Different opinions about optics

[HunterX]

I'm confused how one person can say that one pair of binos are better then another while someone else says the exact opposite. Is it one person just doesn't want to admit his stuff isn't as good or do people actually see things differently then others?

Here's an example of what I'm talking about. A few years ago I was hunting with 2 friends of mine and we were looking at some bucks at dusk with 2 different spotting scopes. There was no comparison on to which scope had the brighter image while looking at these bucks but the guy who own the other scope said he couldn't tell a difference. So what's the deal here? Pride? Was it that he didn't want to admit his scope was inferior or could his eyesight be so much different then me and the other guys that he really thought there wasn't a difference?

I just can't believe some of the opinions some people have about optics and I just wanted to know if there actually some scientific reasons why one person can't see a difference in optics while another can. Bad eyesight or just BS?

 

[Jazz]

I'm sure what you suggest is somewhat true but it could work either way. Someone may not want to admit their's isn't as good but some want to always have the "best" and when it isn't and they paid more they don't want to admit that. It also seems logical that obviously people have different eye sight capabilities so what they see is different. I have hunted with people that see great and others that can't tell the difference between a deer and an antelope (that was scary) at 100 yards. In a recent posting I was told I am full of BS because I saw a comparison of many brands of scopes (6 to be exact) including a small Nikon. This was a great test looking at a deer using tripods. The scopes were all set at 30x, 40x, 45x and then up to 60x. My earlier comment was the Nikon was 98% as good as the Leica, Kowa, Swarv, Zeiss and Leupold. Everyone looked through all the scopes at all powers. The expensive scopes were very good but the for the price differnce, weight, etc. the Nikon was very comparable and for judging the buck at about 700 yards you could tell everything you needed to and when the expensive scopes were turned up they became a little blurry. I was sold on the spot and bought a Nikon and have used it ever since. The new big binos are another great option as they are much easier to use but not to pack. They weigh a ton and they require a big tripod. On a last note when I bought my Leica binos a few years ago at SCI 4 of my friends and I looked through 15 pairs. We all ended up narrowing the binos down to 3 pairs. There was a distinct difference in the quality of the glass on the other 12 pairs but the last three were equal to each other. So the debate with rage on much like it does with gun calibers, boots and pickups as each one of us has different experiences and successes with each one.

 

[HunterX]

I can see not thinking the top end stuff is worth the extra money. I started out with cheap stuff and move up to Sworos and Zeiss and now I'm back down to the cheap stuff. People also have different preferences as far as ergonomics and comfort. I had a friend prefer his Pentax binos over my ELs because he has a huge nose and he couldn't look through the ELs without hitting his nose on the els frame, but his extra large snout fit the Pentax just fine so he like them better even though he said the view was way better in the ELs they just weren't comfortable enough for him to use.

I just don't understand how someone can say they don't see any difference in optics when others can. Especially in my example above the guy said he couldn't see a difference in the brightness between the scopes one being an 85mm scope and the other an 80mm scope. It was in low light and the difference between the 2 was very noticeable. Maybe his eye couldn't dilate as much as mine and the other guys.

 

[Fortis]

LAST EDITED ON Jan-20-10 AT 10:26AM (MST)[p]I'll be the first to admit the gap between the alpha stuff, and mid-level stuff is decreasing all the time in optics. Prime example is the Zen Ray ED2 vs the Big 3. There's not much difference at all (I've looked at this myself). There is a difference optically in $400 spotters and a $2200 Swaro HD. How much is arguable, but it's there. I believe the alpha stuff is overpriced. For instance a Nikon Fieldscope 82ED is just a bright, contrasty, and can resolve (in some cases out resolve) a Zeiss 85 T FL, and I've done the test myself. The Ed82 is almost 50% the cost of the Zeiss. On the contrary, a Nikon Earth & Sky is no match optically for the Zeiss or ED82.....apples and oranges.

 

[OLDHORNHUNTER]

who knows alot of it is crap & like u said maybe he thought his was as good??? pride poor eye sight or different eye sight...the human eye is different in every person.. 3 years ago at a sportsmans whse they had an optical challenge between Nikon-Swaro-Zeiss-Leica & Leupold..5 spotters ranging from $1000 to $2800 all set at 30 power & focused on the same spot on the wall {the little white game card} & anyone that looked thru the 5 were asked to drop their response to the clearest one in a box...& the Nikon ED won hands down 68 % said it was the clearest ??? Now u hear that leica glass is better than swaro glass & vortex is competing in the same circle...I looked thru all of them myself before I bought my Nikon & could not really see enough of a difference for me to spend & addittional $1000 but that is only my view & opinion

 

[Jazz]

Exactly. Why spend the extra $'s if it doesn't make a "significant" difference. To me it's like guns. We all have our favorite makes and calibers but bottom line is that if you are comfortable with them great and no animal can be more dead than another one, dead is dead. I think everyone should at least respect the others views and experiences. Pick what you want in the end and enjoy it.

 

[OLDHORNHUNTER]

AMEN brother...doesnt matter if u have $3000 glass & can see the same animal I can as clearly as I can with my $500 glass..if u want to spend $3 grand on a scope that some other guy says is the best than do so...Myself I like to have my own eyes & mind convince me.....

 

[NDMuley]

looking at stuff in store does not compare to being outside. i have looked through lots of glass one time looked at doctors zeiss steiners we didnt know each other just were hunting i said see which is best. doctors1st steiners zeiss the same all 3 of us agreed it was fun to compare in country hunting. they were all good. have swar bino an spotters now i love them.steiners sit in safe we dont use them.got nikons they also sit in safe.as you get older the better glass is worth it to me.your eyes get weaker. it all depends on you nothing else you are the one who will be using them.before you buy take it outside an look. i spent 4or 5 hours comparing stuff its a lot of money so compare.take your old binos an spotter to compare it your money make it right.

 

[SteveC]

The human optical system and its precise reaction to a binocular or spotter optical system is one thing that really can't be predicted. That is largely why there are so many models and such a wide price range. If it was possible to make a best binocular, then whoever made it would be the only maker selling. That is the reason that "try before you buy" is a good recommendation.

Some eyes are so sensitive to various imperfections that the existence of that imperfection will drive people nuts. Some people drive themselves nuts looking for imperfections. Some people have no clue about optics at all and think that since the magnification and objective size on two are the same the two are the same. Matters not if one is a $19.95 bubble wrap special and the other is a $1,995 state of the art glass.

For a lot of people to advance their use, it becomes necessary to advance their skill. Some people will simply never get the idea of how to use an optical instrument. Some people think any binocular is good enough. Some people get the high priced stuff just because it must be better and therefore it will let them see more stuff. That won't work if they don't know how to use it in the first place.

 

[Frontier]

This is a good post. Alot of what's been said here I agree with also. What I've learned in the field is a good second level binocular will see everything that the overpriced big 3 do. They may not be quite as clear, but it's almost splitting hairs these days to discern the difference in optical quality. I believe that one of the reasons high priced binoculars get a higher rating is because they are high priced, therefore they have to be better. They tend to forget that because of the exchange rate and higher labor cost of the europeans you cannot get the discount prices that you get from glass manufactured in china or other cheap labor areas.

 

[REDDOG]

I'd rather own great used gear than a shiny new POS..my .02

 

[Foreman4x4]

>I'd rather own great used gear
>than a shiny new POS..my
>.02

Snob!... ;-)

 

[Romulus]

With some of the optics there is a greater difference noticed over time and use also. When I had leupold 10x40 20 years ago I thought they were pretty good but over time either I needed more from them or they got worse. There is also a bigger difference noticed in poor conditions. Conditions where most guys will not be testing optics. On a nice sunny day in the middle of the day the middle class optics will appear to be much closer to the big three than they will in twilight or looking a long ways. The more time you spend behind binos or spotting scopes the more you appreciate the little advantanges the more expensive brands have.Most of the time you would be fine with the most inexpensive brands but you spend the extra money if you are out hunting hard all the time and you can afford them. There is a reason for the price difference in my opinion and I have used most of the brands. (Leica, Swaro, Zeiss, Nikon, Doctor, Leupold, Steiner, Bushnell, Baush & Lomb, and Tasco)

 

[REDDOG]

LAST EDITED ON Jan-22-10 AT 10:22PM (MST)[p]Just tried out the new Swaro 10x42's today...WOW.Companies like Vortex and Zen-Ray have gave the big three a good run recently, but its a whole new ball game now, ya they are that good!

It isn't in my budget to own them right now, but next winter the EL's I have now will be on the chopping block.

Forman, I hope you get to test these, I really think they can take the place of my 10x50 SLC's as well( I was testing them outside along with a new pair of 10x50's and my EL's).But i wont sell the 10x50's till I can test them extensively in the field.

Romulus you are spot on. Thats exactly the reason I spent the money on the euro glass. I dont mean to be rude, but guys that take a look thru several makes and models in the store, or in the parking lot and declair a much lesser optic is on par with the euro's is laughable, IMO. Hell, I have a pair of tasco's that stack up well against my EL's indoors or other favorable conditions.

 

[alaska_lanche]

LAST EDITED ON Jan-23-10 AT 05:13AM (MST)[p]REDDOG,

That is true to a point I believe. I have Swaro SLC binos myself however with my eyes I honestly can't tell a difference between them and my wife's Minox HGs and thats after hours of glassing. If I had to do it over again I'd just get 2 pair of the Minox's. However, I've had my Swaros for over 5 years without a problem. Really what I see all you gain with most of the Euro glass is the warranty which is worth the extra $$$ IMO.

However if I had to choose between Swaro SLCs and the new Swaro binos that are likely $1000-$1500 MORE than the SLCs for the same warranty I'd choose the SLC. But that's what is so great about being able to choose where our priorities lie. Personally I'd rather use that $$$ to pay my portion for do two flight out hunts or more with Nikon Monarchs than wish about the hunt with a pair of the new Swaro binos sitting in my safe.

Or for that matter I'd no doubt have a better chance at harvesting game by taking a bunch of leave w/o pay days during hunting season to spend more time afield than just hunting weekends and standard vacation time. However, if you can afford both knock yourself out.

 

[Jazz]

In most of my examples the glass was tested in the "field" not just in a store. Everybody is diffent and they have different requirements. I choose to spend my high end $'s on bino's with a range finder and I have chosen to not spend it on the spotting scope for a variety of reasons. My rifle scope is in wthe "middle" I think because I haven't done much reasearch on that one in awhile. I'm sure others look at this differently and that's great. One other factor is that these days the techology is changing so fast you can buy something and it could almost be outdated the next year! It takes a lot of time and money to keep up!

Jazz

 

[hunt30]

Several companies make very fine spotting scopes and binoculars. At all of the different price points the difference from brand to brand is very minimal and opinions will vary from person to person. If you really want a good reviews on optics look at the birding forums. These guys take their optics very seriously and have very informed and educated reasoning behind their opinions.

 

[NJS]

LAST EDITED ON Feb-13-10 AT 03:48PM (MST)[p]Folks, Optical clarity is only one measure of optical quality in a product, not the only factor. Mechanical reliability and repairability is another... some spotting scopes and bino's have fantastic optical clarity right out of the box... but will they hold up? Can they be serviced? When you have a problem is it repaired or are you made an offer to buy an "new" product because they can't fix your original?
Something to think about... NJS

 

[NJS]

LAST EDITED ON Feb-13-10 AT 03:48PM (MST)[p]>Woops! sorry!