Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Vortex Razor HD 8x42 binocular

Review: Vortex Razor HD 8x42

I finally gathered up a bunch of optics I was no longer using and sold them. Instead of doing something useful with the money, I used it on more binoculars. I had about decided that I needed a bona fide alpha, if for no other reason that to serve as a reference standard against all of the binoculars I eventually wind up reviewing. So this has been an effort of some scale for me and has involved a bunch of time, lots of binoculars, and a lot of head scratching.

Into the mix comes the introduction of the Vortex Razor HD, well not so much the introduction as the availability. Doing as much research as I could do without actually having one made it seem like this new glass was at the least worth a close look. As it happens, another glass I had been wondering about for some time also shows up ready for sale. That is the Kruger Caldera, which I�ll do in a separate review. So to start myself off, I now am the proud owner of one each of these binoculars in the 8x42 version. I also just received a review sample of the Steiner Predator Xtreme 8x42 from Doug. I was waiting for that to do a more in depth review, but that was going to make this too much for one review, hence seperate reviews.

Vortex told me that they were confident this glass would compare very favorably to any of the alpha glass. There has been some Internet skepticism about the new Razor HD�s price tag of almost $1,200. Every indication I can see right now says that Vortex, amid all of the �HD� Market Hype, got the new Razor right. It definitely is not the old Razor. There were few flies on the original model as it was, but the new big brother has pretty well chased those off. The housing on the new one is completely different. I actually prefer the three finger gap of the original to the current two finger gap between the hinges. Anybody who has had a ZEN ED or a Promaster ELX ED in hand has a pretty good idea of how the new Razor feels. It is not quite the same, as the Razor is slimmer, the ocular assembly is different, and it is just a touch longer. I am noting only apparent similarity here, nothing more. I suppose another way to look at the housing is to say it resembles the new SLC-HD with a front hinge. This seems to be a very well made binocular, but it does not have quite the �finishing school� finesse to the feel of some alphas. But this will be largely a matter of personal preference. Suffice it to say it looks and feels like a $1,200 binocular should.

The accessories are pretty typical Vortex. There is a molded black nylon carrying case, standard Vortex neck strap, cleaning cloth, and carry strap for the case.

The focus is counterclockwise to infinity. There is 1.5 total turns of the focus wheel. The close focus distance is 7 feet. One half (or 0.75 turns) of the wheel goes from the close focus to 20 feet. The second 0.75 turns goes from there to infinity. There is almost no focus past infinity. The wheel movement is smooth and relatively easy and mine has no backlash. The diopter adjustment is on the center focus knob, for the right eye, and works by pulling the knob back to adjust, forward to lock. The focus wheel does not seem to get knocked out of focus and the diopter has not needed attention since I initially set the focus up.

With the eyecup fully extended there is 17.75 mm distance to the ocular lens. Fully collapsed, the lens is 2.00 mm below the edge of the eye cup. The eye cups have four click stop detents. The detents seem perfectly able to stay where they are put too.

It is a lot brighter than the original, gone is the original quite warm color bias. It is still a bit on the warm side of neutral, but I doubt anybody thinks this one is dim. This one is definitely sharper than the old. The new one retains the outstanding perceived depth of field of the original, a good thing from my viewpoint. The field of view is about the same, as is the feel of the focus mechanism. The image is full of contrast, has a very decent sweet spot, and is pretty easy on the eyes. There is some edge distortion present, some pincushion and a bit of field curvature, but the edge is as sharp as most, but maybe less than a few, notably the two new Swarovski�s. The edge is sharper than the Zeiss FL.

So, the $64 question of �This is a Vortex, can it really be worth $1,200?� I think so. If the current alphas need to be purchased with amounts of $2k and above, this is certainly worth its price tag. With the proliferation of deals on deals on alphas, either from used demo lists from a couple of dealers and some stuff on various forum boards where the recognized alpha can be had for the same to a little more money, is it worth it? Dunno, that�s a tougher question. A lot depends on how many �deals� are left. I ultimately made my decision in favor of the $1,179 Vortex, instead of a Zeiss FL at around $1,400 or a non SV Swaro EL at about the same money. Why did I do that? There are a couple of reasons. First is that this Razor is about as close to an American made top tier glass as is available. It is a US design, developed and engineered by Vortex, not a modified off the shelf sort of thing. It happens to be made in Japan, but will be serviced by the excellent warranty and service philosophy Vortex is known for. The second is a ��the devil made me do it�� sort of a thing. I never have been one to think I need to have a binocular that speaks German.

In comparing this Razor to the alphas I have been able to compare (some more than others), the Zeiss FL, Swarovski EL, Swarovision EL and SLC-HD, I conclude there is precious little difference. So to get this out of the way, yes, the recognized alpha (of whichever flavor) is a �better binocular�, very little, but some differences can be found by some serious side by side comparison. I think dealers will be hard pressed to sell many new alphas when a new Razor HD is half the money. Some smaller dealers may well stock the less expensive Razor HD instead of an alpha, but time will tell.

I always felt that Zeiss concentrated the ability of their glass to promote center field sharpness. This at some expense to sharpness at edge of field and with some lessened contrast due to their use of a bright, almost blue color bias. Swarovski seems to focus on a wide sweet spot, a warmer color hue, and better edges than the Zeiss. The new SV and SLC-HD are a little brighter and sharper than the older EL and SLCneu, and the edges are sharper. Leica has always concentrated on pretty neutral color balance and very definite, almost �enhanced� contrast, making the colors jump out at you. The Razor HD seems to me more like the Swarovski EL/SLCneu than anything else. The Razor does show some field curvature not as readily seen in the alpha glass and does have the feel of a very small degree of �not quite as bright�, particularly against the new Swarovski�s or the Zeiss FL. In truth what work I could do with resolution on various charts and other targets pretty much told me that what could be resolved by one could be resolved by all. Boosted tests may show the differences to a higher degree, but I am more interested in what my 1x eyesight tells me.

Forced to a decision, I�d give the alpha a 99 rating and the Razor HD a 98. I do not want to push this as a definite degree of separation. This merely illustrates that you need a steady hand, a discerning eye, and a damn sharp scalpel to separate out differences. I�m keeping the Razor for now. The more I use it the better I like it.

Good review. Your reviews are great information. Thanks for taking the time.

My only question is have you actually used an alpha (zeiss FL, swarovision, SLC HD, Ultravid HD) in the field for a season or two? IMO over time and field use the alphas tend to seperate themselves from the almost alpha pack of binoculars (varying light conditions, ect.)

The highest performing binoculars IMO are the Zeiss FL, SLC HD and Swarovision. Closley followed by the Leica Ultravid HD and SLC NEU.

If the new Razor HD is slightly behind a SLC NEU then it is lacking noticable performance compared to the best avaliable.

IMO you made a mistake buying it over a Zeiss FL.

As far as a best buy almost alpha it is competing against the Minox APO HG also.

Timberbuck,

Glad you enjoyed the view. You make some interesting comments, but the best one you made is the "IMO". That is what it gets down to. The more I look through more and more binoculars the more convinced I become, that dissecting differences is more or less akin to discussing things like "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" I have just about lost interest in that debate.

The comparisons of newer less expensive glass versus the more established, recognized alpha glass will never go away, and will probably never be solved. I have pretty plainly stated that I think the alpha class is a little better. I personally think the new SLC-HD is the best binocular ever produced. I would follow that with the Steiner Peregrine XP, newer non-swarovision EL, then the Zeiss FL. I wouldn't pay $2,400 for a Swarovision EL because of the effect the rolling ball has on me. I have also pretty plainly stated that I don't think the alpha (IMO) is worth the price for the improvement. You obviously think differently and that is fine by me.

You ask about my time afield with a high end glass and that's is good and quite reasonable question. I started looking for an alpha glass that said "buy me" in about 2005. I have been able to use both the Zeiss FL, Swarovski EL, and the Steiner Peregrine XP for stretches of at least a month to six weeks or more. I use a binocular every day for something, even if nothing else than "for just because it's there to use". So that amounts to more hours than I can account for. I also acknowledge that is less time than some have had with the same things. But I do realize the inherent dangers of taking a quick look at an optic and drawing review level conclusions based on that experience. I also think I have had at least as much time behind both alpha class and the better end of the best mid price stuff than many, if not most. I am still looking for the alpha glass than can separate far enough from the better mid price stuff to make me spend that much money on one single glass. The more I look, the more convinced I become that there is no real reason to spend more than $500 on a binocular. I will repeat that in all this looking, I have been looking for the rigt alpha too. The guys satisfied with their alpha will never quite grasp that, so the debate won't end, and that too is just fine by me. I'll probably add some more wood to that fire when I post the review of the Kruger Caldera later today and when I add my comments on the Steiner Predator Xtreme.

So my question to you becomes this. Since you tell me I made a mistake in not buying a Zeiss FL, can you tell me how much time you have had directly comparing the two, and just how does the Razor HD fall behind your Zeiss FL? Actually there are two questions, since you tell me that the Minox APO HG is a competing almost alpha comparison to the Razor HD, how does your experience with comparing the Razor HD compare to the Minox APO HG tell you the Minox is competitive? I've never seen the Minox and would really like to get my hands on one. They are certainly interesting on their face value, which seems to indicate this is a valid comparison. I'd be curious on your actual comparative comments.

Steve, the basis of my opinion that you should have gone with the FL was the fact that you could have bought either it or the razor HD for $1400 or less.

I am considering purchasing the APO HG in 8x42 format, if that happens I will let you know. I would even be willing to loan it out to you for a while for testing.

Hi Steve, Thanks for the excellent review of the new Vortex Razor HD 8x42 binocular. I am glad you took the time to do this and it does take some time to do. I have tried to review some optics in the past and know it not the easiest thing to do. Sometimes I wonder why you bother. I am glad you do.:)