Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Which 15x bino!?

A good 10 x 42 glass will yield great results as a tripod rig, and if your tripod glass must serve as a neck glass, it's a good option. I'll take the 8 x 30 as a neck glass and a 15 on a tripod myself ... and I don't like hauling crap into the field any better than the next guy. It's just essential gear for what I do.

There is no question that each individual needs to purchase optics, or anything for that matter, with an assessed value based on quality and budget.

I used to own a set of Vortex Kaibabs and I felt they were 90% of the Swarovski 15x56's for half the price. The Minox will be in the same category. I personally love Meopta because the quality and price point make it an incredible value to me but have yet to look through a pair of their HD 15's. The Meostar HD 10x42's are absolutely fantastic glass and compare favorably to the "alpha" glass with a few trade offs. Fit and finish as well as weight are not as good. That doesn't bother me though and I LOVE my Meopta MeoStars

For anybody to say that the Minox or Vortex is optically equal or superior to Swarovski is insane IMO. They are either too inexperienced to know what to look for or they need to get their eyes checked. As mentioned previously some will try to justify a lesser glass because its what they have but there is simply no comparison

Best of luck finding what works for you

Agree 100% about Meopta. What are you waiting for....."have yet to look through a pair of their Hd 15's'???? Get with it!

I have a pair of the Swarovski SLC NEU's that I love

The newer Meopro HD 8x42 compare very will with Swaro 8x42 SLCs. I'd be curious if the 15x are as good... at a nice price range. Meopta is doing it right.

I have always felt that the MeoStars compared favorably to the SLC's but they are heavier and the fit and finish isn't up to par with Swarovski.

I have no reason to believe that the Meopta 15's won't be as good but when you start getting into higher magnification binoculars it gets tougher to get it right. That's why a cheap pair of 12's our 15's isn't the best idea but I get the budget issue

I get the budget issue but I would sale off guns to get quality optics.

See a lot of people that site the price of quality optics as a reason to not have them but have safes full of rifles.

100%'agree

I see the budget issue too. I also see a priority issue. Does a guy that has one or two tags a year, maybe a a couple of weeks in the field need $2500 glass? I guess that's up to him. I keep thinking the big three optics companies are gonna price themselves out of the middle class hunting market. I rely on my optics but I can't justify the price of new ELs or new geovids. Are they gonna help me find more critters? Probly not. Are they more pleasurable to use? Absolutely!! I say if hunting is your passion or priority, buy the best you can afford on proven products. If you can't afford the mid priced high powers IE Meopta minox,Vortex drop down in power. You'd be better off with proven optics, than cheaper higher x's ie 7-15x35s.

Good post NM......and, like you, even mentioning 7-15x35's in the spirit of this conversation is baffling.

A few weeks ago I looked at the Cabela's Euro 15x, Swaro 15x, and Nikon 16x. I wasn't ready to purchase, just curious, so I never took them outside under difficult lighting conditions. But still, I found the Swaros noticeably better than the other two.

Judging optical quality in anything other than field conditions is folly.

Regarding 15s, and tripod-based 'hunting' in general, the truly wonderful thing they do for you is yield a whole new world of outdoor experience. You will find yourself making special trips out all year long just to glass and see what's up. And you will discover a world that you only stumble through otherwise. In that way it's a lot like treestand hunting -- all sorts of bio plays out in front of you, and at close range.

With 15s, close range takes on whole new meaning. It's a little like learning archery in order to extend the hunting season, except better. Which is why I vote to get any good glass and sally forth.

Findings are findings. Evaluations done indoors are limited, as previously stated. I've looked thru enough optics to realize that dark optics indoors with low contrast will not work well outdoors.

On the other hand, something that looks good indoors, may not do so well in the "field"

Its not that difficult.

I disagree completely. A guy has to start somewhere and the 7-15X35 was my first step up. Like was stated, they opened a whole new world for me. $150 is nothing for a lot of folks here, but it is a 100% commitment to some. In fact some may have to save a couple months or more to get them. I know. I had to save for six months to get something like that at one time.

Not at all surprised.

A guy could roll some Coke bottles in a cardboard tube and call it a "place to start" too....

Just getting in the game doesn't make you a player. There's a reason they make and continue to sell $2500 binocs.... and it ain't because people like paying that kind of dough for "indesernable difference" or because they "look the same to my eyes".

I'd way rather have a set of used mid-grade 8x or 10x glasses for $150 than a set of new switch upower bins with Schitt glass for the same dough. I've got a set of 8x Monarchs that I've run for years.... I bought them outta the classifieds for like $100, I'd take them any day over the 7-15s...

How does one decide the glass is better in one than another? I can tell most of you guys have not compared optics, except on a tree or rocks.

I do it by comparing side by side on deer antlers 131 yards away in the woods and on eye charts 127 yards away. These 7-15X35 showed more detail than my Minox 13X56, but fell behind the Minox 15X58. When I compared them with some Swarovski 8.5X outside the store on an eye chart, it took a couple more X's to see more detail, but the glass is good enough to beat the Swaro 8.5X by merely turning up the magnification.

I will not argue that the view in the Swarovski's is not stunning. They were one of the few optics to give me the "WOW!" The other two were the first time I looked through a surveyor's glass when I was about eighteen and the other was when I first looked through the then new Bushnell 4200 4-16X.

There is defiantly some bad sh!!t in the Oregon water.

Looks like your state is as bad as Oregon for water. Both voted for Obama.

Eyecharts huh?

How do they do with glare, picking up an ear or antler flicker, an odd shape or an out of place shade of color?