Throwing out the XL Vectors with the $5K++ price tags, which is best the Swaro, Zeiss, or Leica? What are the pros/cons and how do they compare?

Sick of carrying both my SLC and LRF.

I like the Leicas the best

Me likey the Swaros. They are simply a delight.

I'm not interested in the ballistics stuff of the Leicas, nor their history of warranty issues.

The Zeiss are just ok.

have the older leica geovids. Excellent glass, and ranging capabilities. Use them several days a week to hunt coyotes. No complaints.

Love my leica's that are 7-8 years old. I'm sure all of the current offerings from the big 3 are better than what I have.

if I were buying today I'd look hard at the zeiss 10x45 but then again most of my optics are turning out to be zeiss these days

8x to 12x, or the 10x to 15x?

Talked to leica andswaro customer service about the optics in the rangefinder binocs. I asked if the optics were as good as in the non rf binocs of both companys. Both techs said there is no way to have as good as optics in the rf models as non rf because you compromise the sweet spot in the binocs field of view. I had the leica hd b and was continually defining distant objects better with my older 10x42 swaro. The tech said he had no trouble beleiving this to be the case. Just something to keep in mind if it matters .

There is simply no way I'd drop that kind of coin again on glass without a warranty and customer service like Swarovski.

The swaro I had required a minimum range of approx 33yards to work. These were the initial release, may have been changed by now? If use is bow, this could be issue for you. Have both 10x42and15x56leica with no complaints. Many would not like the 15x due to smaller fov.

I spent a lot of time and money on these binoculars and have come to my conclusions over 2 years of use in the field and not 10 minutes in a sporting goods store looking at grids. I am first a fan of Swarovski due to their quality and acceptance by the everyday hunter.

Swarovski is the best optical company when you compare all aspects of product, use and customer service. Leica makes some top tier stuff as well, but lacks the backing of the consumer and the Leica company to some extent. Zeiss is another great company, their customer service is excellent as well. I don't think Zeiss has really gotten the whole rangefinder concept down as well as Leica or Swarovski in either the binocular or just the LRF.

I have had every Geovid, from the very first, which were state of the art when they arrived, but technology as left them in the dust. The later Geovids were much better, but they still weren't what the new HD-B generation is.

Some people don't understand that the binocular in a rangefinding binocular, just isn't the same glass and quality of optics that exist in their mainstream binoculars. They have come a long way, but they still aren't Ultravid or Swarovision optical quality in the rangefinder.

I had the later version of the Geovids after they came out, but still was happier with the rangefinder in a separate package and used the Swarovski rangefinder and EL binoculars. They were even better when Swarovski came out with the Swarovision in their binoculars, I had the best of both worlds.

When Swarovski came out with the rangefinding EL's I decided to give them a try. They were a bit bulky with the lumps under the barrels but they were great glass and the rangefinding capabilities out-performed the Swarovski LRF. The optics were not Swarovision, however. It was a matter of sacrificing something to gain an advantage somewhere else, by having everything in one package.

When Leica announced the new HD-B, I got a pair of them, knowing I could still sell them if I didn't like them as they were so hard to come by, everybody wanted them. I still have them and would rate them better than the Swarovski overall, but they still have become about as big as a person could really tolerate to use in the field.


Their optics are excellent and the rangefinding capabilities are better than the Swarovski. We do have to realize also that the rangefinding EL is now several years old and Swarovski has to be working on producing something better than the HD-B. The HD-B has Perger Porro-Prism integrated into the binocular which is an improvement to the roof prisms that have become so popular in hunting binoculars. That is the reason for the sweeping look of the barrels of the Leica.

After a day outdoors with the HD-B and comparing them to the optics of the Swarovski 8X32 EL Swarovision, I almost considered selling the HD-B and going back to the Swarovski LRF in a separate package, the view is that good in the Swarovision and this was in the smaller 8X32 size.

Optics will keep on improving, they just won't get cheaper. My analysis of these optics is owning them and using them for years. Everyone has what they like and that is what choice is all about. The question is what is the best on the market below the Vectors, and I would stand firmly behind the Leica HD-B for now...

Leica hands down. Great ranging capabilitys the best ergos and the choice of using the ballistic stuff if one chooses to utilize it. I love my HD-B.

Also wanted to add I have owned the swaro EL ranges and both HD and non HD Geovids. No experience with the Zeiss at all.

I had leica hd b.. Went back to stand alone leica 1600 b and my swaro binocs. I just refuse to sacrifice optics quality for rangefinding even as convenient as it is to have both in one unit. For less demanding viewing i could make a combo work.

That's pretty much my opinion as well having used the Lieca too... not to mention the expense, size, complication of having an all-in-one unit that can fail. Electronics can and do fail.

Keeping them separate is KISS.

Thanks everybody for the input/opinions. Shrapnel - I was hoping for such an experienced/detailed comparison, but didn't think I'd get it - Thanks. I really appreciate the time you took to jot all that down.

I found out yesterday I won a pair of new Swaro EL 10X42s from the B&C club (didn't even know I was in any kind of contest until they sent me an email).

What to do? I might just have to keep these ELs as I've used them before and they are terrific.

Keep the ELs and buy an LRF.

and for economy, how's the Bushnell fusions?

Seriously, you can do a lot with the LRF and binoculars in a separate package, as I mentioned, I too would consider going back to binoculars and LRF. I have the HD-B now, so I will continue to use them, but I also have a Leica CRF and my Swarovision EL's and they are keepers for certain...

Thanks for an excellent report, Shrapnel.

I have the Zeiss Victory 8x45 T* RF. The range finder will read targets out to 1,500-1,600 yds with repeatable accruacy. The glass is good, just doesn't have the WOW factory of top end Swaros. In some ways, I'd like to have premier Swaro glass and a separate RF, but like the quickness of ranging with RF binocs. So, I guess everything is a trade off, one way or another.

I have an older set of Swaro 7x50 binocs that seem to me to have better glass than the Zeiss Victory. Those are pretty heavy. The Zeiss 8x45 binocs are fairly bulky, but not overly heavy. I can wear them on my chest with bino harness and not realize they're there. So, for now, I'll stay with the Zeiss, but always appreciate reviews of other options.

DF

Optics are mid-grade or maybe a bit better, and the RF is truly excellent. Bang for buck quotient is high on this one.

Run as fast as your legs can propel you from the fusions 3 pairs in 5 weeks all had problems, this is for the one mile version.

Two other fellas, one very well known and respected had the same experience I did with multiple pairs. Between the two of us I think we had 5-6 pairs and all had issues. The quality is so poor it's not worth 80% less then they sell for.

My experience is with the Fusion 1600, not the One mile.

The latest Fusions have much better optics than the originals, and the range-finder is even a little better. But the overall build quality seems like it might be flimsier, so I'm waiting until after I've use my test sample in the field awhile before making up my mind.

I still have the original Fusion, and have used it hard for three years now. The optics are OK for most hunting, but not for serious open-county glassing. However, they're apparently very well-built, because they've taken a licking and kept on ticking.

I've used the newer Swarovski and Zeiss enough to know they have very good optics--though as others have pointed out, not as good as the non-laser glass from the same companies. The range-finders are very good.

Great recap, Shrap, MD, and others.

I've been mulling the same decision as GH but after reading all this I think I'll stick with my 10x42 Swaro's and keep using my LRF.

I've been thinking that the range finding EL's were the way to go but I think I'll spend the coin on something else.

Good info in this thread, thanks!

Once I used a LRF/Bino combo, there was no going back. I don't think I've taken my old LRF 1200 out of it's case since using a combo unit.

For the type of hunting I do, the ability to spot, range, and decide on a shot in one motion makes the combo well worth it. No dinking around trying to find the LRF buried in my coat when I should be shooting.

The concept of a LRF/bino combo is KISS simple. Carrying fewer pieces of junk strapped to my body is always a plus.

Only issue I've found with the combo is inability to use with one hand. Being rt handed, I cannot operate, especially the old combo leicas with button on left side, with one hand.Not big issue with rifle but to me, a major deal with bow. Maybe the new version with button on rt side this can be accomplished.

I'm in the same camp, using glasses and knowing range in one instant is priceless.

For my work, judging a trophy, telling the hunter the range and never taking my eyes off the animal is perfect.

When it's said the optics are not as good on the LR models, true. However the optics are still a long shot better then anything less then the big three. I would rate them at equal to late 90s quality of the big three.

I personally use the geovids 10x42 these leave me wanting for nothing. At least for big game hunting.

Well one compliant, if I'm nit picking. The buttons are on the left. As a right handed bow hunter it's awkward switching hands to use it. If the buttons were on the right, it would be far easier to hold my bow and range a target.

They are built like a German tank and do exactly what I expect without all the clutter in the view

jj

which model bushnells were you having problems with?

The one mile fusion

thx

I have the Bushnell and really like them. I hunt with guys who have Leica and Zeis and although they are a bit clearer, not $1500 clearer. I have never felt I was doing without and I make enough money to buy what want, there is just not enough enough justification IMHO.

Me too. Or at least I think so. I've never actually used them myself because I'm color blind and have a hard time seeing the auto-intensity-levelling red color displays which are in every make of integrated LRF/bino of which I am aware. This is especially true on bright, sunny days.

However, last fall my hunting partner/guide had a pair (I don't recall which make or model - a Zeiss maybe?) and was so fast and efficient on range calls it really got my attention. So I decided to look again.

Turns out the Swarovski light intensity read out is user selectable and is of a color I can actually see when the intensity level is turned up a bit. Sold. The Swarovski has an inclinometer (plus), and does NOT have a trajectory computer (another plus). The only negatives, besides the alpha-minus glass, is that it doesn't range inside 35 yards and the chance the electronics go belly-up in the field.

Time will tell how well they hold up. But I'm looking forward to using them this fall.

Hmmm. Sounds like I need a lesson in rangefinding technologies.

I own the Geovid 15 x 56 HD as well as the Zeiss 8 x 45 RF. Didn't need the rangefinder on the 15x's (I wanted the exceptional optics quality for my tripod mounted use of these) but fell in love with the concept with my handhelds. Saving critical seconds in using a separate rangefinder can mean the difference between whacking a once-in-a-lifetime animal (or a $20k one) and losing him.

The Leica's have the laser beam leaving the bino from the center hinge pin......not thru the barrels. Does it return thru the barrels........and therefore the optical quality of the barrels needs to suffer accordingly? Or is the laser the pulsing type that reads upon sending only and doesn't return to the unit to quote yards?

The Zeiss laser originates from inside a barrel. Consequently, Zeiss didn't make this bino with the Flourite HD glass.......whether or not it returns thru a barrel (if it returns at all)........and I fully understand.

Can anyone please enlighten me?

My 10x42mm Geovids are one of my favorite possessions. If there is better glass, it's not better enough to make a difference with me. 100% function. 0% failure. I would never change to two separate units. Being able to range what I'm glassing when I'm glassing it is too unbelievably helpful to me.

I am holding out for the next generation of rangefinding binocular that has internet service. Then I can surf the web while out in the field waiting for something to happen.

After having separate and combined concepts in the field, I am staying with the two separate unit concept. While not as convenient, I'd rather have optimal glass than a rangefinder feature which slightly degrades the system.

I should add that everyone has to make their own decision. Its all good! But to have this level of optical and electronic genius is a testament to the entrepreneurial spirit!

Goat picture?......You owe Jake a steak dinner....grin!

Get a Vector 21, or find someone who has one and always take them hunting with you.

I have not tried all the ranging binoc's but have come down to a simple system that works for me. At different times though I've had all the "alpha" glasses in one model or another, enough to give me a perspective on quality, price, and customer service which I've needed twice with two different brands -- Leica and Swarovski. Both were acceptable.

I simply run a Leica 8x32 for everything. Small, compact, very good optics. Next, for serious sit and glass with a tripod, I have a Leica Geovid 15x56 which I'm very pleased with and it is so much easier and more comfortable than one-eye spotters. I also have Leica LRF 1200 for on foot after spotted game. But for ultimate detail when glassing I go to a Zeiss spotter, 15-45 x 60, still light and compact enough to pack with a lightweight tripod.

I had the Leica Geovids and I have since switched to the zeiss. To my eyes the zeiss has a friendlier eye box(I wear glasses). I think the zeiss tends to be a little bit more consistent on ranging animals. I looked through the swaro that a friend has and I had heck getting them to range. Im sure with some more practice I would get use to them. Pretty hard to go wrong with the zeiss, leica or swaro.

I bought my Geovids in 2009. I was in Manhattan, and bought them on site at NYCL's store. It's a different kind of wilderness area than most of us hunt in, but a staff member let me take them out the front door (with him accompanying me) and scan the horizon. I looked through the Geovids, and various high-end non-range-finding binos from Zeiss, Swaro, and Leica facing north up Lexington Ave. the furthest/smallest signs I could read with the Geos were also the furthest and smallest I could read with the other non-range-finding binos. I have (or at least had) better than 20/20 eye-sight at the time.

Of course, there could be some aberration in my experiment. It is specific to the particular binos I tried, and the 2009 models. It also says little about the color gradients accurately represented in the various binos I tried. But, as far as those binos on that day, I could read no smaller/further letter with the others than I could with the Leicas. I'm not saying there is not some difference or that someone might reach different results. I'm just saying that, if you're going to spend more than $2K or so on a set of binos, if you can do so, it is nice to be able to see what your own eyes will see out of the various models. If I had seen any significant improvement between the Geovids and other models, I would have bought soething else. In my particular case, and with the particular items I was looking through, I didn't. You're mileage may vary, but it would be a good idea to find out before you spend that much IMO.

I contend that if you did not know which you were looking through, there would be no way to tell the difference between 1998-2000 trinovids

And the glass in current production 10x42 geovids it's that good.

Hmmmm.....good idea.

Why didn't I think of that?.

Good thread....just use my Leica LRF for now but someday I might spring for a combo unit.

the latest leicas I am told have 8% better light transmission than the previous model. One thing I found interesting is the guy working the leica booth said the swaro unit has 3% better light transmission. for some reason I have a little trouble getting the right view through the new leicas. I have used geovids for years and never had a problem. The other thing I seem to notice more pronounced in the new leicas is a greenish blue tint. As a long time leica user IMO the swaro el range has better glass than the hd-b. however the ballistic features are enough to make me buy the leica.

if money was no object, I would run the leica el range AND the G7 RF for longer shots. once you have used RF bins you likely will never go back. depending on style of hunting.

Leica

After using my Leica HD-B's for a season I am not sure they were worth the extra money it cost to replace the Leica HD's I had. The Glass is slightly better, and the range finder works slightly better, but that's about it. Splitting hairs really. I would like to try out a pair of Swarovski BRF's at some point as to my eyes their Binocs are the best on the market.

First off I'll say I'm in the camp of wanting my LRF and binoculars combined. I only want one thing hanging around my neck because over the course of a day on the footmobile extra stuff becomes tedious.

I researched the big three and others. For my eyes I found the Bushnell Fusions really lacking optically at distance when compared to the Swaros or Zeiss, but with a very good rangefinder.

I researched the Leica generation before the ones that Shrapnel has and again, through my eyes, they were lacking optically but the rangefinder was good. And then there is Leica's warranty tales, it seem for every happy tale there is a sad one.

I bought the Swaro 8x42 rangefinder binos. Very happy.

The thing with optics that I have found is that there is a lot of highly subjective information in these threads (including mine). You really should look at the big three yourself - and not in a store, somehow you want to be out in the bush at first or last light looking at stuff at distance as the light changes. What is great through one persons eyes may very well be different for you.

The other point on looking at the very good glass is to not expect a huge difference at 300 or 500 yards in good light between the so called alpha glass and the others. Where I have noticed the difference is at 500 yards plus at first or last light and being able to spot that monster bull in the shadows of a Spruce grove and being able to see that he is a tripalm and legal. Rather then spend the next four hours on a stalk only to get close and find a deuce rather than a tri and having to pass on him when you could have been elsewhere. That is what you pay the money for.