Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics How much difference between a good set of 8X32 vs an 8X42?

I already have a set of Leica Trinovid BN 8X32 binnos that I am quite pleased with. To go along with those I have a pair of Pentax DCF ED 10X43's that I have no complaints about. Would it be worthwhile to add a good set of 8X42 class binnos to my collection? Would I see much real difference between the 32's vs the 42's?

A "lay" opinion: The 7 or 8x42 alphas provide a very relaxed, picture window view of the world. To me the difference is noticeable and appreciated.

That said, I prefer the size of the 8x32 when carrying.

IMHO, no.

I ran the 8x32 Ultravids against a set of 8x42s. The only difference to me was ergonomics; the x42s just "felt" better.

A set of alpha 8x32s or 8x42s are superlative, and if you have one, the "need" for the other just isn't there.

The real world difference is the feel in the hands and MAYBE 5 minutes total light difference (morning and evening combined) in the field.

If the x32s work for you, and I see no reason they wouldn't, I'd drop the coin on something else LONG before I'd add the x42s to the mix. Especially if you have 10x43/42s that work for you as well, and the Pentax are not bad glass.

Spend the $1k+ on a hunt, or donate it to a good cause, or something else, as I don't see how the 8x42s will give you anything you don't already have covered.

That, or get an alpha set of 8x42s and off the 8x32s and 10x43s, and do likewise with the coin generated from those sales.

Boy, that's a great question. I agonized between 8x32 and 8x42 Ultravids when I made my once in a lifetime "alpha" bino purchase. The extra few minutes of twilight viewing wasn't a big deal to me as I tested the 8x32s very late into the evening and they were fine, so that wasn't any further consideration to me. From a purely optical standpoint I did notice the larger EP was an easier, more comfortable view to me, so I bought the 42s.

After using them for a while I realized that with my style of walking hunting and mountain hiking in general, even the compact 27 oz Ultravids were too large and heavy for me. Since then I bought an 8x32 Nikon SE that I use 90% of the time.

I think with your 8x32BNs and a good 10x43 you are set. If you want one more bin I would buy a 7x36 Zen Ray ED II, that would be relatively light weight and a very easy view with almost "alpha" optics, and not very expensive.

John

btw, I love those little 8x32BNs, what a great package!

I had my 42's for a long time and upgraded to a new set of 42's 3 years ago. Bought a pair of 32's about 3 months after the upgrade. The 42's sat in the case for 2 years and were sold. The 32's do everything I need them to do in a lighter, more compact package.

If you hunt the 42 will easily be brighter with low light, and for most users is most popular.

For a 8x32, to be bright enough for full time use it had better be one of the best Alphas or premium Nikon to do the job.

You didn't say if you are referring to 8x or ? For 10x you will
need 42mm or higher.

Thanks for the replies. Looks like good 32's are up to the job. Now another question. I do not have the opportunity to use quality binnos before a purchase so I appreciate the input. I located a killer deal on 8x32 Zeiss FL's. How would they compare to the 8x32 BN's that I now have? Primarily brightness and clarity. Anyone ever do a side by side?

The Zeiss have dielectric prisms compared to the BNs silver coated prism, so the Zeiss is brighter right there, and based on reviews that theoretical difference is there. Other than that, a later model Zeiss will have better coatings overall than the BN.

Go over to birdform.net, there are a number of guys over there that think the 8x32FL is the best bin ever made, on the other hand Kevin Purcell a very knowledgeable expert on optics over there, thinks that given the whole package,the way it fits in the hand, it's robust construction, great contrast and neutral color, the 8x32 BN is his favorite binocular of all time.

It's always a tough call and really subject to how the bin fits with the individual user. Good luck.

John

Yes and no.
I've got a 25 oz. Nikon LX 8X32 and a 34 oz. Leica BA 8X42.
When Istack them in broad daylight, I cannot for the life of me see any difference in them optically.
But when I use them from a field position, there is a very significant difference. The heavier Leica is much faster and easier on the eyes when it comes to picking up fine details, especially at the longer ranges thanks to it's additional weight.
I've seen lots of dark mornings/evenings where the larger Leica barely worked. No way will an 8X32 work at all under those circumstances.
The Nikons are easy to carry up close to the eyes all day. The Leica I have to sling over my left hip to be comfortable all day. Again, this is a weight difference.
I'm of the opinion that they are a real asset. Both of them. But bear in mind the weight differences. If they are both close in weight, then no I wouldn't have both. E

I have carrying good binos now for now for over forty years and have gradually dowsized from 10x40's to 8x42 to 8x32's and for an active hunter have decided that with today's great optics a good, lightweight 8x32mm binos are the way to go.
I personally found the Zeiss 8x32 FL's much better optically than the Leica 8x32 Ultravids- but opinions vary and the Leicas are great all around binos.

I run 8x32 Pentax Ed's and don't feel cheated....

Performance-wise the answer would be exactly 10mm of light gathering glass which equates to an extra 1.25mm of exit pupil diameter (4.0 vs. 5.25). This results in a much better ability to perform at dusk and dawn or within a heavily wooded canopy.

Price-wise if all other aspects of the binoc's being equal, the 32mm's glasses seem to be quite a bit less expensive as well.

After exhaustive research before buying my most recent and first decent pair of hunting binocs, I came to the conclusion that 8x42 is just about the ideal glass for close to midrange bow and gun hunting scenerios.
After looking through more glases than I care to recount, I determined that an 8x32 just wasn't going to help me out in the early morning and late afternoon low-light conditions that comprise such a large part of my bowhunting time frame like the 8x42 models did.
This light gathering ability also was the same determining factor in my deciding on an 8x42 vs. a 10x42. The ability to hold a steadier field of view was a plus as well.

You came to the exact same conclusion I did going through the same process, I ending up buying a very nice 8x42 Ultravid BR. Then after using them a year and not liking the size and weight, I added a very nice 8x32 Nikon SE to use when I was hiking or mountain hunting. Now I'm sixty so my pupils probably don't open up as much as younger eyes will, but I really havn't noticed enough low light difference to warrant the extra weight of the Ultravids. As a matter of fact I use the 8x32 SEs 90% of the time. I save the Ultravids for rainy days as the SEs aren't waterproof.

I think I read somewhere Muledeer maybe, that you will get an extra five minutes dawn and dusk with an 8x42 over a 8x32. I've been hunting since 1965 and I don't recall ever taking a shot that early or late, maybe because I didn't have good low light binocs but I doubt it.

John

I tend to agree with JB on the extra 5 minutes, but can flatly say that I've take a good number of critters within those short windows.

I had both, simultaneously, and lived with them for 10 days comparing them over many hours. I compared resolution of each against optical charts. The Leica was the clear resolution winner. Hands down, no contest. The Zeiss gives the illusion of being brighter, but that's more to do with coatings than anything else. In low light, I could see no difference.

The Leica's are smaller (which I liked for my hands) and have a much slower focus mechanism. The Zeiss has a "quick focus" which is far too quick for me. I got rid of the Zeiss 8x32's... the only thing I liked about them over the Leica was the armoring.

Obviously, mine is a "sample of one" so it's impossible to be dogmatic about either based on such a small sampling. What I can be dogmatic about is the Zeiss fast-focus is likely something a hunter will not want.

I've used 8x30/32 bins for almost 25 years and have found them to be ideal for me. Others mileage may vary. Were I wanting to pair an 8x32 with a 42mm bin, I'd go with a 10x42.

The differences are most obviously weight and low-light performance. The importance of each of those to you will make the decision for you. I use both 8x40 Leicas (older model) and 8x32 Nikon Premieres. The differences in low light are slight but noticeable.

Not much difference unless you're talking about the first or last 20 minutes of shooting light. Then it may be a big difference. If that time matters much to you you might wish you'd put up with more aperture.

I use both and can say from experience the 42 will give just a touch more detail. This is of course with like models (quality)! That being said the smaller aperature 32mm 9 outta 10 times is all you need because that time of evening or morning you still can't see in dark timber! When they are in the open at that time the little you gain with 42mm is usually of no use. Now if I were spending money on mid level optics I definetly would opt for a 42mm glass!!!

Even more so I've needed to make a quick judgement on animal size right at dawn and dusk. Those last few minutes of light are when the big boys tend to finally follow the rest of the herd out into the field so for me personally, that extra 5 minutes is a key feature in my selection of optics. If you aren't a dawn or dusk hunter, then it is virtually a non-issue in choosing between the two objective sizes.

If the choice were mine, I'd opt for a 8x42. Like someone mentioned here, I've killed more than a few animals at the very last minutes of light. That's where they pay off. I recently looked through a 8x42 Nikon EDG and was astounded how bright it was. I do use a bino harness and weight is never a factor with it.