Vortex had a stand and I took this opportunity to give the UHD range another try. I had tried them in 2022 but between the distorting effects of heat haze and my own eyes not seeing well due to a combination of hayfever and fatigue, I didn't feel as though I had given them a fair trial.
I did specifically note on that occasion that brightness and colour rendition seemed not just good but excellent, but there was something noticeably odd about the distortion profile and I just could not seem to get them sharp. Now with much better viewing conditions (almost too good perhaps, as I thought "the view" through every single binocular looked great - maybe my eyes are easier to please with advancing age?) and better rested eyes I really wanted to see whether my impressions would be different - and they were. The 10x50 which I tried first had a much cleaner image than I remembered, bright and clear with what seemed like accurate and neutral colour rendition. I scanned around the image looking for the distortion that had troubled me and couldn't find any. Ease of view and sharpness were both excellent, eye relief more than sufficient (for me). This has to be one of the best Japanese binoculars out there. Mechanicals seemed to be usual high-end Japanese spec, that is to say excellent. It's somewhat on the large size but handles pretty well, the outward flare of the barrels reminding me a little of the NLs (as well as the armouring and thumb cutouts, both of which seemed very Swaro inspired).
It might be worth noting that I asked my brother to try it and he immediately found the distortion profile off-putting - finding the Maven very much better in this regard - and anyone trying this series should make sure they don't see this particular quirk. But if they fit your eyes they're very impressive. I tried the 12x50 more briefly and thought that was also very good, certainly (and unsurprisingly) better than my old Nobilem Spezial. A detailed comparison with the now discontinued 12x50 EL would be interesting.
Vortex's market niche here isn't as well defined as in the US, where the warranty is also much praised. Marketing them in the very competitive UK market is likely going to be challenging (Maven ditto). But the products themselves strike me as being very good indeed.
I went back and tried the Ultravid HD+ 10x42 and Conquest 10x42, and although both were quality binoculars I really couldn't say either was better than the Vortex 10x50 UHD, or the Maven 9x45 for that matter. But the strength of both brand names counts for a lot.
Trying Canon's 10x42 IS-L for what must have been the fifth or sixth time now - image quality, while objectively very good, no longer seemed as exceptional - quite a few offerings are performing at that level now. The IS is unique, but counterbalanced by the large size, weight and poor ergonomics. If my current binoculars had (proven and reliable over their lifetime) IS I would welcome it, but I very much prefer the form factor of non-IS binoculars, and I now think I've gotten good enough at finding a support for my elbow(s) that steady the image adequately for most purposes. What it can do still strikes me as remarkable, there are one or two spots where I think it would be the best choice for my birding, and I would really like to spend a week or two with it to see if my opinion differs after using them in the field, but as a total package (and I've given this very careful thought over the years) I just don't think the IS trumps every other consideration. The smaller bodies handle better and I would be really intrigued by a 10x36L or a 10x32L.
I did specifically note on that occasion that brightness and colour rendition seemed not just good but excellent, but there was something noticeably odd about the distortion profile and I just could not seem to get them sharp. Now with much better viewing conditions (almost too good perhaps, as I thought "the view" through every single binocular looked great - maybe my eyes are easier to please with advancing age?) and better rested eyes I really wanted to see whether my impressions would be different - and they were. The 10x50 which I tried first had a much cleaner image than I remembered, bright and clear with what seemed like accurate and neutral colour rendition. I scanned around the image looking for the distortion that had troubled me and couldn't find any. Ease of view and sharpness were both excellent, eye relief more than sufficient (for me). This has to be one of the best Japanese binoculars out there. Mechanicals seemed to be usual high-end Japanese spec, that is to say excellent. It's somewhat on the large size but handles pretty well, the outward flare of the barrels reminding me a little of the NLs (as well as the armouring and thumb cutouts, both of which seemed very Swaro inspired).
It might be worth noting that I asked my brother to try it and he immediately found the distortion profile off-putting - finding the Maven very much better in this regard - and anyone trying this series should make sure they don't see this particular quirk. But if they fit your eyes they're very impressive. I tried the 12x50 more briefly and thought that was also very good, certainly (and unsurprisingly) better than my old Nobilem Spezial. A detailed comparison with the now discontinued 12x50 EL would be interesting.
Vortex's market niche here isn't as well defined as in the US, where the warranty is also much praised. Marketing them in the very competitive UK market is likely going to be challenging (Maven ditto). But the products themselves strike me as being very good indeed.
I went back and tried the Ultravid HD+ 10x42 and Conquest 10x42, and although both were quality binoculars I really couldn't say either was better than the Vortex 10x50 UHD, or the Maven 9x45 for that matter. But the strength of both brand names counts for a lot.
Trying Canon's 10x42 IS-L for what must have been the fifth or sixth time now - image quality, while objectively very good, no longer seemed as exceptional - quite a few offerings are performing at that level now. The IS is unique, but counterbalanced by the large size, weight and poor ergonomics. If my current binoculars had (proven and reliable over their lifetime) IS I would welcome it, but I very much prefer the form factor of non-IS binoculars, and I now think I've gotten good enough at finding a support for my elbow(s) that steady the image adequately for most purposes. What it can do still strikes me as remarkable, there are one or two spots where I think it would be the best choice for my birding, and I would really like to spend a week or two with it to see if my opinion differs after using them in the field, but as a total package (and I've given this very careful thought over the years) I just don't think the IS trumps every other consideration. The smaller bodies handle better and I would be really intrigued by a 10x36L or a 10x32L.
