Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Cost for next meaning meaningful step up in binos

JB - I've purchased all my used stuff from those guys.

A good tactic!

Nick - don't overlook the ZenRay Prime HD.

I should have clarified this before now but one reason I am looking at something to add to the stable is that I really like the feel of an open hinge design. They just seem to fit my hands, especially in field situations. Not sure why but after having both designs the Vanguard Endeavors that were stolen out of my truck were the best feeling pair I've had.

Nick

Don't blame you there - I prefer the open-hinge design myself.

For the coin, I'd go Swaro SLCs or old Zeiss Classics (10x40) and not blink.

Leica has great glass, but schit CS when you need it. Swaro has the best in the business without any questions.

Minox and the Meoptas are truly great glass, but if you're going that high already, just get the Swaros and be done.

The ED3 is great glass for the money to my eyes.

The ZEN ED series is very good. Many can't won't get past the Chinese link. But they are very good. The new ZEN ED 4 will be out shortly. The ZEN Prime HD is better than the ZEN ED series. They are sure as hell better than the Bushnell you have.

John, I haven't owned many pairs of "higher end binocs. I do have an older pair of Steiners, and have used Leupold Goldrings that weren't mine. They were very good glass, just not as good as my Leica's, and likely not as good as Swaro's or Zeiss, although I haven't used them. I understand your point that many people jump from the latest greatest thing to the next. I'm not in that camp. There are likely many bino's that will fit the bill for this post, not all of them expensive. But, as you know, there is truly a difference in high end glass. Not everyone may need it or want to pay for it. But I use mine almost daily and can tell you that it was worth the price of admission. And there are enough deals out there that if you don't mind the "stigma" of owning used equipment you can get a pair of top end bino's at a reasonable price.

So the cheapskate in me (can't seem to make him go away) found some articles last night on the Sightron Blue Sky SII 8x32's and Pentax DCF BC 9x32's. Of course like every other decent bino's there are comparisons to pairs costing hundreds more and people can't believe how underpriced they are, and on, and on. Though it did make me wonder.

Any experience with either compared to some of the models mentioned above? I am thinking that a pair in the 32 range would be a better fit as I do have the Bushnells and smaller/ lighter in my situation would be a very handy thing.

Any feedback on these?

Thanks,
Nick

Well, I think you need to decide on what power/size binoculars that you are really looking for first. A "lower" 8x32 is not going to compare to a high-end full-size 8 or 10x. That's simply not apples to apples, and thus would not be a "step up" for you.

Sometimes it's worth to buy a few excellent tools whether it binoculars, rifles, shotguns etc. than to have a closet or safe full of stuff.

Save your money and buy the best and buy them once.

Sell off the "surplus stuff", you can always buy more later. Put those proceeds towards your new bino's whatever brand you choose.
I have done it several times, more so in the last 2-3 years because of more disposable income however I find that now it's more trading, buying, selling and just trying a few things out like lightweight rifles or high end bino's and culling the case again.

i have had swaro binos for 20 years. Spent too much when i bought them. They are now worth more than i paid. I often wonder how many "step up " in binoculars i could,have went thru to get to what i have now enjoyed for 20 years and also how much i could have spent in numerous "step ups"
I notice how cabelas euro products make theirs binos the same color and shape to appear as swaro . Tells me which cabelas beleives are best.

I currently dont own a hunting binocular, but I am after one as the season is winding down. I hope to have a new one for next season.

I hunt with a 2,5x20 Leupold, on a 30-06. I prefer glassing with the binocular, then sneak up and shoot with a low powerd scope. It adds excitment, and because I really dont "need" the meat, I try to do hunting as imersive as possible.

Now, in Astro binoculars, which I have two of. A Fujinon FMT 10x50 and a Swaro SLC 15x56 (2014 model), I vastly prefer the Fujinon! Its AFOV, or apparent field of view is much larger, which makes the "picture" you are looking through much larger and involving.

I belive that is also important when using a hunting binocular. Some have smaller AFOVs, and its like looking at a smaller "window" but more magnified. And some with larger AFOVs, which almost fills up you entire field of view. I feel its much more comfortable to look through a 8x32 with a HUGE picture, for hours, then a smaller one, in 10x42.

Take, magnification x degrees (often stated on website etc) = rough approximation of AFOV.

Just take note that often manufactures magnification and degrees are not true. My Fujinon is actually 10,4 mag, and 6,7degrees = 69,7. Compared to 10 x 6,3 = 63.

It makes a huge difference!

I made a move up in binoculars a couple of years ago. For years, I used a pair of Leupold Wind Rivers. They were, and are, for that price point excellent to my eyes. I first noticed them lacking when I made my first hunting trip for antelope. Living in a heavily wooded area of the east, I just wasn't used to "looking that far." I also do a good bit of wildlife viewing, mostly birds and clarity, brightness, sharpness and color are all important for that use, and I was ready for something better in that regard. By the way, you might check out some birding forums. Those folks are pretty demanding of their glass but they don't seem to care much about brand loyalty or the look at what an expensive pair of binoculars I own factor. I am also now past 40 and my eyes are changing (I've always had excellent vision until now) and they are doing it in a hurry.

I did a ton of research and looked at a bunch of binoculars. I saw a step up from where I was ($300) when I started looking at $600 and then again at $1000. That was my maximum I could spend, although I did look at some of the "alpha glass" so many on here recommend. I have a couple of friends with Swaros. If money was no object I would have bought them and been happy. I have no doubt the top end in price carries that price for a reason.

To answer your question, I think every time you double the money you spend there is a step up in quality. It is not a doubling in quality. Going from $100 to $300 is a HUGE jump. Going from $300 to $600 is noticeable. $600 to $1200 is too, but less so. I can tell even less difference, although it is there and I suspect hours behind the glass would make it more obvious, when you go from $1000 toward the top-end. So, I think what you have to ask yourself is, what is my budget and what do I need?

With those two questions in mind I decided on the Cabela's Euro HD. Those are going for about $1200 now. When I bought them, they were $1000, but I hit things perfectly and only have $800 in mine. I have not regretted it for a moment. They work well with my eyes (truly believe that individual variations on vision account for much of the debate on this site) and I honestly can't see a big enough difference when I look through Swaros to think about doubling or tripling my investment. If I were doing it again and had $2500 in my pocket that I had to spend, I would still buy the Euro HDs and put the rest toward a hunting trip or buy a new rifle or something.

Maybe my eyes will change more and I will "see" things differently in the future.

atse,

Thanks for your clarification--and I agree that top-notch binoculars are well worth the price when you REALLY use them. However, as SteveC99 pointed out earlier in this thread, as the price goes up there's far less gain per buck.

I get to really use a lot of binoculars, and have for many years. I completely agree with his post, especially about the $500, $1000 and $1000+ levels of performance. Today we have binoculars retailing for $500 (or even less) that are of equal quality to anything you could buy for almost any price 25 years ago--and binoculars costing $1000 that are BETTER than anything available in 1990. And there were some very good binoculars back then..

So no, I don't feel that somebody wanting a good hunting binocular today is better off saving all their spare change until they can buy the most expensive binoculars on the market. $500 will buy very fine glass today, and if somebody wants a $1000 or $2500 binocular later on they $500 glass will still be a very fine backup. I've had to resort to my less-expensive backup binoculars on at least three "major" hunts in the past decade, and didn't feel handicapped in the least. One of those backup binoculars cost around $900, another around $500, and one even cost less than $100.

John, very good post - thanks.

Excellent, as usual MD. A year or so ago you posted a thread on brand bias. It had a reference to optics and wine? I think? Would you happen to have a link? I kept it for a long time and finally lost it. It was an outstanding piece. Thanks!

I got that test from a magazine article, which is somewhere in my files. It would probably take too long to find it, but the basic test involved a bunch of different bottles of wine without labels, but with price tags.

They had a bunch of people taste the wines, as I recall mostly casual wine drinkers, and in general they preferred the taste of wines with higher price tags, even though the price tags were random.

But that wasn't the really interesting part. The people were also hooked up to a machine that tested brain waves, and when they tasted wines from bottles with higher price tags, the part of their brains that responds to pleasure reacted with more pleasure, even when the wine actually retailed for $5 rather than $50. The authors of the study concluded that perceived values actually change the way our brains respond.

John, repeat of my above post.