Having recently got a new pair of replacement ‘spare’ binoculars (ie. the ones that get kept in my car) on sale, I thought a bit of direct comparison might be of interest.
Swarovski EL 8.5x40 (18 months old)
Zeiss Conquest HD 8x30 (new)
Zeiss BGAT* (I’ve had for nearly 30 years and they were 2nd hand then)
Bushnell excursion EX (about 7 years old, £100ish back then)
Methodology - I used a couple of optical resolution charts, printed off in A4, placed at the end of my garden - only about 10 yards away, but it’s the comparison that matters. I set out to see, firstly, what level of text and resolution I could reliably see in good daylight conditions, and then keep monitoring each pair until resolution of a couple of key indicators could no longer be seen, as it got darker.
So. I’m bright daylight - there was not a huge difference in pure resolution. With the Swarovski I could see and read the diagram marked 5.6, the zeiss you could both see 5.0, and the Bushnell, I initially settled on 4.0, but just got to 4.5.
Realistically, this is probably equivalent to reading size 12, 14 or 16 text.
I would, however, caution that very slight objectively scored difference with more subjective analysis. The Swarovski were, throughout the test, much ‘brighter’, the modern Zeiss conquest close behind.
The older Zeiss were extremely sharp, but less bright and with a much flatter focal plane - ie. You had to tweak the focus to read, it was much harder to hold focus and keep them steady, and required much more effort to read, although you could make out the same numbers it was harder to concentrate.
The Bushnell are a step further behind, you could see the number, but it took longer to settle on and you were thinking ‘is that or isn’t it’.
The Swarovski were IMO on a different level here, the focal plane felt much, much deeper - there was almost half a turn either way and the numbers were still in focus. This was much easier and more comfortable to view for a longer time. The zeiss conquest, again, close behind - but definitely not as ‘bright’.
As for light gathering as it went dark. The bottom focal circle (2.8) was my reference point, and I recorded the time you could reliably distinguish between black and white circles and it becoming a great spot. This (usefully) also coincided pretty well with being able to read the ‘a block of text’ text at the bottom left.
Bushnell, grey blob at 1657, text within a minute or two of this.
Old Zeiss, unable to differentiate or comfortably read text at 1725
Zeiss Conquest… these were readable till 1739
Swarovski, lost the circles to a greey blob at 1747, but the text was readable for another few minutes, till 1751.
Again, through all this (and even at the end) the Swarovski consistently felt ‘brighter’ and the depth of field was noticeable. They were in focus more quickly and were easier to read and process through. Again, the Zeiss conquest were nearly there as well, but the Swarovski were slightly better.
Hope that’s all been of interest
Swarovski EL 8.5x40 (18 months old)
Zeiss Conquest HD 8x30 (new)
Zeiss BGAT* (I’ve had for nearly 30 years and they were 2nd hand then)
Bushnell excursion EX (about 7 years old, £100ish back then)
Methodology - I used a couple of optical resolution charts, printed off in A4, placed at the end of my garden - only about 10 yards away, but it’s the comparison that matters. I set out to see, firstly, what level of text and resolution I could reliably see in good daylight conditions, and then keep monitoring each pair until resolution of a couple of key indicators could no longer be seen, as it got darker.
So. I’m bright daylight - there was not a huge difference in pure resolution. With the Swarovski I could see and read the diagram marked 5.6, the zeiss you could both see 5.0, and the Bushnell, I initially settled on 4.0, but just got to 4.5.
Realistically, this is probably equivalent to reading size 12, 14 or 16 text.
I would, however, caution that very slight objectively scored difference with more subjective analysis. The Swarovski were, throughout the test, much ‘brighter’, the modern Zeiss conquest close behind.
The older Zeiss were extremely sharp, but less bright and with a much flatter focal plane - ie. You had to tweak the focus to read, it was much harder to hold focus and keep them steady, and required much more effort to read, although you could make out the same numbers it was harder to concentrate.
The Bushnell are a step further behind, you could see the number, but it took longer to settle on and you were thinking ‘is that or isn’t it’.
The Swarovski were IMO on a different level here, the focal plane felt much, much deeper - there was almost half a turn either way and the numbers were still in focus. This was much easier and more comfortable to view for a longer time. The zeiss conquest, again, close behind - but definitely not as ‘bright’.
As for light gathering as it went dark. The bottom focal circle (2.8) was my reference point, and I recorded the time you could reliably distinguish between black and white circles and it becoming a great spot. This (usefully) also coincided pretty well with being able to read the ‘a block of text’ text at the bottom left.
Bushnell, grey blob at 1657, text within a minute or two of this.
Old Zeiss, unable to differentiate or comfortably read text at 1725
Zeiss Conquest… these were readable till 1739
Swarovski, lost the circles to a greey blob at 1747, but the text was readable for another few minutes, till 1751.
Again, through all this (and even at the end) the Swarovski consistently felt ‘brighter’ and the depth of field was noticeable. They were in focus more quickly and were easier to read and process through. Again, the Zeiss conquest were nearly there as well, but the Swarovski were slightly better.
Hope that’s all been of interest
