I recently went shopping for new binoculars after mine were stolen out of my car here in Idaho (grrr!). During the shopping process, I gained a great deal from these forums and consequently would like to share my experiences and opinions.
The short version is thus: My old Swift Audubons were swiped. I bought Zeiss FL 10x42’s. Defective. Sent back. Bought Leica 8x32 Trinovid BN demos for < 60% the price. Happy birder.
Here’s the long, detailed version:
Previously, I’d had a pair of Swift 8.5x44’s for seven years. These were great bins for the money and aside from fogging up when one would expect and being bulky and heavy, they were great. However, their loss and some insurance $s provided an opportunity for an upgrade. I wished to get premium optics that were less heavy and especially less bulky than the Swifts. Eventually, my plan is to have a pair of 8x32’s and a pair of 10x 42’s.
Having looked through a large number of bins over the years, reading a bunch of reviews, and looking through some (but not all) of the new models, I settled on Zeiss FL 10x42’s without actually looking through a pair. I ordered them from Eagle Optics for just shy of $1400 figuring I could send them back if I hated them (I live in a place that is “conveniently isolated”).
Optically the FL’s were stunning (mostly, see below). However, I immediately noticed a dark dot on the image in the right optical tube, clearly made by a speck of dust. On further inspection, I found smudging on the prisms on this same tube, as though someone with dirty fingers had assembled them. So much for the “clean room” at Zeiss. Needless to say, these went back to Eagle Optics, who were gracious enough to provide a full refund, including the return shipping. I hope they can stick Zeiss with the shipping bill. The bad news was that I had ordered the bins in time for a trip to Alaska and ended up going with only an old pair of compacts. Oh well, so much for planning. I did have the FLs for almost a week, and was able to get a good feel for them and was able to directly compare them to a pair of Swarovski 8x30 SLCs and my old pair of Celestron 8x25 compacts (the latter was not a fair comparison really and won’t say much more than that…).
Trying to ignore the clear lemon status imposed by soiled optics, I critically compared the two glasses (after later comparisons with other FLs in the store, I don’t think they were optically shoddy, just dirty).
Things I liked: The Zeiss were brighter, slightly better when viewing strongly backlit objects, had slightly higher contrast, and better resolution. How much of these differences (except contrast) was due to differences in power and objective, I don’t know. Other things I like about the FLs: They fit very well in my hands, had great balance and handling, a good level of eye relief, and the fast focusing and focus placement were just right for me. However, the SLC’s held up very well in side by side comparisons, and I had to look for the differences to find them.
Things I didn’t like: Optically, the center of the field was great, but the edge sharpness fell off rapidly and surprisingly near the center (again, this was the case for FLs I’ve looked through too. I was also later surprised by the lack of edge sharpness in both the 8 and 10 x Ultravids). During normal viewing, this was not really an issue, though I was surprised by it.
The FLs were almost twice the size of the SLC’s, especially when in the case. In fact, they were larger than the Swifts when cased. The tubes are taller even than Swaro ELs. This was largely offset by their excellent handling in practice, but these are not bins to throw in a knapsack to have along just in case. This won’t be much of an issue for many, but these are definitely bigger than any of the Leica 42’s and in fact are similar in bulk as the Ultravid 50’s (though the 50’s are much heavier, obviously).
Perhaps foremost was the plastic feel of the construction cited by others. In particular, I was concerned about the focus knob. The knob sticks up from the body considerably, which improves its performance, but also its vulnerability to knocks. When pulling the diopter out, the whole knob also feels like it could snap off without too much effort. I also unscrewed one of the eyecups to see how the doubler would screw on and this experience enhanced my feelings of flimsiness. I’m not sure that these issues would ever matter in practice, but for $1400, the build quality was hard to ignore.
Finally, my order came with a “field case” as part of a promotion. This case was the size of a small suitcase, with foam inserts. While it looked superficially like the Swaro field cases, it appeared to be made of plastic panels and rather than instilling confidence, the case further enhanced the plastic feel of the whole package.
With these misgivings (and nagging doubts about whether I should go with 8 or 10x as my primary bin), I decided to continue looking for a while. Over a couple of weeks, I was able to try out all the premium glass and in most cases in side-to-side comparisons. As I said above, in the end I settled on an $800 pair of demo Leica 8x32 BNs for several reasons:
1) Optically, these are very nearly equal of the best available. If I were buying a sports car, these would go 212 m.p.h. while the Zeiss FLs would go 215. I’m having a hard time imagining a scenario whether the difference in quality would affect my ability to ID a bird under any conditions (ignoring the difference in magnification). I’ve not had a chance to compare them side-to-side with 32 mm FLs yet. Yes, I suspect they are not quite as bright for a similar exit pupil and may not have quite the “snap” because of slightly lower contrast. However, the BNs have a flatter, distortion-free field than any other bin I’ve looked through except the Nikon SEs.
(BTW, I’ve noticed that flat field means good edge sharpness, but in the case of the LXs, the trade-off is a distorted field, i.e. non-parallel lines on buildings and an uneasy queasiness when panning. I personally prefer soft edges and no distortion to squeamish panning and was turned off the LXs I looked through for that reason).
2) The size of the BN’s is half or less any 42 bin, and in the case, this includes the Ultravids (I checked). They fit in a coat pocket. Not having bins on hand WILL result in missed IDs :).
3) The BN’s cost just slightly more than one optical tube of the FLs. And, yes, they’re demos and so the warranty is only for a year. However, I’ve nearly $600 in the bank for repairs. And my personal experience suggests that lost or stolen is as likely a fate as broken for bins (in related posts, I’m surveying BF members to see how many have lost vs. damaged bins to see if no-fault warranties are a good value).
4) The oft cited build quality. The BN’s have a very solid feel is lacking in the FLs (or even the ultravids). I have a friend with a pair of Trinovids that have been around the world without ill-effect. Again, whether the FLs are as durable is still an open question, but the Trinovid design was a known quantity for me.
As I alluded to above, I think that if the Zeiss hadn’t been dirty, I would have been perfectly happy with them and would probably ignored the size and potential durability issues. And if money was no object, I’d probably order them as my second pair today.
So, what’s the moral(s) of my story? No binocular is perfect and represents a set of trade-offs. The differences among binoculars are not all that great once you get into the Big Leagues (but, I’ll definitely admit, those small differences are fun to fuss over!). So if you’re losing as much sleep as I did trying to find the ‘perfect’ set of glasses, just go and find a good deal on a set of excellent bins that fits your need and GO BIRDING!!
Cheers,
Chris C.
Greetings!
Excellent post! You are one of the rare birders who eventually realizes that there is no "perfect" set of binoculars... most keep looking and trading binoculars until they eventually figure this out! Some, like myself, have decided that since there is no such thing as a perfect pair then the next best thing is to own several different styles/brands and pick/choose from them based on the anticipated weather, light conditions, ruggedness, water, etc. of the day's birding.
The BN's you bought are really excellent binoculars, not quite up to the standards of the Zeiss FL optically, but FAR more durable and rugged! I think you have made a good decision there... those binoculars will probably last you the rest of your birding life! I own a pair of Trinovid BN 7x42 binoculars, and if I were headed out to bird in rugged jungle or desert conditions, they are the ones I would grab because quite frankly, I don't think any of the other manufacturers make anything that can take abuse quite like the Trinovids.
Hope you are enjoying birding with your new optics - after all, that's what it's all about after the "which binocular(s)" decision has been made!
Best wishes,
Bawko
Sorry to hear that you had a bad experience with the Zeiss, from what I've seen the really are excellent bins. Though personally that plastic feel has put me off them too, once they've been around a few years and proved they can last I might be tempted.
I'm sure you won't be disapointed with your BNs, they are fantastic bins and clearly built to outlast us birders. I recently changed to ultravids (from duovids) and a few weeks later saw a really good deal on a pair of 8x32 BNs, if I'd seen them first I'd have probably got them over the ultras.