Sightron "Blue Sky" II 8x32 (1 Viewer)

[matthew_]

In bright scene, the Sightron has great contrast. But in low contrast scene like looking at birds in tree shades, an M7 would show better detail.. Is this correct? What other roof binoculars 3X the price of the Sightron that will show better contrast in challenging viewing conditions?

 

[tommybj]

I have had the Sii Blue Sky for 14 days now and are returning them. I don't think that they are as sharp and bright as my Hawke Frontier and i'm bothered with glare/flare, when getting sunlight from side or front. I'm impressed with the low CA because I'm sensitive to it but I only see it if I look for it.

 

[Ratal]

I have had the Sii Blue Sky for 14 days now and are returning them. I don't think that they are as sharp and bright as my Hawke Frontier and i'm bothered with glare/flare, when getting sunlight from side or front. I'm impressed with the low CA because I'm sensitive to it but I only see it if I look for it.

As the former owner of a cherry set of Hawke Frontier ED bins, I'd categorically state that the Sightrons I have are sharper, far better contrast and colour, with a far far more relaxed care free image. Hawke wins on field of view.

I'd never go back to Hawkes in any way.

Butter perfect focus, light, sharp, crisp, nope, I'd not swap mine. Love them.

 

[tommybj]

I have a much more relaxed view in my Frontier, no doubt about that. Regarding colour and contrast I also like the Frontier better. But I must admit the SII are lighter and a much better focus, the Frontier has a slack of 1-2 m before it changes but im used to it now.

I will most certainly go back to Hawke, thinking about the Endurance ED 8x32 instead of the SII.

 

[NDhunter]

Just received the Sightron SII 8x32.. but noticed there was a hole or slit on the side in front of the focusing knob (see picture).. can it jeopardize the waterproof? Do you also have it in your unit? I would return or replace it if it's not common.. thank you.

Matthew:

I see your picture, and I think you are getting way too picky.

I have the same binocular and that is where the armor is joined to
the chassis. There may be a small gap there, but if the focus is smooth
as you mention, just enjoy the binocular.

I find mine to be very nice as mentioned in over 1,000 posts above. |=)|

Jerry

 

[FrankD]

Today, from overlooking Inverness.

Straight from phone, no editing, handheld through Sightron Blue Sky II 8x32.

View attachment 578886

That is a beautiful photo Ratal. I think it does a very nice job of representing the Sightron's image.

 

[matthew_]

I have had the Sii Blue Sky for 14 days now and are returning them. I don't think that they are as sharp and bright as my Hawke Frontier and i'm bothered with glare/flare, when getting sunlight from side or front. I'm impressed with the low CA because I'm sensitive to it but I only see it if I look for it.

As the former owner of a cherry set of Hawke Frontier ED bins, I'd categorically state that the Sightrons I have are sharper, far better contrast and colour, with a far far more relaxed care free image. Hawke wins on field of view.

I'd never go back to Hawkes in any way.

Butter perfect focus, light, sharp, crisp, nope, I'd not swap mine. Love them.

This is very puzzling.. one user convinced the Hawke Frontier is sharper (and has more contrast) than the Sightron and another user convinced the Sightron is sharper (and has more contrast) than the Hawke Frontier.. is this due to sample variations? Or some kind of subjective bias?

To be more objective.. has someone ran a transmission spectra of the Sightron? I read in another thread a guy called Gijs do it?

My Sightron is already packed and ready to be returned to the seller in exchange for perhaps the Hawke Frontier.. but the conflicting comments about them sure confused me.

Based on FrankD reviews. He seemed to be saying that the Sightron was really better than even $500 binocular? Now if you want to buy a $550 binocular, what would it be that would categorically and surely beat the Sightron or must one go beyond $1000 to beat the Sightron. This is unprecedented in the industry. Sometimes I wonder if FrankD (or Ratal and selected few) units were really special units sent to him by Sightrons with ED glass and dielectric coatings in disguised... because that's (at least in my view) one way to explain how review after review (I read this thread for an hour yesterday) his Sightron beats all the others below $1000 (while many don't agree too).

 

[Ratal]

Today, from overlooking Inverness.

Straight from phone, no editing, handheld through Sightron Blue Sky II 8x32.

View attachment 578886

Matthew: I've looked at this view through 8x43 Frontier ED, and now the Sightron Blue Sky 8x32.

The nearest bridge, lower image is 450 meters. The further bridge, 720. The high rises in the medium distance, 2K + away.


I have had Swaro 8x32, Leica, Zeiss uses look through them and give them two.thumbs up. The view, for the price paid, that I have, is jaw dropping. I lose some field of view against the Hawke. That's it. Some field of view.

I'm saving for a Swaro 8x32, and you know what? The Sightrons will be my ONLY binocular until the day comes for the purchase.

 

[Ratal]

That is a beautiful photo Ratal. I think it does a very nice job of representing the Sightron's image.

Thanks FrankD, tried to get a nice sweeping image to show how bright, sharp and wonderfully crisp the image is. Transparent is the best way I can sum it up: As if the worlds dragged closer and I've developed 8x vision.

Truly, an absolute joy to use and own.

 

[FrankD]

Matthew,

I will have to go back through and re-read the beginning of this thread. To my knowledge though I never said the Sightron "beats" any binocular under $1000. I did say (either directly or indirectly) that there wasn't a binocular in/around the Sightron's price range that was as good as it was either optically or as an overall package.

I did compare it with several bins priced significantly more expensive than the Sightron (Nikon LXL, Meopta Meostar (non-HD), Nikon SE just off the top of my head) and did not feel that any of those models "beat" the Sightron. The Sightron was competitive with all of them in one way or another. Some may have had slightly sharper edges but at a cost to weight, or waterproofing or price. Overall I felt that the Sightron should be placed in the same class as these binoculars "overall" considering how well it does optically in so many areas while still being very lightweight and ergonomic as well. Of course, the $180 price tag is what really makes this binocular "one of a kind".

Just to offer up one recent experience of how competitive the Sightron is even with the current models....a week or so ago I was at the local lake and I had the Theron Questa 8x42, Opticron VGA HD 8x42, Maven B3 8x30, Athlon Optics Midas 8x42 as well as a few others. A Belted Kingfisher flew across the lake and landed on a tree across the water. The lakeside was steep behind the bird so the background was browns/grays. In that situation the Sightron actually bettered all of the others because of the high level of contrast (and subsequently apparent detail). The bird "popped" in the image just a bit more than all the others. Now if you go back and look at the price points for all of those models then you will note that the next closest in price (the Midas) was over $100 more expensive plus it was a 42 mm model.

As for my receiving some "special" binocular from Sightron......I bought my pair through Amazon. I don't remember if they had a warehouse bin or if I purchased from a place like B and H or Adorama through Amazon.

Hope this clarifies a few things.

This is very puzzling.. one user convinced the Hawke Frontier is sharper (and has more contrast) than the Sightron and another user convinced the Sightron is sharper (and has more contrast) than the Hawke Frontier.. is this due to sample variations? Or some kind of subjective bias?

To be more objective.. has someone ran a transmission spectra of the Sightron? I read in another thread a guy called Gijs do it?

My Sightron is already packed and ready to be returned to the seller in exchange for perhaps the Hawke Frontier.. but the conflicting comments about them sure confused me.

Based on FrankD reviews. He seemed to be saying that the Sightron was really better than even $500 binocular? Now if you want to buy a $550 binocular, what would it be that would categorically and surely beat the Sightron or must one go beyond $1000 to beat the Sightron. This is unprecedented in the industry. Sometimes I wonder if FrankD (or Ratal and selected few) units were really special units sent to him by Sightrons with ED glass and dielectric coatings in disguised... because that's (at least in my view) one way to explain how review after review (I read this thread for an hour yesterday) his Sightron beats all the others below $1000 (while many don't agree too).

 

[matthew_]

Matthew,

I will have to go back through and re-read the beginning of this thread. To my knowledge though I never said the Sightron "beats" any binocular under $1000. I did say (either directly or indirectly) that there wasn't a binocular in/around the Sightron's price range that was as good as it was either optically or as an overall package.

I did compare it with several bins priced significantly more expensive than the Sightron (Nikon LXL, Meopta Meostar (non-HD), Nikon SE just off the top of my head) and did not feel that any of those models "beat" the Sightron. The Sightron was competitive with all of them in one way or another. Some may have had slightly sharper edges but at a cost to weight, or waterproofing or price. Overall I felt that the Sightron should be placed in the same class as these binoculars "overall" considering how well it does optically in so many areas while still being very lightweight and ergonomic as well. Of course, the $180 price tag is what really makes this binocular "one of a kind".

Just to offer up one recent experience of how competitive the Sightron is even with the current models....a week or so ago I was at the local lake and I had the Theron Questa 8x42, Opticron VGA HD 8x42, Maven B3 8x30, Athlon Optics Midas 8x42 as well as a few others. A Belted Kingfisher flew across the lake and landed on a tree across the water. The lakeside was steep behind the bird so the background was browns/grays. In that situation the Sightron actually bettered all of the others because of the high level of contrast (and subsequently apparent detail). The bird "popped" in the image just a bit more than all the others. Now if you go back and look at the price points for all of those models then you will note that the next closest in price (the Midas) was over $100 more expensive plus it was a 42 mm model.

As for my receiving some "special" binocular from Sightron......I bought my pair through Amazon. I don't remember if they had a warehouse bin or if I purchased from a place like B and H or Adorama through Amazon.

Hope this clarifies a few things.

Do you know the percentage of actual light transmission increase going from copper coating to dielectric coating in the roof prism? Because if it's a lot.. why couldn't one notice a big brightness going from the Sightron to the M7? And most puzzling.. why did you seem to prefer the Sightron to the M7 when the latter has ED glass and dielectric.. the M7 is almost a bino reaching the pinnacle of every technology. So it should easily be the obvious choice choosing between it and Sightron. Please elaborate because when I returned the Sightron I wanna replace it with the M7 and expect 3 times better performance so please tell me how the Sightron can still beat it in brightness.

Another thing. I think the Sightron is only great if the lighting is good. But in outcast sky, any roof with dielectric could beat the Sightron anytime Are you not in agreement with this?

 

[tommybj]

Today, from overlooking Inverness.

Straight from phone, no editing, handheld through Sightron Blue Sky II 8x32.

View attachment 578886

To be fair this was not what I saw looking through my Sightron, I'm impressed. So think mine had to be a lemon. Even though I will not try my luck with another sample.

 

[NDhunter]

Do you know the percentage of actual light transmission increase going from copper coating to dielectric coating in the roof prism? Because if it's a lot.. why couldn't one notice a big brightness going from the Sightron to the M7? And most puzzling.. why did you seem to prefer the Sightron to the M7 when the latter has ED glass and dielectric.. the M7 is almost a bino reaching the pinnacle of every technology. So it should easily be the obvious choice choosing between it and Sightron. Please elaborate because when I returned the Sightron I wanna replace it with the M7 and expect 3 times better performance so please tell me how the Sightron can still beat it in brightness.

Another thing. I think the Sightron is only great if the lighting is good. But in outcast sky, any roof with dielectric could beat the Sightron anytime Are you not in agreement with this?

Matthew:

I have compared and used both the Sightron BS II, and the Nikon M7 8x30.

The Nikon is better in many ways, it is brighter, sharper and offers a wider FOV. It's price is double the cost of the Sightron, so just consider there
will be some difference, and there should be.
There are lots of posts about the Nikon M7 8x30, so do some searching
on threads about this model.
If you are looking for another binocular, you will not find any that
are 3 times better than another.

The differences are apparent if you are able to compare.

There are steps up in performance of binoculars, all the way up the
ladder. They are all incremental and it is for each of us to decide where
you want to go.

Good luck in your binocular search.

Jerry

 

[matthew_]

Matthew:

I have compared and used both the Sightron BS II, and the Nikon M7 8x30.

The Nikon is better in many ways, it is brighter, sharper and offers a wider FOV. It's price is double the cost of the Sightron, so just consider there
will be some difference, and there should be.
There are lots of posts about the Nikon M7 8x30, so do some searching
on threads about this model.
If you are looking for another binocular, you will not find any that
are 3 times better than another.

The differences are apparent if you are able to compare.

There are steps up in performance of binoculars, all the way up the
ladder. They are all incremental and it is for each of us to decide where
you want to go.

Good luck in your binocular search.

Jerry

You confirm the M7 is really sharper and brighter than the Sightron? Then without objections from Frank and Ratal. I'll ship back the Sightron asap in exchange for the M7.

 

[NDhunter]

You confirm the M7 is really sharper and brighter than the Sightron? Then without objections from Frank and Ratal. I'll ship back the Sightron asap in exchange for the M7.

My summation of these 2 binoculars is the Sightron is a nice $200 binocular.

The Nikon is a nice step better, and well worth the extra.

I do think Frank was really exaggerating in his last post. That post minimizes some very nice midrange optics, that I have experience with.

Jerry

 

[Ratal]

To be fair this was not what I saw looking through my Sightron, I'm impressed. So think mine had to be a lemon. Even though I will not try my luck with another sample.

Thanks man, and good luck with your binocular search. I really do hope you get a set that you don't ever want to trade or get bored of.

I'm keeping my razor sharp high contrast cherry of cherries! My preccciiooooooouuusss!:t:

 

[Ratal]

My summation of these 2 binoculars is the Sightron is a nice $200 binocular.

The Nikon is a nice step better, and well worth the extra.

I do think Frank was really exaggerating in his last post. That post minimizes some very nice midrange optics, that I have experience with.

Jerry

Three M7s I've tested alongside. Poor eye relief, God awful veiling glare, terrible eye placement, and less contrast less ease of viewing.

Don't rate the M7 at all. It's a smaller bin, and maybe that's it - the Sightrons being bigger and better eye relief suit my Yeti sized head.

 

[NDhunter]

Three M7s I've tested alongside. Poor eye relief, God awful veiling glare, terrible eye placement, and less contrast less ease of viewing.

Don't rate the M7 at all. It's a smaller bin, and maybe that's it - the Sightrons being bigger and better eye relief suit my Yeti sized head.

This is surely an April Fools day post. B

You have been found out.

Jerry

 

[FrankD]

My summation of these 2 binoculars is the Sightron is a nice $200 binocular.

The Nikon is a nice step better, and well worth the extra.

I do think Frank was really exaggerating in his last post. That post minimizes some very nice midrange optics, that I have experience with.

Jerry

Jerry,

I am curious...what part of the post? There were two distinct sections...the part where I compared the Sightrons to what I have on hand now and the part that simply reiterated what I posted 4 years ago when comparing the Sightron with some more well known optics.

If it was the former then I can't really find fault in what I posted. The specific level of contrast that the Sightron displays was more well suited for the blue/gray of the Belted Kingfisher in contrast with the gray/brown background. Does this necessarily make it "better" than the other binoculars I compared it to? No, not overall but I would certainly place it in the same overall performance class.

 

[andry]

Новый бинокль на 2016 год

Information here as well:
http://www.opticsplanet.com/sightron-binoculars-new.html