The Finnish Magazine Alula has just published a test report of 10x bins. I thought some of you would be interested in the results. I’ve got to say that they seem very objective tests to me.
Those included were:
Leica Ultravid 10x42 BR, Zeiss Victory 10x40, Swaro EL 10x42, Nikon HG10x32, Swaro EL 10x32, Nikon 10x42SE (his reference binocular). The Nikon HG 10x42 weren’t available for some reason.
There were optical quality breakdowns (sharpness, contrast etc) and Ease of use and thecnical breakdowns (comfort, weight, waterproofing etc).
The optical totals were
Leica Ultravid 10x42 BR – 43.25
Zeiss Victory 10x40 – 45.5
Swaro EL 10x42 – 43.75
Nikon HG10x32 – 45.5
Swaro EL 10x32 - 43
Nikon 10x42SE – 44.75
Behind the scores though he rated the porro SE (the cheapest incidentally) best image (narrowly) but let down by the field of view. The Victories apparently suffered from a lot of CA, and the little Swaro’s lacked a little in Sharpness and contrast. To be fair he felt all the bins had their respective flaws. For instance the ultravid’s scored poorly for quality near edge of field.
For Ease of use
Leica Ultravid 10x42 BR – 31.5
Zeiss Victory 10x40 – 31
Swaro EL 10x42 – 29
Nikon HG10x32 – 31.5
Swaro EL 10x32 - 31
Nikon 10x42SE – 23.5
Interestingly he makes some comments on the 8x Ultravid against the 8.5 Swaro’s, he prefers the Swaro’s just but says the Ultravids faster focus can be a descisive advantage for some.
If anyone wants info on a particular bin or more details of the report please feel free to PM me
This rather suggests that the Nikon HG 10x32 could be a cracking buy at £499 from Warehouse Express currently. Anyone currently using this?
For most people, the image would be fine with all, and the Ease of use and thecnical breakdowns (comfort, weight, waterproofing etc) part would be more important.
For 10x, I would prefer lenses in the 36-42mm range, if other factors are close.