Swift 8.5x44 804R Audubon’s (1 Viewer)

[Paultricounty]

The last few days we had five Swift 8.5x44 Audubon’s. Ill opine mostly on the optics as they’re very similar in build, except for some exterior material improvement on the black ED version leatherette covering. All are JL B-56 Hiyoshi Kogaku.

#1 804/HR5 ED FMC:
These are the gold badge & red objective ring, these were Swifts top of the line and the last of the 804R series, circa 1995. These have ED lenses. These have the best central image quality of the group. Beautiful, bright and very sharp with a warm saturated color image, truly suppurative. Glare control is excellent with only some veiling glare in the direction of the rising sun. The color reminds me of an image somewhere between the Nikon EDG and Leica Ultravid, except with an appearance of being brighter than the EDG in good lighting. Everything pops with a very rich image. I would rate the central image quality somewhere around the upper midrange options, MHG, Conquest, etc., etc. Unfortunately these have an achilles heel that makes them very disappointing. The edge fall off is awful, 30% (give or take) of the FOV is almost unusable. The edges are completely out of focus and it’s not gradual, it’s like an abrupt ring of out of focus mush. This is not a Denco Dennis pair of binoculars.

#2 804/HR5 FMC: Gold badge/black objective ring. These were the slightly less expensive version without the ED glass. Circa 1997. Green ocular coatings, very similar to the ED version except much better edges and bigger sweet spot, the fall off is gradual and starts at around 75% and is very usable. Surprisingly no apparent difference in CA control to the ED version. Very similar with a rich color saturated image.

#3 804/HR5 FMC: Gold badge/black objective ring. These were the the lesser expensive version without the ED glass. Circa 1997. These are the same model as #2 but with Blue/green ocular coatings. Interesting that the serial number only differs by about 200. Possibly slightly less warm and saturated, it was very difficult to see much of a difference .

#4 804/HR5 MC: Gold badge/black objective ring, non ED.
These have purple/blue/green ocular coatings and has a purple/green objective coating. Regardless all the HR5’s were extremely similar in image quality.

#5 804R MC blue objective ring. Circa 1987. Blue ocular coatings with the green objective coating , but less deep than the HR5 green coatings. I might say that these had the best edges and the most gradual fall off. They also are much less warm and more neutral in perceived image color, yet still very impressive.

Summary: the HR5 ED had the best central image quality and the worst edges. The two HR5 FMC non ED’s were just about identical and very close in central image quality to the ED version with much better edges, sweet spot is larger and fall off is very gradual. All had very well defined sharp black field stops, all were about the on CA control. Although the catalog lists all of these at around 29.5 oz, the ED model did feel a little heavier and more dense.The 804R (non HR5) version was the most nautral in color, had the largest sweet spot and best edges. If I had to choose one, it would be one of the HR5’s non ED with FMC.

 

[Thotmosis]

Thanks for this comparison Paul. Very interesting. Cool collection!

 

[Dennis Mau]

Nice collection, Paul. What would you say the Swift's compare to optically in modern glass, or do they have characteristics that newer binoculars even porros can't match, like stereopsis and a pronounced 3D view?

I know they have large FOV's, but how are the edges and the fall off? Is it gradual or abrupt?

 

[Paultricounty]

Nice collection, Paul. What would you say the Swift's compare to optically in modern glass, or do they have characteristics that newer binoculars even porros can't match, like stereopsis and a pronounced 3D view?

The 804R series had their own optical quality evolution. In our subjective multi-day reviews the 1980’s early 804R blue ring was similar but not up to the level of the FMC/MC HR5 ED. I’d put that evolution in a similar way as to how other makers improved their glass over time. Take Leica for an example, from the first Ultravid through the HD to the HD plus, each model improved. I’m sure the first UVHD competed with the other top models of the day. Same here with the early swift, which was an improvement from the non R 804’s.

In this case we have to compare each 804R generation to today’s modern glass. The #1 in my review was the best and would rate imo with the upper mid level binos of today, MHG, Conquest, Trinovid HD etc., etc., if it wasn’t for the badge edges. I only had that one ED so I couldn’t verify if the edges were not representative, but I will say that Central image was absolutely gorgeous.

I will say that the non ED FMC was so close that I’d still put in the upper mid range of todays glass. Id ad the wonderful characteristics of a porro, and these don’t fail to impress.

I know they have large FOV's, but how are the edges and the fall off? Is it gradual or abrupt?

Very abrupt in the ED, even I didn’t like it and I’m not an edge guy. All the others had edge fall off , but it was very gradual and usable and not in any way annoying like the ED.

 

[lmans66]

In the late 80's and all of the 90's...my binocular was the Swift Audubon...although I thought that Bushnell also had an Audubon version. Either way, a very nice pair. Pretty slow in focusing but once focused, one would be hard to beat it. I think my pair(s) were $99, both...as I had two of them during that time.

 

[Dennis Mau]

The evolution of the Audubon's is interesting and the fact that they have been around for over 50 years, which is probably longer than any model of binocular, is testimony to their enduring popularity,

 

[Thotmosis]

The evolution of the Audubon's is interesting and the fact that they have been around for over 50 years, which is probably longer than any model of binocular, is testimony to their enduring popularity,

Im a big fan of the Swift Audubon. Maybe the Swarovski Habicht is even an older model than the Audubon though?

 

[Merlin]

In the late 80's and all of the 90's...my binocular was the Swift Audubon...although I thought that Bushnell also had an Audubon version. Either way, a very nice pair. Pretty slow in focusing but once focused, one would be hard to beat it. I think my pair(s) were $99, both...as I had two of them during that time.

I bought my first Audubon's in 1972, if I remember correctly they were 45 guineas, yes some things were still priced in guineas. This was a lot of money at the time and it was not a popular decision with my wife (now ex wife) this was confirmed as I was made redundant a week later and had to use my redundancy money (most of it) to pay off the higher purchase for the binoculars.
On a lighter mood I loved my Audubon's and travelled the world with them, I sometimes still use them on the tripod mount on a bracket with a scope one side and the Audubon's the other when doing a sea watch. I think they are still a quality optic.

regards
Merlin

 

[Paultricounty]

I bought my first Audubon's in 1972, if I remember correctly they were 45 guineas, yes some things were still priced in guineas. This was a lot of money at the time and it was not a popular decision with my wife (now ex wife) this was confirmed as I was made redundant a week later and had to use my redundancy money (most of it) to pay off the higher purchase for the binoculars.
On a lighter mood I loved my Audubon's and travelled the world with them, I sometimes still use them on the tripod mount on a bracket with a scope one side and the Audubon's the other when doing a sea watch. I think they are still a quality optic.

regards
Merlin

Those were in the older style heavy body almost 1100 grams, it also had the wider field of view than the next generation. Some say the pre-R, markII version was the best. I had tried one a few years ago when I was starting to get interested in the Audubon’s. But the one I had was in bad shape and wasn’t a good example. The MarkII designation was Swifts top of the line options.

If you have some pictures that would be great.

 

[Pinewood]

Hello,

As I recall, in about 2003, the Audubon ED was criticised for having a flexing bridge, which made focussing difficult. Did you find that so?

Happy bird watching,
Arthur

 

[Merlin]

Those were in the older style heavy body almost 1100 grams, it also had the wider field of view than the next generation. Some say the pre-R, markII version was the best. I had tried one a few years ago when I was starting to get interested in the Audubon’s. But the one I had was in bad shape and wasn’t a good example. The MarkII designation was Swifts top of the line options.

If you have some pictures that would be great.

They are heavy and at the time (not politically correct today) were not recommended for 'full bodied' ladies. The original pair are blue banded and a later pair that I have are gold banded, albeit the same spec. The gold band are in good condition the blue band show signs of birding in many countries I think they are in the loft somewhere.

regards
Merlin

 

[Paultricounty]

Hello,

As I recall, in about 2003, the Audubon ED was criticised for having a flexing bridge, which made focussing difficult. Did you find that so?

Happy bird watching,
Arthur

I’ve heard that as well but I don’t believe that was 804RHR5 ED’s, I believe that issue was for on one of the last two runs of Audubon’s in the 502ED. These were the rubber so called water proof models. My 502ED doesn't have the issue though.

The first picture is mine and Imthink is the first run of the 502 line. The other pictures are the last run of the 502 and the last porro Audubon’s.