed for close up work primarily. I eventually gave it to a friend who was a Humming Bird enthusiast and who had a garden full of Humming Birds every year. It was perfect for him.
If you want an all purpose small water proof reverse Porro prism binocular to use as a 2nd binocular I recommend the Nikon 8x25 Pro Staff ATB. They cost about $125.00 most places but can be found for less money.
Here is a picture of them:
http://www.cameralandny.com/optics/nikon.pl?page=nikon7483
Bob
