You can find it here:

https://www.24hourcampfire.com/8x42.html

Let me know if I can be of any help.

Excellent review. Seemed quite fairly done though maybe it seems that way to me because the review pretty much tracks exactly with what I've seen in the same binoculars ..........................DJ


BTW it probably should have a sticky to the top of the forum so potential binocular buyers can read it.

My only comment would be "sample variation". I have owned multiple sets of the same high quality bino and you could see one set was better. I do like the format of the review.
Thanks Rick and all others.

Dave

Good comprehensive review... great resource for those looking to purchase 8x binos. Thanks!

Just wondering. Have you happened to use the Bushnell Elite 8x43? I got them half price on sale and they are by far the best binoculars I have personally used, but was wondering how they might compare with those mentioned in the review. Thanks

good review but the edge to edge sharpness according to my eyes and everyone on birdforum.net all think swarovski owns the "sweet spot" category with leica in betwen and zeiss haveing the most narrow sweet spot....

Hard to add anything to your tests. Without a doubt, in my mind, the 8X40/43 size is the best as far as an all around hunting binocular. I used both it and my 8X32 alot in the wide open country in Montana this year, along with my 12X50. If you use them properly, and patiently, I discovered they will allow you to see alot more than you'd ever think. Try this, a medium size black bear over 2.5 miles out. Could make out the details of his head, etc., long, narrow with high ears vs. wide w/ lower ears of an older bear. Or this, a 5 pt. class bull elk, face on, with snow as a background; 2.5 miles out and 2500 ft. above me. The black bear with an 8X32 Nikon LXL, the 5 pt. class bull an 8X42 Leica BA.
The other thing I'll point out is that small details like field of view, or tiny differences in image clarity, don't seem to make much difference in the field. But things like overall weight and ergonomics go a long way to what you get out them. I got one of my biggest surprises when I used my 34 oz. w/ strap Leica against a Pentax ED @ 26.5 ozs. w/ strap from some field positions. Both were so close optically. I had a very hard time seeing any differences. But, when you sit a glass with them, the difference is starling. The much heavier Leica would not only show me more, but it would show me the same things the Pentax would but much faster, or more easily. The further out the object viewed was, the bigger the difference. E

The much faster, more easily you saw with your Leica had alot to do with FOV. I'm sorry E but wide FOV does make a difference in the field. It gives an easier view with equal optics IMHO and is more important than weight. I'm by no means an optics expert, more like a novice, but I hunt much of the desert country you do as well as the Rockies. And I've carried the same Pentax (SP) you constantly rave about for several years now. Great bins for the price, by the way, but the more limited feild of view is quite apparent to me after looking through similar and slightly higher priced brands my friends carried.

Bill

Since I happen to own the Zeiss bins, I couldn't agree more with this review!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That hasn't been my experience. What helps the eye see things more clearly and allows the eye to "roam around" inside the binocular is exit pupil size. This allows the eye to show you things with less fatigue over the day.
While I do like the SP's and think they are an excellent buy, the binoculars I rave about are my two Leicas and my Nikon LX. E

Just get some Leica Duovids... then you can have a nice FOV and exit pupil size on 8x along with the ability to look "closer" for more detail at 12x.

Don't think I haven't thought about it. If I had it to do all over again, I'd skip the 8X42 and 12X50 Leicas and buy the 8+12 Duovid. In fact, I may have to do that anyway. Have trouble doing w/o the very best. E

Very nice review Rick. I do appreciate the fact that you included a variety of different individuals with different levels of experience. I think that puts the results in a perspective that we can all appreciate.

Ofcourse, I do also enjoy the results as I prefer the FLs for a variety of reasons...

...weight
...ergonomics
...brightness
...sharpness
...field of view
...lack of color fringing

Excellent bins. I look forward to seeing how they compare with the new Nikon EDGs.

Excellent report & work,
thanks Rick.

roe

Rick,

Me three on the good work with this review!

The other thing is with all these great choices available, there are still new companies introducing binos. Optics is a crowded field, and here come more folks to the party. SHOT will be more interesting this year.

jim

Rick;

Great review!

Any chance on having some of the lower-end stuff stacked and compared against a few of the best?

Say, either the Leica Ultravids or the Zeiss Victory, the Minox HG 8.5x43s, and then add in something like the Nikon Monarch ATBs, the Swift Audubons, and the Leupold Green Ring or Gold Rings?

Very good review. Straight forward without alot of bino gak. Very useful for the hunter looking for new bins.

Bill

Rick as you know I tried from Cameraland two Leicas, with the 8 x 32 Ultravid besting the 8 x 42 Ultravid (individual variances?), and then the Zeiss 8 x 42 Victory with lotutec and I am keeping that one. All are very nice, I see not any difference in edge resolution on any, and the Zeiss was the brightest and gave me the best image.

Good review. I am curious as to why Fujinon is never reviewed. They make a roof prism CD glass that in my opinion is a good quality glass at a fair price. I assume they also are not willing to send a sample.

Worked for a local sporting goods store for a couple of years part time and could play with many of the above mentioned. With the exception of the Minox. Pesonally liked the Swarovski's although at the end of the day I still own a pair of Zeiss Diafun's in an 8x32 that do everything I need them to at this time.
For the money and my position in life at the time they were a good investment and very good every day glass for all around use.

MCS

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

Very good review.

When you speak of the big three, I don't think there's a bad choice. I think it really comes down to personal preference and handling. It really is subjective in what you're looking for. I went into the store expecting it'd be the Ultravids with the FL's being second based on fellow member's advice. I fondled the FL's, Ultravids and EL's. For my eyes, the EL's we're equal to the others, seemed a little better in focusing, and with their ergonomics, won hands down. I wanted it to be the Leicas. I was a little surprised at the outcome but I couldn't be happier. The next ten people might have chosen the EL's as the third place option. I could have easily ordered the Ultravids or FL's and been tickled at my decision.

Anyone thinking of buying owes it to themselves to look at them side by each before pulling the trigger.

Absolutely agree! You get past the glass pretty quickly since they are all so good, its the ergonomics that sells each one individually to each person. You are not handicapped if you own anyone of the 3, thats for sure!!

Now I'm eyeballing the 8x32 Ultravids for a bit smaller package. Doug is making it hard not to put another dent in the checkbook.

Hi: If the nikon was $1999 and it is a bargain what do the zeiss et all cost? Regards Dan

The more a person has hunted the more important "size" and "weight" becomes, it is a process that takes place as his hunting experience expands, he will invaribly fall into the bigger is better trap and spend a lot of bucks coming to the same conclusion as most have done...

The very small Leica 8x32 is the smallest binoc that is usable, and it is THE BEST "hunting" binocular made today..You can use it off hand, no headaches with long use, it packs easy under your left arm pit and it is not so powerful that you can't see detail and locate game because of light condition, being out of breath and a bunch of other reason that are too many to list...

fwiw & imho,
My ideal Leica is the 8x42 Ultravid BL. The leather wrapped version reduces bulk further and gives the rubber 8x32 Ultravids, imo, a run for their money especially if you opt for continental carry. And the extra lens diameter never hurts...

That said this is the first Leica Binocular I've ever bought that was not hand picked by Leica. That has proven a costly decision. They are barely the equal of a spectacular 8x42 BN they were intended to replace. That said they are going back for service and I'm going to give Leica USA the chance to evaluate their performance and rectify the situation...

Regards, Matt.

Like I have said before, at least 100 times.

SAMPLE VARIATION>>

That's why for a laymen like me I sometimes will buy two samples of a high end product. I will say I don't believe the Ultravid is a huge step up from the Trinovid and will go further and say the earlier BA version seems (from my 5-7 samples) outperform the BN's. My current 10x glass is a 10x42BA that is just outstanding, even with minor-minor cleaning scratches from previous owner.

IMHO it's easier to find in the Alpha products.

Dave