Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Campfire Review of 8-power binoculars

Good job!

Next time can you add Meopta?

405wcf

Ric, great review and pretty much the exact same thing I have seen in the field. What isn't covered is how comfortable they are to wear all day as well as durability.
Although the Zeiss Classics were about as bullet proof as a bino could be, the Zeiss 8x42 FL that I used went out of collimation after two weeks of simply wearing daily. It was only a sample of one but does make one wonder.
Leica and Nikon on the other hand have proven to be very tough.
Swaro's are also rugged but definately do not keep water out nearly as well as Zeiss, Nikon or Leica. Last fall hunting season every set of Swaro's in my camp ( I think there were 5) were fogged internally by the end of the hunt. However they do honor their warrantee.

I have been carrying the 8-12x42 Duovids for the past three years but am currently enamored with the little 8x32 HD Leica's due not only to their optics but their carryability as well. Since I always carry a spotting scope anyway I am seriously thinking of selling my Duovids to buy a set.
Thanks for the review.

Thanks, Phil. Sounds like the Alaskan Guide Test is pretty tough on binoculars. E

That's good information. I'm looking to buy a set of 7x42 FL's, do you think based on your experience that there is any reason to shy away from these do to build quality? I also run 8x32 Ultravids which I love but when I am stand hunting a heavier full size bino would suit my needs well - I'd keep the Leica's also.

That's interesting about the Swaros, any idea as to why they've got a propensity to fog?

cfran, I'll bet the 7x42 FL's will be superb for stand hunting. I have not compared the Zeiss FL to the new Leica HD's but the optics on the Zeiss do beat everything else for brightness and resolution.
The 7x42 HD Leicas were also outstanding and I am hard pressed to decide between the handy little 8x32 HD's and the 7x42's.

John Barsness tells me that the glue used to hold Swaro lens' in place has a habit of drying out, which is why they tend not to be as waterproof.

Excellent and timely Rick. Doug will hear from me soon since the wife said go ahead and order your own anniversary gift!

10th is the optics anniversary isn't it?

Rick,

I gotta laugh. I just read the article. Very well written and all bias' were knocked out of the water.
What did I laugh at? Well a couple things.
First, With the Minox 52's. You mentioned "This is the only binocular that truly stays with the Euros into twilight." Question. I thought Minox were Euro optics? please correct me if I am wrong. I kinda laughed at that.
Second, on the Minox 43's. You mention "Our sample weighed 22.6 ounces (exactly as advertised), making it one of the lightest full-sized units tested." Well the rest of the world considers 42/43mm optics Full size, most of the guys here in AZ consider them compacts. I am one who consider them compact optics as I glass with 50mm+ optics (15x56 and 13x56 to be exact). The Minox 8.5x43's I own go around my neck like compacts and are used when i am hiking or glancing at something that caught my eye while driving. So I for sure laughed at that.
There is nothing wrong with what is written, I think the article is great and very informative. I just laugh at how different I think about optics size.

FYI,I am a big big fan of the Minox line. My main optics are/were (not sure yet) 15x56 Swarovski's. However I rently received a pair of the 13x56 from Minox, and my first impression is "THEY ARE AWESOME". Though they require some more field testing, right now I think Minox hit a homer with these new big eyes.
Reason:
I think the ideal OL for 15's is 60mm. Minox has played with 58mm, Zeiss has played with 45mm, Swarovski has the 56mm and Lieca has the 50mm Duo's and 56mm Geo's. All fine and dandy, but I still think 15x60 Zeiss and 15x60 Doctor, 15x60 Fujinon, and any other big name company has a better balance than the smaller objective lenses. However since no other company has come up with an up to date version of a 15x60 binocular, The Swarovski 15x56's take the cake. They are a super binocular, and I could just imagine if they made the OL larger to 60mm. When it comes to 15x optics, the Swarovski's take the prize since none of the others have an update or comparable 15x bino.
Minox has now created a 13x56 binocular. This makes sense to me. 12x50 optics are great, 15x60 optics are great. What could we put in the middle to apeal to both users? The 13x56 Minox Bino. Smaller OL than the big 15x60's, Bigger OL than the 12x50. A tad more magnification than the 12x, larger OL by 6mm over the 50mm. The return, a middle optic that offers a brighter picture, middle range magnification (10x - 15x) so that you are not having a size issue, and a light optical unit that apeals to big eye users and those that don't. From a sales stand point, they are perfect. I'll let you know truly how good they are when I go glassing for coues deer. but from the first impression, they are a winner all around.
Sorry for getting side tracked. The reason I like Minox. They are less expensive, just as good, and the customer service/ sales guys have treated me very well. If I can save over a grand by buying 13x56 Minox over 15x56 Swarovski and feel I can do the same job for less, by all means I am going to save the $1000 bucks. If I can save anywhere from a couple hundred dollars to almost a grand by buying 8.5x43 over the other big three, by all means I am going to. Why Minox and not the other names excluding the big three? Because as far as I know, they are Euro optics and Euro optics have a rep that speaks for itself. And they are less expensive and I can still find game just as easy with them.

Just my opinion of course,
Kique

Enrique:

I am very anxious to read your opinion on the new Minox 13x56 binocular. I have been looking for a set of big glass and this might be something to look at further.

Doug:

Will you have any on sale in the near future? I didnt see anything mentioned on your web site.

Jason

13X ? Why ? What would one gain with such a binocular ? E

Jason,
I spent some time behind them on Saturday. They were as good as my first impression.
They are still a bit much to use without a tripod, but they handle better than the 15x's. They are extremely bright, extremely clear, and offer excellent resolution. Pairing a 12 or 13x(in this case) with a 56mm lense is genius. That extra size in Objective lense makes those powers that much better. Also for some reason, the glass on the Minox 13x56's seems better than the glass they had on the 15x58's. I liked the older 15's, but I am in love with these new 13's. Try them and you will have no complaint. I don't have one yet.

E,
13x, why not? What do you gain? Try a pair out and see for yourself. In the past, we have not aggreed on optics, but I think we would on these.
Esample. How much better would your lieca 12x50's be if they were 12x56? They would be a lot brighter. Would allow you extra time glassing in low light and I think they would offer what I think the Minox 13x56 offer.
The gain: Extra hunting time (more time in the critical low light hours), the magnification falls between 10x and 15x making it more appealing to hunters that want more magnification but don't need the big eyes. They fall in the middle. Cost is far less than the big three and are just as good or better than some of what the big three put out. Put them on a tripod not a rock or a pack and you have a great glassing tool for a 3rd of what you'd pay for the big Leica's or Swarovski's.
Believe it or not, but you gain from a binocular like that.

I am telling you guys, these may be the best binoculars that Minox has come out with. The out do the HG models, and they far outdo the older 15x58 model. They are so good, that I think they might replace my beloved and charished 15x56 Swarovski's. Take that for what its worth.

Kique

Well, Enrique, I'd be interested in your thoughts. As far as low light performance, I can't see gaining much. .15 more exit pupil and 1X would make for more low light time and distance, but darn little. Actually the real benefit would be the large objectives making the whole thing heavier for steadier hand holding than a like 50mm model.
Selecting an optic is an exercise in selecting trade offs. E

E,
big eyes were never meant to be hand held. They were meant to be mounted on a tripod, not a backpack or handheld. If someone wants to hand hold a pair of optics, they are better off with a little 40mm class optic with less magnification aka compact binos. People that use them and use them successfully will tell you that.
15x56 gives you 3.73 exit pupil is my math is right, and 13x56 gives you 4.30 if my math is right. That gives me a difference of .57 as far as exit pupil goes.
last time I checked 15 less 13 was 2x not 1x
If everything I have mentioned is correct, then I see enough amount of difference to back my belief that I can glass longer with the 13x56 than the 15x56. Maybe just enough to see a good buck come out or bed so I can be back in the morning and shoot him dead.
Using these new 13's, I can see they are brighter and clearer than the 15x56 Swaro's I have. The picture is better too, but not as close as the 15's. I can tell that when I stacked them. However I will take a better, clearer, brighter picture over more magnification any day.
Like I said, you gotta have both and compare them to see what I am talking about. If the 15x56 Swarovski's are the best of the new age big eyes, the 13x56 Minox are just as good if not better. To me and how I use them and what I use them for, the Minox 13's just might be better than the 15x Swarovski's. That is saying a lot considering I am a die hard 15x Swarovski nut.

Kique

Great article, I just purchased a pair of Olympus Magellan 10x42 EXWP-I. Now I have never had the pleasure to use or own the high dollar stuff, but I will tell you that I am impressed with these so far, clear,crisp fast focus the edge to edge clarity was very good. I can only say that if you only have 200.00 to spend and need a good quality pair of binoculars give these a look I think you will be impressed.

I agree. The Magellan 10X42 EXWP I tried out a few years back was much better than the disapointing 10X42 Nikon Monarch. For that kind of money, if you insist on a roof style binocular, I can't say I know of anything better. E

Again great service from Doug and I'm stunned with the 8x42 Ultravids. I bought the last years model for the $300 difference and they still come with the older warranty. To say this blow away my 15+ year old Steiners is an understatement.

I bought, sold, swapped binocs for years, but when I traded into a pair of Leica 8x32s, I found the binoculars for me..They have less bulk than my 8x42s, they seem to work just as well, and they pack easier..I only have that one pair today, it only took me 60 years of hunting to come to this conclusion.

Pugs,

I got the pre HD 8x42 Ultravid to, it is a pretty fine binocular. I almost got the 8x32 Ultravid, but the view was just a little more relaxed through the 42s, larger exit pupil for my eye to roam around in. The larger Ultravids are heavier but 27 oz is just fime for me to carry.

Given the extra weight I carry around my middle the couple extra oz's on the bino's is no issue but the extra FOV is!

I am still happy with my Zeiss 8 x 42 Victory. There is very little difference in these binoculars at this price range but the Zeiss were brighter and gave me a more natural image, or at least an image I like better!

I went with the Ultravid 8x42's also and I looked through EL's, and Victory's as well as little brother the 8x32 Ultravid. To me the Ultravid 8x42 does it all and it really is a pretty compact package. Weight is really irrelevant in all of em, though the SLC's were noticeably heavier than everything else to me. Cant see regretting my purchase, though I wish I had the cash for a pair of the 8x32's for backpack specific hunts where I have my spotter with me. One of these days. If Doug keeps lowering the price I might just jump on em!....grin