Binos

[Sharpie]

My partner and I evaluated the Zeiss Conquest HD vs. the Minox HG, also the top tier Swarovski, Leica and Zeiss, and several other alternatives. This was in 10x40, for birdwatching. We made several visits to Cley Spy and tried them out in all lighting conditions.

She had decided to go for Swarovski SLC (which she preferred over the ELs), but when we returned to buy them the new Zeiss Conquest HD had just arrived. The salesman insisted we try them (without telling us the price) and we were very impressed. We thought they were significantly better than the Minox and very very close to the SLC. We guessed they might cost about £1000. When he told us the price we were amazed.

She had the budget for the very best, but chose the Conquest HD, and has not regretted her decision. The Cley Spy salesman didn't need to show us them, he knew she was intending to buy the SLCs. That is great customer service.

The Zeiss are actually cheaper than the Minox, to our eyes they are clearly optically superior, have an excellent warranty and of course the Zeiss brand name which should mean they hold their value better.

The ergonomics are great, focussing, eyecups and dioptre adjustment work very nicely (important when we share them). Size and weight are just right. The Lotu Tec coating really seems to work to repell raindrops and misting. Brightness and contrast, resolution, flare resistance are excellent, and at least in 10x42 they have an exceptional field of view.

If a secondhand pair of SLC had been available at a decent price it would have been a difficult decision, but she does not regret her choice and if anything is even more pleased with them the more she uses them.

If you possibly can, get over to Cley Spy (the Glandford shop, not the Cley reserve outpost) and try them all out, it is a most excellent shop and you will receive the most helpful advice.

 

[User00035]

Ok, so its got to be one of the big three. Which new models are the optimum stalking bins from Swarovski, Zeiss and Leica? I favour 8X42, so excluding rangefinder models and allowing for personal preference for magnification, which are the three best stalking bins?

 

[bruce w]

i bought a pr of Eschenbach Farlux in 8x42 10 or so years back . At sea on deck watch one night we compared them with several prs of top end glasses and we decided to get a pr for the boat the price didnt come into it we just thought them the best in very poor light the decider was coloured lights red -green ,a big help after deer i know, a maker not often mentiond have others tried them

 

[Sharpie]

Ok, so its got to be one of the big three. Which new models are the optimum stalking bins from Swarovski, Zeiss and Leica? I favour 8X42, so excluding rangefinder models and allowing for personal preference for magnification, which are the three best stalking bins?

I was back at Cley Spy last Friday PM when they had just received delivery of their first Zeiss HT 10x40?. The boss opened the box and handed them to me for my opinion.

I tried them out until last light.

I think they may be the very best for hunting. More evaluation needed, but they seemed to be exceptionally good in poor light, hanging on to colour and contrast many minutes after the others had deteriorated into monochrome flat mush.

Swarovski SLC would come slightly second. Despite the extra cost, I'd say Swaro EL aren't any better for hunting, the extra "Swarovision" field flattener lens may give better edge sharpness in good light but seems to make them slightly dimmer, which is not good.

None of the Leicas suit my eyes, or my (very critical) partner's. I have tried to like Leicas for many years, but have always been disappointed when compared with Swaro or Zeiss.

 

[Flip]

I bought Swift 828 HHS Audubon 8.5x44, extremely happy with these. According to the reviews nearly the same quality as Swarovski for the price of 400$.

 

[Tim1]

Gents,

Why doesn't anyone mention Meopta bins in discussions like this? Can anyone with experience of them comment?

Regards,

Tim

 

[Cyres]

Suggest you buy the best you can afford. In reality there is very little between the top 3 its a matter of what suits you. You need to compare them at last light because in normal conditions there will be no dicscerable difference.

D

 

[Sharpie]

Gents,

Why doesn't anyone mention Meopta bins in discussions like this? Can anyone with experience of them comment?

Regards,

Tim

The 42 mm Meostar versions are an ergonomic disaster IMHO. They are very fat in the hand, and you can't wrap your fingers around the barrels because the hinge extends most of the way down the body. The way they taper towards the eyepieces also means you cannot get a secure hold, almost like squeezing an oval bar of soap. They are also very very heavy, nearly 900 grams. The weight alone stopped us considering them.

I could see myself dropping them quite easily because they felt so clumsy to hold. I have medium size hands. I often use only one hand to hold my bins for a quick scan, this would be very insecure with the Meostar, particularly if you needed to twiddle the focus too.

The standard Meostar seems rather dim and has a yellowish colour cast. The new HD version is very nice optically, comparable with Minox HG, but the price is rather high.

Meopta used to make the optical parts of the previous model Leica Trinovid, and allegedly the new Meostars have some similarities

I also noticed the rubber coating on the demo models seemed to have hardened and lost some grippiness compared with brand new ones, it looked shiny and a bit grubby, I suspect it might be rather slippery when wet.

That said, I really like the Meostar B1 8x32 which feels very light, small and handy, and is very nice optically, with a very good field of view. It doesn't seem to suffer from the dim yellowy colour of the 42mm version.

Such a pity the larger models felt so clumsy to me, and are so very heavy. Maybe if you have larger hands they would be much better.

 

[Dawnraider]

The Zeiss conquest hd are brilliant,had a look through some and they are well worth the money if you ask me,i've not long got some swaro el range and if i was a bit more strapped for cash i would have gone for these,seen them for about £650.

 

[big ears]

thanks for all your views guys they have been really helpful. In the end i have decided and bought a good secondhand pair of el 8.5x42. they have come in about £100 dearer than the minox or zeiss conquest but I felt that if i hadnt got them I would have always been wondering if I had got second best. Daft I know but as I have often been told, stalking and shooting is nearly 80% confidence.
I have to say i am very happy with them and am sure they will last me out.

 

[I. Farticus]

thanks for all your views guys they have been really helpful. In the end i have decided and bought a good secondhand pair of el 8.5x42. they have come in about £100 dearer than the minox or zeiss conquest but I felt that if i hadnt got them I would have always been wondering if I had got second best. Daft I know but as I have often been told, stalking and shooting is nearly 80% confidence.
I have to say i am very happy with them and am sure they will last me out.

I did the same, but with EL 10x42. They certainly *appear* to give better clarity than my Minox HGs, but that might just be my mind justifying the additional cost!

Either way, I now have binos for life and a pair of 6 month old Minox HG 8x43 for grabs

 

[The Seeker]

Just ordered a set of Zeiss Conquest 8x42's from Swillington Shooting Supplies they were the cheapest I could find £625.00

 

[tuck1]

Some very informative stuff here, particularly with regard to trying out different types. It really does come down to what suits you, and what you can afford for the use you have. I once spent 3 hours at a bird reserve trying out various sets, and the results did surprise me. One thing I found from my research was that field of view was important to me, my current bins, although optically quite good, have a narrow field of view compared to some of the more expensive makes. This is not necessarily a problem from a hunting point of view, but as I enjoy birdwatching and general scanning, a wide field of view gives that "easy" view that makes it feel like I just have more powerful eyes! I urge everyone to try before they buy, I have wasted monry returning bins in the past which I have bought mail order and found unsatisfactory.

 

[Sharpie]

One thing I found from my research was that field of view was important to me, my current bins, although optically quite good, have a narrow field of view compared to some of the more expensive makes. This is not necessarily a problem from a hunting point of view, but as I enjoy birdwatching and general scanning, a wide field of view gives that "easy" view that makes it feel like I just have more powerful eyes!

Agreed, field of view is very important for hunting to ensure you view as much area as possible in each glance, and make the most of your peripheral vision to detect movement and shapes. Thats why the x8 or x7 magnification usually makes more sense for stalking, compared with x10, as well as being brighter, with larger exit pupils.

There are significant differences between makes and models, and the way it is usually specified (in linear metres, at 100 m) doesn't tell the full story. It would be better specified by the area of the field of view, not the width. You can compare area coverage by squaring the width.

E.g. I've compared the following binos in x8 power, using the Swarovski SLC HD 8x42 as the reference, with its 136@100m field. The percentage figure shows how much less area is visible in the others.

Swarovski SLC HD 8x42 136m@100m 100%
Zeiss Victory HT 8x42 136@100 100%
Nikon EDG 8x42 135@100m 99%
Swarovski EL Swarovision 8.5x42 133@100 96%
Leica Ultravid 8x42 130@100 91%
Zeiss Conquest HD 8x42 128@100 89%
Leica Trinovid 8x42 126@100 86%
Minox HG 8x43 126@100 86%

These are manufacturers' figures, individual eyesight variation, use of spectacles etc. may change the real-life figures, yet another reason to try to compare them yourself, side by side.

Interestingly the widest field I know if is in the Hawke Frontier ED 8x43, 142m@1000, i.e. it (at least theoretically) covers 9% more area than even the best Swarovski and Zeiss. These were my first decent binoculars, and they still compare well with those several times more expensive, to my eyes.