Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Big "3" binocs: Really that much difference?

Hi,
I've read most of the posts here regarding Leica, Swarovski and Zeiss binoculars and am actually contemplating purchasing a high end set for hunting. You guys have given some great information and I truly appreciate this.

Currently, I have a set of Nikon Monarch ATB in 8X36 (paid $269)and I'm reasonably satisfied with them. They are clear, they seem tough and they were nice to carry in the woods this past fall.
...But I still find myself wanting more!

Money isn't the big problem, it's PARTING with the extra money that hurts! MY gawd I can get a backup set of larger Monarchs AND a Kimber rifle for that money!! Help!!

I hunt quite a bit, but nothing much at long ranges.
Here in Pennsylvania, we have an antler points restriction and I need clear binoculars to tell if a buck is a 6-point or a legal 8-point. This can be tricky around dawn/dusk.

Are the "Big 3" binoculars truly that much brighter than Nikon Monarchs? That much clearer?
Cabelas is 3 hours away. I could probably test them out in their store?

Advice? (other than perhaps wait a bit for more research)?

Pick them up and have a look see for yourself.

As 'ol Stick was fond of saying, (paraphrasing) "No one has ever asked what all the fuss was about after looking through a pair of excellent glass. Good gear sells AND pays for itself".

IMO,
You can always get buy with Nikon or other mid range binos. The difference between them and the big 3 is not as great as the difference between low end optics and mid range. Where high end glass comes into value is when you are looking through them for extended periods of time...like hunting out west where you spend hours at a time looking through glass. High quality optics greatly reduce eye fatigue. I will say that once you use good optics you will have a hard time looking through anything else. Also keep in mind that good binos hold their value very well. Provided you keep them a few years, you can almost always sell them for what you paid for them.

IMO the priorities for high-end hunring gear should be optics first, rifle second. Thus, it is better to be in hunting with high end optics and a low end rifle than the other way around. This idea is no doubt reinforced when you consider and quantify the time you spent glassing versus shooting.

I also agree with the comments already provided regarding the "investment" aspects of high end optics. Keep them and take care of them and you will get your money out of them if you decide to ever part with them.

they are, IMO.

you need to look through all though, as each set of eyes is a little different.

I'm about 40 miles south of you and understand the need for good optics with our AR program. I've looked thru a couple pairs of Monarchs and they're really good for the money but you will see a difference if you go with the big 3. I've had 8x20, 8x30, 8.5x42 and 15x56 Swaro's and out of the bunch the 8x30's SLC's seem to suite me the best for our area, although I've had them for just a couple days. I don't feel like I give up anything but maybe a couple minutes of low light viewing when compared to my 8.5x42 EL's. I wouldn't hesitate getting the 8x32 ultravids or the 8x32 FL T Zeiss victory's either. All will give you top notch performance with light weight, good FOV and durability for yrs. Also look at 7x42's if you're concerned with low light hunting. Some guys here swear by them.

Natchez shooting supply has their Zeiss 8x32 on sale for $999 which is a tremendous bargain for Victory FL's and I think they may have some 7x42's as well. Doug at Cameraland has demo 8x32 Ultravids for $1129. Dick's Sporting Good has the Swaro SLC's for 15% online(they should have a couple pairs at their Erie store for you to check out.)

Thank you for the information guys. Very professional and informative.

Rrroae:
I haven't seen Swaros at the Erie sport store. Hmm...
maybe I'll check the one in downtown Erie.

Sorry, they're at Gander Mountain at the mall.

I'd rather hunt with a cheaper rifle than cheaper binoculars. I use binoculars all day long when hunting the rifle hopefully for just 1 shot. So it pays to have the best for what you use the most.
Also you can use your binoculars for watching sports, birdwatching, etc..
I don't know that I've talked to anyone that's bought a really good pair of binoculars who regretted them and sold them to go back to a cheap pair. Maybe someone has but most guys I know who finally got a really good pair rave about them and wonder why they took so long to get them..........................DJ

About 2 years ago I was in the same boat. I travel the country for business so checking on bins wherever I went became the routine. I can tell you that before I started comparing bins I was quite happy with my $97 bins. After I started looking, I realized what I was missing. In the end I ended up with Zeiss Conquests (which are not the high end) but to my eyes they are great. I couldn't justify dropping the cash at the time, so I traded a rifle for them. I have not regretted it a single day since. I take those bins on every walk in the woods, every road trip and they stay in my office (at the house - I work from home when not traveling) the rest of the time.

If you're feeling as though you need more, head down to the Bass Pro Shops and Cabelas in Harrisburg, or the Bass Pro west of Syracuse, NY and compare all of the options. Everyone's eyes are different and only you can tell whether a $1,500 bin is better than a $500 bin to your eyes and your needs.

Good luck in your decision.

NH Hunter.

To be honest you cant go wrong with any of the big "3". I chose Swarovski for the customer service aspect.

It was about 12-15 years ago that I was out hunting coyotes with two of my friends, my one friend nudged me there is a yote coming in , I looked and looked but saw nothing. after 2 or 3 minutes my friend grew impatient and whispered lets trade bino's for a minute, he handed me his 10x42 Swarovski SLC's and almost instantly I spotted the coyote.
The color and contrast difference between high end bino's and mid range bino's is huge but you wont see it in a well lit showroom at the sporting goods store.
B

If you take the plunge and go with high end binos you wont be sorry.................547.

Eyes will naturally try to adjust to compensate for imperfections in a set of binoculars. The less the imperfections the less eye fatique,The almost imperceptible differencs in the more expensive binoculars are the difference in eye fatique when used over long periods of viewing.It is something you will not notice in store trials, but becomes very evident after you have used the higher end optics for a season.At the end of a day of hours and hours of viewing you do not experience eye burnout.I think the same is true for high end riflescopes. Over time(maybe several seasons) you will notice you are killing more often, more cleanly and at greater distances that with the less expensive scopes.Spend all you are willing to go and a little more than that if possible,you'll be happy.

That much difference between the "Big Three" and the Nikon Monarchs ? Like night and day. I've played with and compared the Monarchs to lots of glass. In my book, they are at the bottom of the barrel, or close to it. The Magellan Oly binos are easily better at the same price.
The ones that are very close, close enough to make me really work at seeing the difference, which I can only do by stacking both of them over a period of hours, or even days, are some of the so called mid priced ones, like the Pentax DCF SP's.
Then there are also some that will match the so called big three or even beat at least one of them in one model size and be cheaper, some of them much cheaper, in cost. What are they ? Try stacking a Pentax DCF ED against any of the big three in the 8X42 size. There are others. The Nikon LXL line will do this too. Their 8X32 in that size is usually found to be better than the Swaro EL in that size. The Cabela's Euro is another very close contender. It has the adavantage of being heavier than much of the competition which makes it much more user friendly. E

the biggest difference is customer service, and swarovski is the quickest and easiest to deal with if needed

After looking through the big boys several times I thought the biggest discernable difference between all the top end binos was the variance in price. Whether by sale, promotion, certified used, refurbished, etc a patient person can often find an exceptional value in one of these binos (very commonly from Doug at Cameraland).

My limited experience with Swaro, Zeiss and Leica binos led me to the conclusion that any of them were good enough for this kid although my personal preference in 10x42 was the Zeiss FL. However, I ended up with some brand new Leica Duovids 8+12x42 because a retailer had them unbelievably clearanced. Look at all of them, find the ones that suit you, and then look for the best value (in price, service, etc) and enjoy!

It is funny that you brought up our point restrictions. It was those very point restrictions that started my quest for better glass. I dare not post the list of binoculars I have gone through since then as the wife might get wind of this site. What I have found is that everyone really does prefer different characteristics not only in terms of optical quality but also ergonomics. No two people are alike so therefore no two people's binocular preferences will be alike either.

After having owned various Leica, Zeiss and Swarovski binoculars (along with a boatload of other brands/models) I can honestly say that you do most certainly benefit from buying high end glass. Various "little things" make the viewing experience so much more enjoyable.

First example, field of view. Take any of the mid to high priced models currently out there and you will notice that most of them offer a noticeably larger field of view than something along the lines of the Nikon Monarch (assuming 8x here). That, in and of itself, makes viewing anything much more natural.

Second, is the amount of distortion or aberration visible on any given unit. Binoculars at the $300 price point have a much wider range of quality control when compared with some costing three or four times as much. Plus even with good units at both price points you are likely see much less edge distortion as well as much less of the various aberrations in the high end binos. Again, more comfort and a higher ability to pick out detail.

Third, the images do tend to brighter with better clarity. This comes from higher quality glass, more glass and better coatings.

Lastly is the construction. Durability is much better at the higher price points. I have dropped many of the high end models without so much as a scratch on them. I have also dropped some low to mid-priced models only to then be forced to send them back to the company for repair. Ofcourse, I can say the opposite about a few of the models as well. [;)]

Don't overlook the Nikon LX and SE series. They should be included as "the big four" as they sacrifice nothing when compared with Swaro, Zeiss or Leica. Plus their guarantee is the best.

I'm of some different opinions on some of this.
First of all, I go along with Barsness in the area of field of view in binoculars. His opinion and mine is that it is even more highly over rated a quality than in rifle scopes.
There is a difference in tough constuction and water proof qualities of binoculars when used under extreme conditions. Swarovskis, for instance, have a rep for fogging under extreme conditions over time that is not shared by other makes. And their EL models have no where near as rugged a design or materials as do the competing Zeiss and Leica brands.
There was a time when the optical qualities of the very expensive Big Three were noticably, even easily, better than the cheaper competion. No more. Try stacking a much cheaper Pentax ED against any of the Big Three of the 8X40/43 size.
Another thing that hasn't been mentioned is the role weight plays in the performance of binoculars. I got a big surprise when I used a 26.5 oz. field ready Pentax ED binocular against my 34 oz. Leica. The further out I went, the more, and the more easily, the heavier Leica could show me. It was not an optical quality difference. It was simply a weight difference. E