Swift Audubon 8.5x44 Model 804 (1 Viewer)

[Dennis Mau]

I picked up a like new Swift Audubon 8.5x44 Model 804 for $300 because I have always wanted to try one, hearing good things about them, but I wasn't expecting much to tell you the truth, but they are truly impressive especially for their price. They are like a cross between the Nikon E2 8x30 and Nikon SE 8x32, with some of the best qualities of both all tied up into one binocular. They have the huge immersive 70 degree AFOV of the E2 with the on-axis sharpness of the SE.

They have about the same amount of fall off at the edges as the E2 but seem to be sharper on-axis, and they have even better stereopsis than either the E2 or SE, probably due to the huge separation of the objective lenses. They seem to be brighter also, although I am sure their transmission is not as high as either, the 44 mm objective makes up for the difference with a much larger exit pupil.

The build quality is also very good, being MIJ. I was lucky enough to get the real leather hard sided case, which was a bonus. The best thing about these is the huge immersive FOV and the 8.5x magnification makes it that much better and seems about the maximum most people can use hand held. They are a good buy and a fun binocular to own, especially if you are on a budget, and you are looking for a good birding binocular. They are porro heaven when you look through them for the first time. Truly impressive.

Swift Audubon 8.5x44 model 804 - Under 50 mm

 

[z-ben]

A good condition hr5 would be A lot better IMHO.And cheaper.

 

[etudiant]

A good condition hr5 would be A lot better IMHO.And cheaper.

hr5?

 

[z-ben]

hr5?

Yeah Swift audubon HR5 a later version of the op bins.

 

[elkcub]

hr5?

Yes. I think the model Dennis purchased is a Type-2b shown on pg. 12 of the attached article. It was produced in the early 1980s. If Dennis provides the s/n we can verify this.

The HR/5 marked Type-4b is shown on pg. 17. They were originally Multi-Coated, and subsequent models Fully Multi-Coated.

Ed

 

[Dennis Mau]

Yes. I think the model Dennis purchased is a Type-2b shown on pg. 12 of the attached article. It was produced in the early 1980s. If Dennis provides the s/n we can verify this.

The HR/5 marked Type-4b is shown on pg. 17. The were originally Multi-Coated, and subsequent models Full Multi-Coated.

Ed

The S/N is 987130, and they are J-B56. They were produced in 1998 one year before production ended according to the S/N. I am amazed at the history of the Swift's and the various versions. I guess that is to be expected since they were produced for 40 years. Thanks, for the article. The standout characteristic of these is the easy view. They are actually very competitive with my Nikon SE 8x32 resolution wise, but the view is easier and more immersive with the much bigger AFOV.

 

[Dennis Mau]

A good condition hr5 would be A lot better IMHO.And cheaper.

Some people have compared the HR5 to these and didn't find a lot of difference. The fully multi-coated HR5 might transmit a little better, but the aperture is so big on these it is not really significant. I know my Nikon SE 8x32 has higher transmission than the Swift, but the Swift pulls in almost 80% more light because of the 44 mm aperture, still making the Swift considerably brighter.

 

[z-ben]

Some people have compared the HR5 to these and didn't find a lot of difference. The fully multi-coated HR5 might transmit a little better, but the aperture is so big on these it is not really significant. I know my Nikon SE 8x32 has higher transmission than the Swift, but the Swift pulls in almost 80% more light because of the 44 mm aperture, still making the Swift considerably brighter.

Well with all due respect I still prefer the hr5 in every respect handling ,weight view the lot and though I am unaware of lab tests I do still use a hr5 ed but not all the time. It's a subtle difference and the diopter has to be bang on to get that sweet spot for the colour rendition but hr5 is the only Swift I would bother with.

 

[Paultricounty]

The HR5 is a clear step up in brightness , sharpness and edge fall off. There’s also the MC, FMC and an ED FMC versions. Dates do not correspond. You could have an 804 from the 90s and an 804R from the 1980s. The one that would be closer to this 804 would be the 804R (revised).

These that Dennis is selling can vary a bit in price depending on condition. These look real clean for the price. But don’t ask him too many questions, he gets a little offended 🤣.

 

[Scott98]

They have about the same amount of fall off at the edges as the E2 but seem to be sharper on-axis, and they have even better stereopsis than either the E2 or SE, probably due to the huge separation of the objective lenses. They seem to be brighter also, although I am sure their transmission is not as high as either, the 44 mm objective makes up for the difference with a much larger exit pupil.

Everything's going to be better at 44mm versus 30mm. There's no substitute for aperture. Those look beautiful! I've tried to restrict myself to smaller porros (35's) but these 8.5x44 Swifts do look good. I tell myself they're too heavy and try to resist

 

[Paultricounty]

Dennis, that link with the review is not the same binocular your selling. I cant see the right prism plate, but as Elkcub said yours is a type 2B. That is the older heavy 38 oz version with the FOV of 445. These are beasts , a very nice classic piece for any swift collection, and nice glass to boot.

Paul

 

[elkcub]

The S/N is 987130, and they are J-B56. They were produced in 1998 one year before production ended according to the S/N. I am amazed at the history of the Swift's and the various versions. I guess that is to be expected since they were produced for 40 years. Thanks, for the article. The standout characteristic of these is the easy view. They are actually very competitive with my Nikon SE 8x32 resolution wise, but the view is easier and more immersive with the much bigger AFOV.

Hello Dennis,
There are two aspects to this discussion. The first is the factual historical date-of-manufacture of your 804. The second is opinions about how this 804 compares to other binoculars. My interest lies in the former.

Regarding the date of manufacture, please look at the serial number again to see if the first digit isn't a 7 rather than 9. If you still see a 9 please post a photo of it.

Many thanks,
Ed

Paul, I'm half way convinced it's a Type-2a, made before 1980. I own a mint Type-2b for comparison made in 1981.

 

[Paultricounty]

Hello Dennis,
There are two aspects to this discussion. The first is the factual historical date-of-manufacture of your 804. The second is opinions about how this 804 compares to other binoculars. My interest lies in the former.

Regarding the date of manufacture, please look at the serial number again to see if the first digit isn't a 7 rather than 9. If you still see a 9 please post a photo of it.

Many thanks,
Ed

Paul, I'm half way convinced it's a Type-2a, made before 1980. I own a mint Type-2b for comparison made in 1981.

I was reconsidering what I said about 804's made in 1990"s , no way. There is some cross over with older models still being made when new versions were introduced, but not from the 70's 804"s to HR5"s in the late 80"s and 90"s.

Thanks Ed for the clarification.

 

[Dennis Mau]

Everything's going to be better at 44mm versus 30mm. There's no substitute for aperture. Those look beautiful! I've tried to restrict myself to smaller porros (35's) but these 8.5x44 Swifts do look good. I tell myself they're too heavy and try to resist

The Swift's are very immersive. They pull you into the FOV more than an NL because you almost have the same AFOV of 70 degrees, but you also have the great stereopsis of the porro. So it is like you are inside the FOV. The SE 8x32 is sharper to the edge, but the FOV pales in comparison to the Swift.

The 8.5x is more helpful than you would think also. I wonder if Swarovski copied Swift when they designed their EL 8.5x42. The Swift 804 is definitely on the heavy side, but not too bad for a 44 mm. It weighed 35 oz. on my postal scale. My Swarovski NL 10x42 weighed 33 oz. when I weighed it. What is comical is they call these Featherweights! Really!

 

[Dennis Mau]

Hello Dennis,
There are two aspects to this discussion. The first is the factual historical date-of-manufacture of your 804. The second is opinions about how this 804 compares to other binoculars. My interest lies in the former.

Regarding the date of manufacture, please look at the serial number again to see if the first digit isn't a 7 rather than 9. If you still see a 9 please post a photo of it.

Many thanks,
Ed

Paul, I'm half way convinced it's a Type-2a, made before 1980. I own a mint Type-2b for comparison made in 1981.

No, it is definitely a 9. Here is a picture. The S/N is, 987130 and they are J-B56.

 

[Dennis Mau]

Well with all due respect I still prefer the hr5 in every respect handling ,weight view the lot and though I am unaware of lab tests I do still use a hr5 ed but not all the time. It's a subtle difference and the diopter has to be bang on to get that sweet spot for the colour rendition but hr5 is the only Swift I would bother with.

The HR5 is about 5 oz. lighter, but I would miss the huge FOV of the 804 at 445 feet versus the 430 feet of the HR5.

 

[Paultricounty]

The HR5 is about 5 oz. lighter, but I would miss the huge FOV of the 804 at 445 feet versus the 430 feet of the HR5.

Not necessarily, there’s a lot of fall off on the 804. The 804R and HR5’s have a considerably larger sweet spot. Advertised weight on the 804 is 38oz and the 804R is 28oz. Are you weighing one with accessories and the other one without ? I do like how you threw in some kind of plug using the NL’s in the same sentence. I wish I had a whole office of sales people like you ✌🏼.

 

[Dennis Mau]

Not necessarily, there’s a lot of fall off on the 804. The 804R and HR5’s have a considerably larger sweet spot. Advertised weight on the 804 is 38oz and the 804R is 28oz. Are you weighing one with accessories and the other one without ? I do like how you threw in some kind of plug using the NL’s in the same sentence. I wish I had a whole office of sales people like you ✌🏼.

There is some fall off in the 804 but my god what a huge AFOV! It reminds me of an NL, except with the stereopsis of a good porro with a lot of objective separation. The combination really pulls you into the view. It is almost like you are surrounded by the FOV and you are standing in the middle of it. It has a very easy view, almost like you fall into it.

It is deceptively sharp on-axis. I guess that is the way it was designed for birding. You can see the birds movement on the edge of the FOV, and then you center it. I don't use the accessories, so I always weigh without. The Swift 804 is actually pretty light for as big as it is. It is partly due to the magnesium body, but it is no featherweight. The Audubon is definitely a unique binocular.

 

[Dennis Mau]

Hello Dennis,
There are two aspects to this discussion. The first is the factual historical date-of-manufacture of your 804. The second is opinions about how this 804 compares to other binoculars. My interest lies in the former.

Regarding the date of manufacture, please look at the serial number again to see if the first digit isn't a 7 rather than 9. If you still see a 9 please post a photo of it.

Many thanks,
Ed

Paul, I'm half way convinced it's a Type-2a, made before 1980. I own a mint Type-2b for comparison made in 1981.

I am pretty sure it is the type 2B. I don't get the S/N though. It doesn't correspond with a 2B, which would have been made around 1980. What is weird is these are new. They have been sitting in a box for 40 years! They will still hold their own even with modern alpha glass in many ways. Amazing. Binocular technology really hasn't come that far. The armor still looks like new and it is tight as a drum. Swarovski's would have been a lump of rubber by now. I guess they didn't have to make stuff biodegradable back then.

 

[Paultricounty]

There is some fall off in the 804 but my god what a huge AFOV! It reminds me of an NL, except with the stereopsis of a good porro with a lot of objective separation. The combination really pulls you into the view. It is almost like you are surrounded by the FOV and you are standing in the middle of it. It has a very easy view, almost like you fall into it.

No, can’t get away with that 😜. It’s nothing like the the NL, which has a larger FOV , larger sweep spot (almost the whole image circle) , and objects on the edge are more easily seen in the NL, o,distortion like the 804’s. It sounds like your describing the old vintage UWA bins, like rangemasters and Swift Holidays.

It is deceptively sharp on-axis. I guess that is the way it was designed for birding. You can see the birds movement on the edge of the FOV, and then you center it. I don't use the accessories, so I always weigh without. The Swift 804 is actually pretty light for as big as it is. It is partly due to the magnesium body, but it is no featherweight. The Audubon is definitely a unique binocular.

It was the premier birding binocular for decades. Didn’t you post something last week , I don’t recal if it was about the Vortex UHD or was it the Noctivids where you said you weigh the bins with all accessories because that’s the way they are carried. 38 oz is not light by any stretch of the binocular imagination 😉🙏🏼✌🏼. The 804R was the lighter one for its size. I believe the dating number is very unusual.

Are you saying these are new in the box , and your the only one that has used them a few times? Do you have the box, caps, strap, and all the original paperwork?