Bino question

[Roughneck Country]

I am looking at a few sets of high end Bino's Zeiss Victory, Swaro EL, and the Leica Ultravid. Just wondering recommendations. I have a chance to get a new set of Zeiss 10X42 for $1700CAN on sale right now which seems like a bargain but was originally leaning towards the Leica Ultravid's. On the fence with the Zeiss but the price is attractive. Thoughts?

Originally I wasn't going to spend the $$ on a good set of bino's this year and was going to pick up a pair of vortex to do me until I saved enough to but the high end bino's but just want to know if the deal on the Zeiss is too good to pass up?

[Dean2]

Go to WSS. Use all three of the Binos and a set of Nikon Monarchs to look at the Bino Charts posted up in the far corner. It will take better than an hour to do this right. Then take the glasses to the front door in dark or semi dark.

Only Binos I have been able to see a marked improvement in performance over the Nikons, inside or outside are the Leica. I hunted using a pair of Nikons and Leicas for about 12 months to get a good compare in all conditions. The Leica's are better in almost all situations but the edge is pretty slight. It would be hard to say they are $2,000 better than the Nikons.

As far as Swaro and Zeiss, they are great glass but, I would save $1300-$2400 and get the Nikons. I got to compare them them side by side too, though not as extensively as the Leicas, as they belong to my hunting partners. The Nikons were usually superior in light gathering, resolution and colour trueness, much to my partners' dismay. One sold his top of the line $2,900 Zeiss Victory, he got $2,400 for them used (Zeiss makes many grades Victory, Conquest, and Terra are only three in descending order of price and quality) and got the Monarchs in stead.

[Peebles]

I have tested multiple Zeiss optics and while they are all fine I always found they didn't have the same value per dollar as other options in the price range. I agree with Dean2 that Monarchs present some of the best value in a mid-tier binocular but I'm not convinced they exceed the premium glass.

Though I generally prefer Leica and Swarovski in premium glass $1700 for Zeiss Victory binos is too good of a deal to pass up if you are ready to spend that much cash on optics. That's nearly half off and brings the price only slightly above the Conquest line. I doubt anything in that price range competes.

The best way to know for sure what you like is to test them in the field. Buy a few pairs on your credit card and try them out at dawn or dusk. This will give you a better understanding of which binos perform the best. The bright fluorescent light in stores flattens the difference between models and makes it hard to evaluate. Use it to make a beginning selection only.

[mtnhunter]

I agree with Peebles, and would add that many stores will allow you to have a look through the binos just outside the entrance to the store (escorted of course!). That's what I did when I selected my binos. After all, if you're going to drop some serious coin on a product, you should be sure it's offering you what you want/need.

I also second the comment that the Nikons may be good value for a mid-tier binocular, however, there is no comparison with the top three premium optic manufacturers (Zeiss, Leica, Swarovski).

[J0HN_R1]

If you're gonna drop that kind of coin on binoculars, why not go with the Nikon Monarch binos and spend the savings on a high-end spotting scope ?

(If you don't already have one...)

[pikeslayer22]

Have the Ziess 10x56 night owls and for low light they are hard to beat....also have the Leica 10x42 Geovid's which are nice for the range finding capabilities and are lighter to carry but the Ziess has the better glass IMO

[cowmanbob]

Can you tell us where this deal is at?

[nrsmatth]

You might be surprised with the quality of the high end vortex. I wouldn't judge them based on the price.

[Dean2]

I find it interesting how many comments there are along the lines, that while the Monarch's are good there is no comparison with the top of the line big dollar binoculars. In head to head comparisons in field conditions they really do compare. I would love to justify spending $3,000 on Leica's by being able to say they are greatly superior but the truth is the difference is VERY hard to see in most conditions and impossible to see in others.

Zeiss, Swaro and Leica spend huge dollars on marketing to trumpet the superiority of their products. They also invest a lot in getting name recognised users to use and endorse their products. There was a time 30 years ago where the German glass truly was much superior and at the time it was worth spending extra for it, but the price difference was not nearly as large as it is today. With modern production capabilities it is possible to make great products at a much lower cost point.

Marketing is just that, I really encourage you to check out the difference for yourself and see if there is truly enough differnce between $800 glass and $2900 glass to warrant the price.

[Roughneck Country]

Originally Posted by cowmanbob

Can you tell us where this deal is at?

Southland Canadian tire in Calgary

[Roughneck Country]

Originally Posted by nrsmatth

You might be surprised with the quality of the high end vortex. I wouldn't judge them based on the price.

Since the Zeiss isn't exactly what I want even though they are deeply discounted I think I am going with the Vortex Diamond back. Price seems good for the the caliber of glass. The Nikon Monarch 5 was my second choice for a lower end bino but didn't see the value in the extra money over the vortex.

[bdub]

Originally Posted by Roughneck Country

Since the Zeiss isn't exactly what I want even though they are deeply discounted I think I am going with the Vortex Diamond back. Price seems good for the the caliber of glass. The Nikon Monarch 5 was my second choice for a lower end bino but didn't see the value in the extra money over the vortex.

I've got a couple buds who have the high end Vortex Binos. They seem to be excellent glass and compare favourably when looking side by side with Swaros. I have compared the Vortex diamond back spotters and they are junk, not sure if the diamond back binos are similar but if they are the same quality as the spotters in that model I wouldn't bother. Waste of money.

[gramps73]

Have you looked at the Cabela EURO's yet, same glass as the big names in the bino world..

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by gramps73

Have you looked at the Cabela EURO's yet, same glass as the big names in the bino world..

The top brands don't all use the same glass or coatings, but the Cabelas advertising is hoping that people don't know that.

[Peebles]

Originally Posted by Dean2

I find it interesting how many comments there are along the lines, that while the Monarch's are good there is no comparison with the top of the line big dollar binoculars. In head to head comparisons in field conditions they really do compare. I would love to justify spending $3,000 on Leica's by being able to say they are greatly superior but the truth is the difference is VERY hard to see in most conditions and impossible to see in others.

There are objective measurable differences between binoculars. For example accurate colour is important to hunters since it can make the difference between spotting brown deer hiding in brown fields and missing them. Though it does not discuss the same models you can see Nikon compared with Zeiss here:
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=134310

This is just one example, but there are other features that will vary as you increase the cost. In the end it's up to each user to decide the right balance between optical quality and price. You don't need an expensive German brand to be successful, but a person might prefer using it anyway.

Originally Posted by Dean2

Marketing is just that, I really encourage you to check out the difference for yourself and see if there is truly enough differnce between $800 glass and $2900 glass to warrant the price.

Nikon Monarch is not an $800 binocular in any hunting configuration. As you spend more there are diminishing returns, and Monarchs are some of the best value for money out there, but that is not the same as best.

Originally Posted by gramps73

Have you looked at the Cabela EURO's yet, same glass as the big names in the bino world..

These are rebranded Meoptas. I gave them a head to head test against some Leicas and Vortex and the drawbacks were the weight and the eye relief. They are heavier than most comparable options and if you are an eyeglass wearer they may not work for you. The glass is good - I didn't do a detailed comparison because the fit was wrong for me.

[GermanHunter]

I would go with a Zeiss,Swaro,Schmidt&Bender or Leica! I have my old Zeiss now for 20 years. It's the last old school glases with lead lenses. Very heavy,thats what I don't like about it,but the best money can buy. Night owl.
If you can find a used Zeiss Dialyt 8X56...

A good bino you buy once in your lifetime! It.s like with canada goose

[Torkdiesel]

I would definitely suggest trying out the Meoptas if you are looking to save some cash but still end up with great high end glass. I used a set of 10x56's for years before I switched to my Swaro EL ranges.
If you are looking for a set of bino's to look at the odd deer or check out elk in a field just about any glass will be fine. It's the 1 hour before or after sunrise where glass really makes the difference.
Now if you're hunting sheep or bears where you will be glassing for days and days on end, I wouldn't dream of getting anything besides the best money can buy. Swaro's in my opinion are where it's at.
Another option over paying those big prices is looking for a good used set. Lots of great online shops in the states.

[kujoseto]

The only vortex products worth getting are the razor lineup. Consider yourself forewarned of disappointment if you choose otherwise.
I like the suggestion to get the monarch binos and spend the extra cash on a good spotting scope. (Again, if vortex is considered, only razor lineup)

[Zuludog]

I have the Razor binos and I think they're a great bino. It may have just been my eyes but I don't think the Swarovski and Leica were worth the extra money. I also think the Vortex Vipers are a real value and a solid performer for the price.

[IR_mike]

I find Leicas the best for my eyes, but try out what Minox has.

Great glass for its price.

[Lefty-Canuck]

I have a set of Eagle Optic Binos I use for 3d. They are marketed to bird watchers and for the price they are the same quality as a top end Vortex....actually made at the same plant. Compact and light 10x42, very clear.

LC

[super7mag]

A buddy just picked up a pair of Stiener 10x42's , I was impressed , real good glass for the dollar.

[Dean2]

[QUOTE=Peebles;2844140]There are objective measurable differences between binoculars. For example accurate colour is important to hunters since it can make the difference between spotting brown deer hiding in brown fields and missing them. Though it does not discuss the same models you can see Nikon compared with Zeiss here:
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=134310

This is just one example, but there are other features that will vary as you increase the cost. In the end it's up to each user to decide the right balance between optical quality and price. You don't need an expensive German brand to be successful, but a person might prefer using it anyway.

Peebles you posted a well thought out discussion of the subject. I would however make the comment that there are a lot of things that can be objectively measured with machinery and shown to be different among the various makes of Binoculars. If however I can't see any of those differences, or darn few of them, with the naked eye then their existence is interesting but not a good reason to spend more money.

My whole point in responding to this thread is to encourage people to compare quality mid priced binoculars with the real high end stuff, in day to day use. If, like me, they can't see any significant difference 99.5% of the time, then they too will not benefit from spending $3,000 on binoculars, except they do have more cachet. If they really can see a noticeable difference under almost all situations then the high end glass may be worth the money to them.

[Dean2]

Originally Posted by Peebles

There are objective measurable differences between binoculars. For example accurate colour is important to hunters since it can make the difference between spotting brown deer hiding in brown fields and missing them. Though it does not discuss the same models you can see Nikon compared with Zeiss here:
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=134310

This is just one example, but there are other features that will vary as you increase the cost. In the end it's up to each user to decide the right balance between optical quality and price. You don't need an expensive German brand to be successful, but a person might prefer using it anyway.

Peebles you posted a well thought out discussion of the subject. I would however make the comment that there are a lot of things that can be objectively measured with machinery and shown to be different among the various makes of Binoculars. If however I can't see any of those differences, or darn few of them, with the naked eye then their existence is interesting but not a good reason to spend more money.

My whole point in responding to this thread is to encourage people to compare quality mid priced binoculars with the real high end stuff, in day to day use. If, like me, they can't see any significant difference 99.5% of the time, then they too will not benefit from spending $3,000 on binoculars, except they do have more cachet. If they really can see a noticeable difference under almost all situations then the high end glass may be worth the money to them.

The outcome of comparing glasses, is not about objective fact but about the individual experience. A fact is, gravity accelerates an object at 32 ft/sec squared and individual experience won't change that. In the case of glass, it will vary from person to person so my experience won't necessarily be the same as someone else's. People need to allow for the fact that individuals will have very different experiences under nearly identical circumstances, what scares the hell out of me, exhilarates someone else. Only way to know is to try it for your self.

[Peebles]

Originally Posted by Dean2

My whole point in responding to this thread is to encourage people to compare quality mid priced binoculars with the real high end stuff, in day to day use. If, like me, they can't see any significant difference 99.5% of the time, then they too will not benefit from spending $3,000 on binoculars, except they do have more cachet.

Here is where you and I find common ground. I agree field testing is the best for each individual, and I think that mid ranged binos are worth considering. In my case I've done the side by side and I chose high (more like high-mid), but I know others who have done the same and go lower. The only thing I recommend against is going under about $250 for binos. This is where the biggest value leap occurs, and every binocular in the lowest tier will have apparent problems.

I also felt several mid-range models had obvious color or clarity problems, but how much this matter is a personal thing and related to usage. As Torkdiesel says this is most apparent and important during the low light hours of dawn and dusk. Some brands are better or worse, and some of the high end glass is only high end in price and not performance. Of all the binos I looked through under $700 Nikons are my fave.

Ultimately each person should let their own eyes judge. I think that covers what both budget and baller bino lovers should learn from the thread. You can get away with spending less if you are planning to get Leica/Swarovski/Zeiss, and you should save longer if a Monarch 3 is out of reach.

[Dean2]

Originally Posted by Peebles

Here is where you and I find common ground. I agree field testing is the best for each individual, and I think that mid ranged binos are worth considering. In my case I've done the side by side and I chose high (more like high-mid), but I know others who have done the same and go lower. The only thing I recommend against is going under about $250 for binos. This is where the biggest value leap occurs, and every binocular in the lowest tier will have apparent problems.

I also felt several mid-range models had obvious color or clarity problems, but how much this matter is a personal thing and related to usage. As Torkdiesel says this is most apparent and important during the low light hours of dawn and dusk. Some brands are better or worse, and some of the high end glass is only high end in price and not performance. Of all the binos I looked through under $700 Nikons are my fave.

Ultimately each person should let their own eyes judge. I think that covers what both budget and baller bino lovers should learn from the thread. You can get away with spending less if you are planning to get Leica/Swarovski/Zeiss, and you should save longer if a Monarch 3 is out of reach.

On these points we are in absolute agreement.

[kraftiest1]

The Vortex Razor line is very impressive, but I have done tests with all these binos. The best "bang for your buck" in binos in my opinion, is the Viper HD's. Go ahead and test them for yourself, and tilt the binos up and down to see at which point the image gets blurry.

[mathews z7]

i have been down this road several times , i have a pair of vortex razors HD the latest model for bow hunting and love them,:: and own leica, swarovski as well, u can not compare the cheap glass to high end glass. the viper vortex spotting scope is garbage and i find this model in the binos to be the same. a lot of people will always say that buying expensive glass is a waste of money,its more times that these people just cant do it so they will sit there and bash high end products. you get what you pay for people