I have and use Zeiss Victory HT 10x42 binoculars for hunting. As Swarovski have their anniversary discounts available until end of September I thought I'd try an 8x bin.

As I'm now 61 and my max pupil size has probably decreased I'm wondering whether I'd be better off with a smaller, lighter binocular such as the Swarovski EL 8x32 SV.

Would like to try an 8x as I've used 10x for years. Distances vary in my hunting areas from fairly close to way out. For those that own or have experience with the EL 8x32 SV, how do you rate them in low light, sharpness, color fidelity etc?

As I have to order these from the U.S. sending them back is not an option.

Thanks.

zeissman,

Since you are used to 10X I would be willing to bet a bundle, for a retired mill worker, that you will be disappointed with 8X.

zeissman,

While my 8x32 EL is the best 8x32 I've ever looked through, and the sharpness and color rendition are as good as they get, no 32mm objective binocular can quite match a larger objective binocular in low light, even with aging eyes. And no 8x, not matter how good, will perform as well as a 10x of equal quality as in all-around, short-to-long use.

Many consider the 8x32 EL SV to be the finest 8x binocular currently on the market, myself included. I recently had both the EL and Zeiss 8x32 FL for a few weeks and thought the EL was best in most respects.

This year I switched to 8x32 binoculars after using 10x42 for almost 8 years. Overall I prefer the 8x. More specifically, I prefer the smaller package, lighter weight and reduced hand-held shake. The only time I miss the 10x is when I have my binoculars on a tripod. Holding with just my hands, I can see everything with 8x that I could with 10x, and sometimes more when my heart rate is up from hiking or buck fever. Dropping from a 42 to a 32 does reduce low light performance. However, IMHE it's only a small difference (5 minutes if I had to guess) with high quality glass at the very very last/first light.

Thanks guys. I'll have to seriously mull over what you've said. I was thinking that my 10x42 would have about the same light gathering as a 8x32, working on the exit pupil formula. However, that doesn't appear to be the case.

I would agree with that so long as you can keep the 10x's very steady John.

zeissman,

Exit pupil size does matter in dim light, but so does magnification, and even when the exit pupil is the same size a larger objective provides a slightly sharper image.

RD,

Yeah, that is a factor. But even at my advanced age I can hold 10x binoculars steady enough to see more detail than through 8x, and with some sort of rest can still hand-hold 12's enough to take advantage of the extra magnification.

Don't worry about it, get the 8X32 Swarovision and you won't be sorry. I have had most models in all the leading brands and at this time have Leica HD-B 10X42, Leica ultra vids and Swarovski 8X32 EL Swarovision and the last to go would be the 8X32.

Even if you change your mind, the Swarovski's will sell faster than the Leica if you do decide to change...

Not sure I understand this comment. Sounds like personal preference to me which is fine, but a 10x is not inherently superior as a binocular.

If both have 42mm objective, I'll take the 8x every time for "all-around, short-to-long use". But that is just my personal preference.

John,

I know I am not near the optics authority that you are- but I will ( IMHO) have to respectively disagree with your statement above.

IMO- and if I had to advise someone else, the best all around binocular to use for distance from the deep woods to open space would be a 8x. To me 8x has not only less shake potential, it also has wider FOV ( in most cases); and has better depth of field for short distance use.

And for my use- anything that a 10x does better than a 8x, is bettered even more by use of a quality spotter. So, a 8x for most all of my use, and a good spotter for those times when I want to reach out and see something farther is a much better combo for me than a 10x.

I can see all the detail I need with a steady hand hold on a 8x. For me, I can not say the same for a 10 x. And I have used both. And when chasing critters after a steep quick climb up some steep hill- even a 8x has a bit of shake to it; but to me not near as bad as a 10x.

But- different strokes....... And fortunately we are in a time period where there are lots of great optics choices out there to serve most all the folks.

Well, I'm not Mule Deer, but I think some of you guys are missing the point. The point he's making ( pretty sure?) is that all things being equal....in other words put an 8x42 and a 10x42 of equal quality on a tripod (taking the human shakes, etc equations out of the picture) and a 10x will show you more detail than the comparable 8x, especially an 8x32. Having grown up and hunted my whole life in open country, using and owning many of the top shelf binocs available, I would happen to agree with him, and I still reach for my 10x42's first (Meopta HD). However, for the past couple of years I've owned and used an 8x32 Cabelas Euro HD (meopta), and it is world class stuff and better built than most. IME, my 8x32 will crap out about 3-4 minutes before my 10x42 does. Whether or not that's worth it or not is up to you.

For open country muleys the 10x gets the nod, for semi open or creek bottom whitetails, or Africa, the 8x32 can't be beat, for me.

Hmm.

It seems that some believe an 8x somehow can help us see detail just as well as a 10x, and seeing distant detail is the entire point of a binocular.

The big point against 10x also appears to be more apparent shake. Well, if we're hand-holding a binocular, like somebody shooting offhand, then that's valid. But anybody who knows how to steady a rifle by using sitting, prone or a rest can also steady a binocular.

The fact is that a 10x binocular of equal quality offers 25% more detail than an 8x. This does make a difference in long-distance glassing, and it's a basic optical fact, no matter what somebody claims about seeing as much detail with an 8x as with a 10x.

If somebody wants to set up their spotting scope every time they can't quite tell what something is with their 8x binocular, then they're welcome to do so. But when seriously glassing open country I want to be able to tell whether something across canyon is a deer or a log, without hauling out the spotter every time there's a question. Which is exactly why I usually carry a 10x or even a 12x when glassing big country.

This does not mean I don't like 8x binoculars. I do, and have used plenty of them (and will use them again) to help me kill lots of animals over the years. I own and use several good ones right now, including a Swarovski EL 8x32. I also sometimes use 7x and even 6x binoculars for certain purposes.

But the OP asked about glassing everything from close up to a long ways off, and I gave my answer, based on some experience. That includes not just my own glassing but watching other people glass, including people I've guided. Whenever there was a question about something, many of those people asked to look through my 10x or 12x binoculars, and very often the question was answered without hauling out the spotter. (And yes, I always have a spotting scope handy when glassing big country.)

So no, my answer was not just "personal preference," but based on decades of using binoculars to find game in big country. Yes, 8x works fine in timber or semi-open country, whether in North America, Africa or wherever, but for serious glassing at longer distances give me at least 10x, every time.

Mule Deer is absolutely correct!

I mentioned this before but will do it again since it goes to the point of magnification against magnification. Before I became a proponent of high magnification rifle scopes I was looking at various 3-9X�s. Since I am not loyal to the mark, I started with a Tasco and compared it with a Bushnell. I did this keeping the better of the two all the way up to a Swarovski and Zeiss (I believe was the other) and went back and forth a couple times. Finally I settled on the Swarovski.

All the scopes were set on 9X. I was comparing them on a �line� about a block from the store. The man behind the counter instructed, �I�m going to hand you one more. Don�t look at the name, just look through it.� It was also set on 9X. There was no need to go back and forth with this. It was instantly better than the Swarovski. I took it away from my eye and looked at the brand: Leupold LPS. I noticed it was a 2 �-10X so turned it up to 10X. The line became an extension cord laying on the roof. Right then I decided if a little is that good a lot is a lot better.

In a contest to see detail an 8X of the same quality is not in the same league as a 10X.

For hunting mostly open country a 10x42 reigns supreme IMO.

For everything else a 8x is better (particularly a 8x42) better DOF,FOV, brighter,easier eye placement, easier to hold steady, just all around more pleasant to the eyes over an equal 10x42. I have owned and will not own a premium 8x32 again. You give up too much in low light compared to an equal 8x42. I will carry the extra weight of the 8x42.

For a hunter that can only own one pair of binoculars and may be hunting open country the 10x42 is what I would recommend.

I own both a premium 8x42 and 10x42 and use what is the best for the terrain I am hunting with the 10x42 being the default binocular if I can't decide.

I agree for mostly open country, a 10x ( or even more) is probably better than a 8x.

But it was the statement for both short - to - long ( close to far) that a 10x was better than a 8x, that I disagreed with. That along with the OP's seeking an opinion for a binocular for "fairly close to way out" is why I recommended a 8x. And I still stand by that opinion- I simply have a different opinion for a good all around power size.

But I have and use 6x; 7x; 8x; and 10x binoculars- and which one I grab depends on the situation. And then again, my opinions on this is probably steered by many years of use of optics here in Oregon. Everything from thick wet jungle like terrain going after Blacktails, to long distance glassing on the dry east side.

Not everyone wants to have a variety of optics, and if I was going to suggest one power for all use, or be told that I can only pick one binocular power for myself to use- it would be a 8x ( probably in a 8x42 format). Some may say if you can only have one power choice for all use from a 6x to a 10x- then pick the 10x. You know- "go big or go home". Well I would pick the 8x for my use if I only could pick one.

As far as a spotter, I often am not relying on one in most hunting situations. And I was not suggesting that one use a spotter instead of a 10x binocular. Only was saying that in most cases even in open country a 8x shows me what I need. And if I felt under gunned with that- for me I would rather have a spotter for real long distance verification - vs always relying on carrying a 10x. Even though a 10x on a tripod is great for long term glassing, I would rather have a 8x around my neck and then use a 8x and a spotter on a tripod for long term glassing sessions.

And regarding the OP's ? regarding the Swaro 8x32 Swarovision- it is one fantastic binocular. One of the best, if not the best 8x32 ever produced. I did long term comparing that 8x32 Swarovision during all times of day up against a bright 8x42; and that 8x32 Swarovision hung right with it as far as light gathering. The 8x32 Swarovision was only bested by the 8x42 with regards to light gathering in the last minutes of twilight. And that was well after shooting light. The 8x32 Swarovision did better in my testing than the 8x32 EL that I tested it against as far as light gathering. And I always thought the 8x32 EL was good in that regard, but the 8x32 Swarovision was even better.

I mostly hunt open country also and probably couldn't tell much difference between 8 or 10x. Maybe.


A spotter is also present if it's a 'serious' hunt so of course that makes a big difference.



Last weekend I was watching a thrush(?) pick apart an insect on my front lawn. Maybe 30-40' feet away.

Older 10x's revealed that it appeared to be a 1-2" grasshopper.

Fancy new 8x's revealed that it was indeed a grasshopper...

A black one with green stripes on his hind legs.





This thread has convinced me that I need a new pair of 10x's also.

Enablers......grin

+1. Sitting or parked behind a tripod all day, give me the 10x (or more). On the move hiking, putting on a stalk or general all-around use give me an 8x. If it were only about magnification I'd be rocking 15x. ;-)

Here's another opinion I ran across doing some research years ago the OP may find useful:

"The US military has studied the human body as it relates to optics... They also found that 97% of the test group could HANDHOLD a 7 X bino well enough to CORRECTLY count the lines on a 7X resolution chart.............but only 8% could CORRECTLY count the lines with a handheld 10X bino on a 10X resolution chart. All of the binos had at least a 5mm exit pupil. The test group were required to use both hands, could sit, stand, or kneel, steady themselves in any way against any part of their own body but were not allowed to lay prone or use any foreign object to help steady themselves or the bino. The test group were between the age of 18-27.

Bino's by design are handheld, so it only makes sense to use a binocular that gives you the best possible options while using them handheld. If most of your glassing is from a bluff overlooking a huge expands of land and you glass while sitting then by all means get a tripod and buy a 15X or use a spotting scope. But for that peice of glass that hangs around your neck that you use in MOST hunting conditions..... what's the best option? BTW I love those answers along the lines of "well I hunt out west were you can see for miles"?????? Well I live on earth and I can see for millions of miles with my naked eye completely through our atmosphere and see Mars. How many of you know that you can clearly see the rings of Saturn with only 20X. ..... (the larger the exit pupil the better the resolution.) By the way I live in New Mexico and can clearly see with as much detail as you can.... the same thing you're looking at with 10X...... because I use an optic that gives me excellent resolution and I CAN HOLD IT STILL ENOUGH to take advantage of that resolution.

Lets talk about hunting conditions. How many of you all are going to tell me you never use your bino with ONE hand. How many of you are going to tell me you can't "see" your heart beat or your breathing cycle when looking through your binos. How many of you are going to tell me you are as steady as a rock with a pack on your back and a bow or gun in one hand as you top a ridge and see movement on the next ridge over. How many of you are going to tell me you are as calm as a lamb when you see a tangled web of antlers on top of that buck or bull. Movement is your enemy when looking through any optic and the more power you try to handhold the more that movement is magnified. You see the question is NOT will the 10X or 12X bino produce good resolution. With most decent optics made today the answer is almost certainly YES they will produce good resolution. The question IS can you hold them steady enough to take advantage of that resolution? "

John has killed more Cape Buffalo than I, but I can top his elk count. Granted some were with a pick up, but I still win that contest. I will state as strongly for the 8X as John will for the 10x. I have tried them all, back and forth and at this time have the Leica 10X HD-B as well as the Swarovision 8X32, and will still keep the 8X over the 10X42 for all around use.

I do have also have a pair of Swarovision 10X42 that I would sell if someone likes them over the 8X. Having the best of both worlds, I can use them all, but I stand with the 8X crowd, at least for now...

8X here as well. Swaros as well. The only time Ive found 10 X preferable was on a caribou hunt. My 8X could tell you it was a bull from 2 miles away. My pards 10X Swaros could tell you if it was worth the walk over to get him.

Since this HAS apparently become a �personal preference� voting contest, it might be useful here to revisit the original post:
�I have and use Zeiss Victory HT 10x42 binoculars for hunting. As Swarovski have their anniversary discounts available until end of September I thought I'd try an 8x bin. As I'm now 61 and my max pupil size has probably decreased I'm wondering whether I'd be better off with a smaller, lighter binocular such as the Swarovski EL 8x32 SV. Would like to try an 8x as I've used 10x for years. Distances vary in my hunting areas from fairly close to way out. For those that own or have experience with the EL 8x32 SV, how do you rate them in low light, sharpness, color fidelity etc? As I have to order these from the U.S. sending them back is not an option.�
Please note: �Distances vary in my hunting areas from fairly short to way out.� He did not say really short, but fairly short. He did not say somewhat long, but way out. He�s been using a really good 10x for a long time, and is asking how the Swarovski 8x32 (not an 8x40 or 8x42) will compare. Since I have a Swarovski 8x32 EL and have used it considerably, along with a bunch of other good 8x and 10x binoculars, I posted this answer, very early in this thread:
�While my 8x32 EL is the best 8x32 I've ever looked through, and the sharpness and color rendition are as good as they get, no 32mm objective binocular can quite match a larger objective binocular in low light, even with aging eyes. And no 8x, no matter how good, will perform as well as a 10x of equal quality as in all-around, short-to-long use.�
I have noticed that none of the pro-8x posts since have come close to answering his question. One quoted a military study about how well people could HANDHOLD a binocular and see stuff, though exactly who was in the test group isn�t revealed�and then talks about holding binoculars in one hand. Shrapnel talked about how he�s killed a bunch of elk using an 8x. Well, gee, I used a 6x when grizzly hunting and spotted the one I killed (about the size of a cow elk) over a mile away, but that doesn�t mean 6x is superior to 8x or 10x for all-around use.
Several people stated that they prefer 8x, apparently because they can�t hold 10x steady. They apparently also assume their hunting is exactly like his in New Zealand. But none addressed the original question.
The OP has been using a very fine Zeiss 10x for many years, at least partly because he often glasses �way out.� He apparently hasn�t been having any problems holding a 10x steady, but now wonders if the lighter 8x32 Swarovski will provide the same level of performance, and mentions sharpness and low light.
I explained why I didn�t think it would, including many instances where hunting partners using very good 8x binoculars (some even Swarovski 8x32�s) asked if they could use my 10x so they could see something better, exactly like Ingwe could see the caribou better when he borrowed a partner�s 10x. And they ALL could see whatever they were looking at better with 10x, even without a tripod or any other fancy way to hold the 10x steady.
The entire point of the OP�s question was to get a realistic idea of whether the 8x32 Swarovski would outperform his 10x42 Zeiss Victory HT for his uses. I explained why I didn�t think so, and despite all the pro-8x protests, still don�t.

To my esteemed colleague and shooting mentor, and everyone else viewing, this is the question of the OP that I addressed. I didn't go into black bars and different aspects of various binoculars, brands and powers as I would have to write a book and you know I don't like to read.

In short, I will continue to recommend the 8X32 Swarovision to simply answer the above question, again, you will not be disappointed...

Can't remember ever saying, "Damn these 10x42 Leicas. Wish I had me an 8."

I don't know if he would or not, Kirk, and since he can't return it easily don't know whether I'd bet that firmly on him preferring it to his 10x42 Zeiss Victory, a very fine binocular I've also owned and used considerably. But whatever.

Oh, I forgot one thing. I would guess (but obviously don't know, with a couple of exceptions) that most people who responded haven't hunted New Zealand. It is different than Montana, and most other places I've hunted. While an 8x would do fine for much of the hunting, as it would anywhere on earth, for an all-around NZ glass I would definitely go 10x--and did, taking a 10x42 Meopta, and was very happy with the choice. The glassing was for animals the size of small deer to medium-sized elk, usually across a canyon or even two, without any snow for contrast, sometimes in the open but often in fairly thick vegetation. Maybe the OP can comment here.

B-I-N-G-O!!!

Someone needs to make a 9x42 binocular.



Swaro Ultra 9.


Pimp glass.


It would sell like crazy.

That glass has been available for several years...Swarovski Swarovision 8.5X42. The question was about whether or not El 8X32 Swarovision was a good choice.

I started out with 8's, tried 10's for a while, and then went to a pair of 8.5 Minoxs.

What I like about the 8/8.5s is their field of view. I usually carry a spotter, so honing in on fine detail isn't a huge issue for me.

They need to call them 9's!, and or Ultra....(tongue in cheek comment).

This. 7x is the sweet spot. 8x might be okay. If sniper instructors were required to use 10x's on stalking days, the graduation rate would be higher. What no one has mentioned is that as magnification increases, depth perception goes to hell, and that is just as important as resolution.

Ditto.

Well guys, I appreciate all and I mean all of your replies.

I do a lot of bush hunting at very close ranges, where I don't even take my binoculars. In spring and summer the Red and Sika deer venture out into more open country for the grass. They can be found early morning and evening on river flats, slips and clearings in heavily forested areas at say 70-220 yards, to open tussock country where the distances can be 600-1,000 yards or more. As I use a Sako 85 .308 with a Z6 1.7-10x42 scope, I limit my shooting to no more than 400 yards. If I see a good animal worth shooting at more than that distance, I'll attempt to get as close as I can.

Many deer don't venture out until just on dark, particularly so in well hunted public land. On private land and more remote areas they're naturally less cautious.

My Zeiss Victory HT 10x42 is a very good binocular in low light and very sharp too, but I find the barrels a little too fat for my girly sized hands. I also don't find the eyecups particularly comfortable. Apart from that, I like them. I can hold them reasonably steady up to a point. Not so easy though after hiking up some steep ridge as my recovery rate is nowhere near what it used to be. Still, I always glass from a sitting position unless it's a quick glance while on the move.

A good friend who uses Swaro EL 10x42 Range binos, dropped by tonight. He's a very successful and open minded hunter and he agreed with what shrapnel suggested. I can buy the 8x32 SV and trial them and if I don't want to keep them then I can sell them here in NZ. Swarovski is very popular with hunters here along with Leica. Zeiss less so as the importer seems to concentrate more on Conquest HD scopes. All the high end optics are expensive here so I would probably not lose any money on the 8x32 SV's and probably not on the Victory HT's either as I bought them at a good price from Camerland and I'll no doubt do the same with the 8x32 SV.

Thanks again for your help and hot barrels to you all.

There seems to be a common trait here, those that want more power in their binoculars like lower power fixed scopes.

I don't know if that is a weakness or strength, but I do know I fall into the other camp with variable scopes and 8X...

A hearty Amen from the back row.....

IMO-

Great choice! And from everything you are describing for your hunting needs- the 8x32 Swarovision will do everything you want. And the way you describe your hunting and elevation changes- well that is exactly why I suggested the 8x bino's. PLUS- you already have a great 10x for those times when you need it. I would venture to guess that after carrying around that little 8x32 Swarovision for a while- it will be your go to bino that you will pick up and use for 90% of your hunting. And then you still have a 10x HT for the times that call for that.

And that 8x32 Swarovision is a cracking binocular! In your original post you asked: ".... 8x32 SV, how do you rate them in low light, sharpness, color fidelity etc?". Well I can assure you that it has that in spades!

Here is a personal impression/ review that I did and posted a couple of years ago on what was IMO (4) of the best quality 8x32's around:

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=236943

^^^ totally agree, as I myself fall in the 8x camp. The more power is prevalent for sure. It is like Tim the tool man's famous call for more power. Well, sometimes more power is great and sometimes less is more.

And what is interesting to me in particular about John ( Mule Deer ) comments above is that all most 17-18 years ago I read an article by him extolling the virtues of lower power binoculars ( I think I still have it somewhat). Well anyways in the article he had a comment about some European optic company having an in office experiment between different optics. Some were 8x and some were 7x ( can you just imagine- only 7 power ;^). So they covered up the power symbols and had people look through them and say which one they liked the best. And... The consensus was the 7x was the winner by a large margin. The reason I found it interesting at the time was I was trying to decide between my first major optics purchase and was picking between a 7x and 8x Swarovski. And the store owner was trying to steer me towards the 7x- because he thought it was a better binocular for my needs, and my Brother in Law at the time said I should certainly get the 8x. Well, after reading the John Barsness article and thinking about it a while, I walked in and bought the 7x and never regretted it.

Earlier I posted I purchased 10X Aplen Tetons. I bought them for my upcoming caribou hunt hunt and sheep hunt. I used to use to use 8X here in Western Oregon, but a couple years ago I switched to 7X35. I like them so much I sold or gave away all my 8X binos.

They are definitely not as good for discerning detail. The other day I found a bird on a vertical pipe about 100 yards away. I hurried went and got the Alpen 10X. Holding by hand I could tell it was not a bird, but a valve on the top of an exhaust pipe on the tractor. Ten power is better for those of us who can use it.

I got a Swaro Companion 8x30CL last year. Love them they are a joy to carry and the clarity just blows my mind.

llama2,

I never said anywhere in this thread that 8x (or even 7x) binoculars are useless. In fact if you read the posts I've made I emphasized more than once that I use 6x to 8x binoculars a LOT. For average hunting I usually pick up an 8x.

But for longer-range glassing (say more than half a mile) I much prefer 10x, for the reasons already stated. In fact for serious open-country glassing my preferred binocular, by far, is my 8+12 Leica Duovid. I often start out with it on 8x, for closer glassing (which is the place to start, even in open country) but within 20 minutes it usually ends up on 12x and stays there, because I can see better. (Maybe I have steadier hands than some other people, but I doubt it, especially since I'm the OP's age, 61.)

One other thing I'd like to point out is that I often compare an entire line-up of various binoculars, usually right as the sun is setting, usually with other people, since human eyes vary. While the 8x32 EL is a great glass (as noted, many people think they're the best 8x32 in the world, and I wouldn't dispute it), when comparing it to a 8.5x42 or 10x42 EL in that last few minutes of shooting light, the view degrades much more quickly and noticeably in the 8x32, and stays very sharp and bright much longer in the bigger Swarovskis.

This is due to a little-discussed facet of optics: The bigger the objective, the sharper the view, and no, that's not depending on magnification. This is because a smaller objective has more edge-to-lens area, and the edge of the lens is what scatters light, degrading the image. This tendency is exaggerated by dim light, when the pupils of our eyes open up.

The most extreme example I've ever seen happened when I was guiding in central Montana in the late 1980's. The outfitter I worked for had been given a Zeiss compact binocular, a 10x, as a tip by a customer. Can't remember right now if the objectives were 20mm or a little larger, but it doesn't matter.

That same fall an company noted for its very "affordable" optics sent me a 10x50 binocular which retailed for under $50. The outfitter and I were out scouting one day, just before some new clients came in, and of course he used his new, expensive Zeiss--and was really pissed off that I was seeing a lot more, even in bright daylight, with the cheapo 10x50. And when we switched glasses he could too.

The same principle applies even to Swarovski binoculars. Just because they make some of the finest optics in the world doesn't mean their binoculars bypass basic optical laws.

The OP will be very pleased with his 8x32 EL, as its one of the world's greatest hunting binoculars. But I would be interested to hear how he likes it after a few months, when he's had a chance to use it a lot more, especially in dim light and at longer distances.

Good stuff John!

I always enjoy reading your information on optics ( and other things). Thanks.

_____________________
Stephen

Thank you John.

Schrap: Interesting observation....one not lost on me and have noticed it myself.

I find 'em with a 10X....and sneak in and kill 'em with a 4X. Just the way it always worked out, I guess. Killing them is easy and finding them is the hard part

Anyone know where I can buy another 4X Conquest ?


BTW I am sorta lathered up for a 7x42. Thinking about a poro prism, too!

8x power country...grin

I think it's damn near impossible for one person to judge what binocular will work best for another hunter, even if they hunt the same animal in the same terrain. A person's hunting methods and style has a lot to do with what binocular suits him best.
Sometimes I hunt mule deer by moving constantly, but stopping every several steps to glass offhand. (I see a lot of deer doing this, by the way) For that, a good light six power is ideal because of the non critical focus and great depth of field.
The next day I might hunt the same area, but by sitting in one place and glassing from a sitting position and a ten power binocular is ideal. Another time, I am not sure what way I am going to hunt so 8X is the ticket.
Also, there is more to a binocular than magnification and exit pupil. How fast or slow the binocular focuses, how the eye cups work, how heavy or light they are, how they resolve color, all those things are very subjective and a person has to have the binocular in hand to see how suitable it is, I think.

Royce

Sam 15X would be at home there, too.

I see your into name brand optics! You are "Zeissman" !

I like upscale scopes and bino's also however I have found less expensive ones suitable as well.

As a senior, older than you, I have good eyesight and find the resolution of my Leupold 8X binos and others good and competitive with my Hensoldt 8X's.

I would not spend Zeiss $$$ on small binos. To each his own on this as the eye doctor asks us "which is better, A or B?"

The Leupold 8X to 12X switch power bino's I got are my favorites. Here they are:



8X is not quite enough when the distances are way out there. 12X is better. I can hold the 12X steady enough.

The 8X Leupold Wind Rivers have been durable and good, my son's Pentax are good as well. The Hensoldt 8X56 Nacht Dialyts are good, expensive, heavy and big.

Kirk,

Actually, I don't prefer higher-X binoculars and lower-X scopes for big game hunting.

First, as already noted on this thread I own and hunt with a lot of binoculars under 10x, including one of your beloved 8x32 Swarovski EL�s, which I really like. Mostly I use them in country where half a mile would about as far as it�s possible to see, but have used them at longer ranges as well.

Second, I just went through my list of big game rifles, and while there are a bunch of smaller fixed-power scopes on them, most scopes of 4x or less are on rifles of .30 caliber or more, whether chambered for shorter-range cartridges such as my .30-40 Krag double rifle or my Savage 99 .358 Winchester, or on larger medium-bores such as the .358 Norma, 9.3x62 Mauser or .375 H&H that are primarily used on bigger animals.

There are three 4x scopes on rifles under .30, but they�re all on classic, walnut-stock hunting rifles that simply look better with 4x scopes. Here I must also add that I�ve never had any trouble killing big game at 400+ yards with 4x scopes, and have never felt the need to shoot at any big game animal at over 550 yards, though have shot numerous varmints out to 800+.

There are quite a few 6x scopes on my big game rifles, but I don�t consider 6x low magnification, though obviously it�s not exactly high-X either. But my big game rifles for longer-range shooting all have scopes capable of at least 9x, though a couple are fixed 10�s, as I�ve never seen any real reason for turning down a scope on a long-range rifle to even 6x. Have shot deer as close as 150 yards with a 10x scope, no problem, and have seen Eileen do the same at 50-150 yards with variable scopes cranked all the way up to 8-10x, and even 14x.

In fact, I tend to carry lower-power binoculars when hunting with rifles equipped with lower-power scopes, and higher-power binoculars when hunting with rifles equipped with higher-power scopes. Or at least that�s the overall trend, no doubt due to the country being hunted. Though on occasion I�ve done the opposite: Once took my 8+12x Leica to Quebec to hunt caribou, along with an iron-sighted rifle. Guess I�m not exactly predictable�.

For what it is worth... I had a pair of 10X Lecia Geovids last year that were stolen one week before I was to leave on a hunt.
Called Doug at Camera Land. All they had in stock was a 8X and I told them to send it.

Have missed the 10X ever since

Lefty C

John,

As you already know, there aren't half dozen guys here that have owned more optics than I have. As I stated earlier, what I have is what I am using now, who knows what the future holds.

I moved from 10X after ELs came out and when the quality of optics allowed the definition in viewing to be able to see points on a rack with 8.5 ELs. Previously using Zeiss Classics and then Leica Trinovids when they came out, 10X still the preferred power.

Then at a sheep show, I got my first look at the EL 8.5X and sold the 10X in favor of the 8.5X. Since then I have owned Leica Ultra Vids In both 8X and 10X, Geovids in 8X and 10X and HD as well. I also owned Swarovski 8.5 X and 10X in Swarovision before I bought the EL range binoculars. I did buy the 8X first, but sold them I favor of the 10X.

I have also owned Leica HD-B in both 8X and 10X, selling the 8X and keeping the 10X. At this time I have 10X Swarovision , 10X HD-B, Ultra Vid compact 8X20 and Swarovski 8X32 EL Swarovision. The 10X42 Swarovision is for sale, the HD-B are on waivers awaiting final decision whether they will get traded, Ultra Vids are keepers and the 8X32 EL would be the last to go.

I bought all of these on my own dime and used them extensively in the field not looking at black bars on the wall of a sporting goods store. I have been accused by some here of being a Swarovski dealer, looking at what I've owned, maybe I should have. It is funny when someone from New Jersey makes some comment about what I have used here in Montana.

You also know I have no issues about your choices either, we have shot enough together to know we base our decisions on our personal experience, not from something we read somewhere. I am not stuck with only 8X, but these ELs are spectacular...

Kirk,

That's interesting. My first Swarovski EL was an 8.5x42--which I eventually turned into an 8x32 AND a 10x42!

No, not necessarily Savage. I just use what I like and I generally like Zeiss optics having used a Diatal C 4x for nearly 20 years with absolutely perfect performance. Also use some Zeiss camera lenses and my current 10x42 binoculars.

I use a Swarovski Z6 1.7-10 currently on my favourite hunting rifle but usually on about 2x in the thick stuff and 6-8x on long shots. It's a good scope but nothing exceptional, just versatile. I've had very reliable performance from many Leupold scopes in the past.

However, the cost of items like high-end bino's and scopes are really not that expensive when you think about how many years of use you get out of them. Look at cars in comparison; black holes for money.

I have a 26 year old pair of Steiner Military 8x30 bins which I got out of the cupboard this morning and scanned the neighbourhood. They're not bad but they lack crispness and light gathering. It's a case of diminishing returns with optics. The mid tier optics are pretty good and there's a huge increase in cost to go up a small level in performance.

One thing I noticed with the 8x Steiner's is that with the FOV being naturally greater than my Zeiss 10x less panning is necessary to locate what you're looking for. In reality, I don't need to count the hairs on a deer's hide, just locate it and decide whether to take it. If so, then close in or take the shot from where I am if it's within range.

Good advice!

I couldn't agree more.....

While to certain extent that�s true, there are certain basic realities about optics and hence binoculars. But here there�s another factor: Fifteen years ago I published a book on hunting optics. It�s out-of-date by now, the reason I�m just finishing up another, but at the time many people considered it among best books on the subject. Consequently, many people ask my opinion on hunting optics, and don�t expect: �It�s all personal preference based on hunting and glassing style, so there�s no answer.�

That�s one of the reasons Rick has long encouraged my presence here, and part of the reason I can provide at least some suggestions is for decades I�ve watched other people use binoculars, and normally test binoculars with at least one or two other people, so I can see if they have any problems. Conseqtently, my suggestions aren�t just based on my �personal preference,� but on the experiences of many people.

On the other hand my friend Kirk (Shrapnel) has had no one to please but himself. Consequently, when he firmly states he�s found 8x a lot better during his decades of using a lot of binoculars, he�s saying that about himself, which is indeed �personal preference.�

Other people here also prefer 8x over 10x, and there are reasons for that, incuding hand-shake. Some people also do most of their glassing offhand, and some do it from the cab of their pickup with the engine running. Also, 8x42�s provide a larger exit pupil than 10x42�s (though 8x32�s do not) and that can be a factor in glassing comfort as well.

But the other reality is that 10x does provide 25% more detail than 8x, everything else being equal. And I have yet to run into anybody who didn�t see something better when they looking through a 10x versus an 8x of equal quality. That has been universal over decades of testing binoculars with other people, regardless of their color perception or most other individual factors.

One individual eye-factor that can make a major difference is interpupillary distance. On average women have eyes closer together than men, mostly because women are on average smaller, but there�s considerable overlap. One of the surprises I had years ago was when a guy I know asked about a good 8x30 or 8x32 binocular for his woods hunting. At the time one of the best was made by Nikon, so I recommended it. He bought one and couldn�t use it, because despite his fairly broad face his eyes were slightly too close together for the Nikon�s minimum interpupillary distance. He could see OK at first, but after a minute or two started feeling eyestrain.

Just this morning I was testing three 10x42�s with the help of my wife Eileen, who has also looked through a lot of binoculars over the years, partly because she wrote the optics column for the NRA magazine Women�s Outlook. She has an interpupillary distance on the low side, and had trouble with one of the 10x42�s for the same reason.

On the other hand, when one of my sisters started bird-watching this year around her home in California, she asked about a good binocular. Since her birthday was coming up, I had her measure her interpupillary distance, then mailed her the same Nikon 8x32 my friend couldn�t use, since I still had one on hand. It works great for her, because her eyes are a wider-set than his�and Eileen�s.

All binoculars are adjustable for interpupillary distance, but some are more adjustable. I didn�t ask zeissman about it, partly because his user name says he�s a man, and partly because the Swarovski 8x32 EL�s interpupillary distance is very flexible.

If anybody prefers to believe there�s no possible answer to zeissman�s question, that�s their right. But I obviously don�t think that�s totally true, and neither do several of my friends who constantly test optics, both for hunting and bird-watching.

Looking forward to your next book on hunting optics John. Lots of good points being made here on personal preferences and for me, I prefer the 8x mainly for the reasons you've pointed out already. I do most of my glassing hand held, so I get a better view (steadier) with the 8x's. I've owned 10x and when I can support them, I do get a better picture so to speak, but being a whitetail hunter, most of my bino use is at shorter distances in typical whitetail habitat.

Someone's starting to sound like safariman.

Really, I've forgotten the amount of bino's I've owned, much less used.

I think the replies on this thread pretty much substantiate what I said- Lostrra, llamas, sharp, Ingwe, Bellydeep, Ringman, and ssphoge (excuse any misspellings, please) seem to prefer 8x, Samolson and Russ Outdoors are somewhere in the middle and Yimberbuck, bobinnh, and Leftycarbon prefer 10X binoculars.

Once narratives are established, they stick like epoxy...

Imagine that Swaro has been the most successful optik marketing firm to date, in terms of weaving words. That said, I like the examples on hand...

FWIW...stole a new Pentax DCF ED 10x50 and compared it to an "old" EL 8.5x42 (first year) for some time and distances this weekend--which led to more comparisons. Bottom line was magnification and objective still are an advantage to older eyes...

but by all means if you want a lighter glass you probably won't ever regret the EL...:)

Judging from the OP's handle, I'd say give the Zeiss Conquest HD 8X32's a look - amazing binos for under $600 if you get demos from doug and take advantage of the Zeiss rebate.

Yes, I thought that too. Never looked through a pair but have heard good reports about them.

Had a quick look through some Swaro 10�32 SV's yesterday as the store didn't have any 8x32's. Really liked the ergonomics and the view was very impressive. I was viewing outside the store with a shop assistant watching me and warbling on in my ear as they are apt to do.

Don't forget 10x32 answers this part of your update.

Off topic by me; but, read the rebate before you make that leap. Demos are not included.