Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Binoculars.....6X vs 8X vs 10X

I have 10x25 cheap Nikon's. Old Pentax 8x42 DCF. And newer Leupold 10x42 BX-3 Mojave.

I like the higher magnification. But the lower power models have an advantage in low light.

I might enjoy some higher end 8x32, but the 10x25 is so compact and lightweight.

8X for quick looks for me.

Had a pair of 7X42’s stole a while back and am thinking of replacing them.

8x works great for my style of hunting. I use the Leupold BX3 Mojave with great results near and far.

I have 3 each 8x42 s of different makes. I’ve tried 10x and they seem to work OK for sitting in blinds, which I do little of. I’ll stick with 8x for hunting. Happy Trails

Depends wholly on the distance involved and what you are trying to see. Sometimes weight is also a major consideration. Lens technology has gotten so good that the difference in mid priced to premium glass has shrunk considerably. For me it is 8X Zeiss compacts, 8X Tract standards, 10X Zeiss and 12.5 Tracts. Had some 15X Swaros but switched to the Tracts for larger FOV and I carry a spotter for the real detail/distance viewing.

The new Kowa BD II 8x42 is an 8x with the wide FOV of a 6x Check it out

419’ looks pretty damn wide....

As of this moment, my wife and I have 22 binoculars, with magnifications that range from 6x to 16x. With the exception of a couple antiques that I have on hand for historical comparisons, they all get used at some time or another--but we have more 7x, 8x and 10x binoculars than anything else, in fact equal numbers of all three.

Some comments:
I really like the Leupold 6x30 Yosemite for being light and compact, with plenty of magnification for certain purposes, whether woods hunting or even glassing for really big game in more open country, accompanied by a spotting scope of course. Used to have a 6x Zeiss pocket binoculars from the early 1990s that was also very good, and even lighter--but it turned out not to be sealed against moisture (which was also true of Zeiss riflescopes in those days).

There aren't as many 7x binoculars made anymore, but it's also great option for those who mostly glass "offhand."

8x is now the general choice for general glassing, especially for those hunters who take relatively quick looks, especially offhand. My favorite right now is the Burris Signature HD 8x42, because it has very good optics in a very lightweight, but full-size, package.

I prefer 10x for real glassing, sitting down and picking apart the country, because it definitely provides more detail than 8x. But if I for some reasong I had to spend the rest of my life with one binocular, it would definitely be my 8+12x42 Leica Duovid. At 42 ounces it's on the heavy side, but not so much I'm not willing to carry it for days at a time, and the weight actually helps for serious work. When turned down it provides the advantages of 8x--a sharper view from relatively unsteady positions, wider field of view--but when on 12x it provides noticeably more detail than 10x.

Also still have a Minox 15x and Nikon 16x for tripod use, but don't use them all that much anymore, since with the Leica on 12x the logical step up is a spotter.

I’ve got an ancient pair of Tasco 7x50’s that I believe have a magnesium body. They’re like a cinderblock around your neck.

Generally, my feelings too except I use Leica.

Always 10x for hunts that will have more sitting & glassing, especially long distances, along with a spotting scope; 8's (only a little lighter/smaller) if I'm moving more, glassing quickly for shorter periods & at shorter distances...........6's or 7's would probably be almost as good, but I have what I have & am not going to buy new for the small differences.

MM

I've been using some 8x42 Kahles for 15 years now and love them. Bought some of the economy grade 8x32 Swaros a few years back and they went down the road fairly quick. Glass gave me fits , they were light though.

I think people checking out those 6x Yosemites were surprised at how much magnification it offers. The field of view is huge and makes for a very comfortable transition from naked eye to bin.

I am liking the compact size of the newer 8x32 roof but they were much better when using in more open spaces. In semi-thick cedars which are a repetitive picture , if I am being honest, I would say the power is too much and field of view too small for me to pick up on that fence post or burnt brown patch I see obviously with the naked eye. Those 6x were much better for that.

I have always felt something in the 7x35 was about the best of everything and guess I still do- even though the 6x30 Yotes would be perfect for where I typically hunt now. Course I gifted them already.

If Leica, Zeiss or Swarovski made a 7x32/35 that would be my do-all glass. Since they don't I use a Leica 8x32 Ultravid.

Personally I have no use for 10X glass, if I need more than 7x or 8x I'll pull out a spotter.

As a backpack hunter I find 40/42mm glass too much of a burden. However, to my eyes, the two finest binoculars on the planet are the Leica 7x42 Ultravid and 8x42 Noctivid.

I have a 15 year old pair of Japanese Nikon 7x42 binos that let me count antler points out to several hundred yards and still let me scan the woods at shorter distances and still have a decent field if view. I can't keep the 10X still enough to keep from driving me crazy and the field of view is small. 8X would serve about like my 7X I figure.

There are several "clones" with that configuration......Athlon Midas, Hawke Frontier, GPO ED, new Viper HD, etc, all with similar eye relief.

Wish I could have an alpha 7/8x30-35 with a LRF on board. Since I can't have that, I carry a Swaro EL Range 8x42.

I could dig that.
I sold a 7x42 Ultravid some years back - not one of my better moves.

FOV, after a certain point, is highly over rated, IMO.

MM

One of the handiest all-around hunting binoculars I've owned was the 7x30 Swarovski SLC they offered in the 1990s. Compared to what Swareovski offers today, the glass wasn't quite as good, but they were still far more than adequate--and light but very rugged. They were also noticeably brighter and sharper than the 8x30 SLC they made at the same time, due to the larger exit pupil.

However, have talked to both Swarovski and other binocular makers about 7x, and most are not enthusiastic about it, mostly because of average customer prejudices. In fact, not all that long ago I did an informal poll at a big trade show, and apparently 10x outsells any other magnification across the board, even in "pocket" binoculars, where it does not work nearly as well as 6x to 8x, apparently because many people believe more is always better.

Among the semi-antique binoculars in my collection is a Nikon Porro-prism 7x35, the first really good binocular I bought, almost 40 years ago. The optics still compare VERY well with the best of today's, one reason it still goes into the field now and then.

I used a Swarovski 7x30 SLC for years. A really good binocular, but for me the optics and eye relief just weren’t up to the Leica 8x32BN that I replaced them with, or the later 8x32 Ultravid.

But if any of the Big 3 would make a 7x mid, that’s what I’d use (barring an overly flat field like the Swarovision).

Leica has done a new/old 7x35 Trinovid, but it’s only offered with leather, so it’s a no-go for me. Had they offered a rubber armored version as they originally proposed I’d be an owner. I think a 7x35 roof prism is the most practical sized bin that could be made.