northern skies
CGN frequent flyer
I don't own binoculars, and I think I'm missing a lot out there.
On researching what to get, I can tell that this is a very personal thing. What's right for one is not necessarily right for another. Some people consider certain features essential that others feel are overrated. The only thing everyone agrees on is to get high-end glass, which I will do.
I want the best all-around choice. I am hunting in the east. While we don't have wide open vistas with animals in the open, looking far across a swamp, burn, or clearcut or down a shoreline during a moose hunt could be likely. However, I am primarily looking into brush and shadows in a forest, trying to pick out parts of a still animal at a couple hundred yards. I don't have to count points either, we don't have those rules here. I just have to find them.
I've had the opportunity to look through some at stores and I've walked around the woods with my friend's cheap 10x42's and my 8x30 Swarovski rangefinder. I've noticed that my style of glassing is a lot of jumpy panning from spot to spot, using the focus to shift the field and "cut" through the bush. This will be mostly handheld use, and I won't have a spotter. And with all of this panning, a bit of edge-to-edge distortion is better than having a rolling-ball effect.
I have it narrowed down to 8x42, 8x32, or 10x42. I'm stuck on deciding which way to go, with each one leaning more towards power, portability, or exit pupil. I have the following thoughts on each, but I'm not really sure:
10x42: If I was hunting the west this would be the one. But I did find some crucial benefits with these in the woods. If I am "scanning" the bush, I found them the best at cutting through the brush with the focus. The narrower FOV made me slow down my scan and pick things apart more. When looking farther into the woods I found that my scan mostly follows the horizon, not requiring a huge FOV. I feel that with these I could actually pick out a patch of fur, but it would take me a while to scan to it. When using them to investigate something I saw with my naked eye I found them slower than the 8's, but it was like I was right there next to the object. When using them to look for small game up close like a grouse in a tree, they were hopeless. I didn't notice a problem with shake, I could keep them steady enough handheld to see more than I could with an 8. Because I am moving the binos a lot while searching, that steadiness seems to be less important than watching. But over a day's use they could have more fatigue and eyestrain, and taking a one-handed look while still-hunting might be much shakier.
8x42: They might be just as good as the 10's for what I want to do, because I might have been handicapped by trying to judge this power using a monocular rangefinder. I spent some of the time wanting for more power, and a bit of the time wanting less, so the power level might be right. But I did notice when scanning far into the woods that I was looking more for a face or a leg than an eye, nose, or ear like I was with the 10's. The depth of field was deeper so brush was slightly less easy to pick apart. Theoretically I might catch more movement with these with their bigger FOV, like an ear flick or a leg shuffling, but I don't know... I didn't get to experience that. When investigating an object seen with the naked eye they were adequate, not bringing me right there like the 10's, but enough to see what I needed to. Looking closer for small game was reasonable. These would be the steadiest and most forgiving option for peripheral blackout and eye fatigue, but I might not run into that issue as much as a hard-core western glasser.
8x32: The lightweight handy option makes these stand out. They have the same exit pupil as 10x42's, so I'm not giving much up there. They might shake a bit more from being lighter, but that 7-10 ounces shaved off makes me think that I'll take them with me on more occasions. They would be good for long still-hunts and small game hunting where i want something less in the way, and be taken canoeing/hiking sometimes too. The few minutes less of twilight that these might not be useful could be offset by their greater utility overall. But are they really that much smaller than the 42mm glass? Enough to be worth it?
So, 10 or 8? If 8, then 32 or 42? If you read this far and can share your experiences, thanks. It already helped just to jot my thoughts down.
(PS - Models I am looking at so far are:
- SLC 10x42, 8x42. You can still get them. I am concerned about the "slow" focus knob mentioned in reviews, for shifting the field of focus through bush.
- EL's: 8x32, 8.5x42, 10x42. I am concerned about "rolling ball" effects from the field flatteners, because I am using them handheld and panning a lot. The x42's are bigger than SLC's.
- Zeiss Victory SF 8x32. They seem similar to the EL's, but with less field flattening effects.
- Leica Ultravid HD 8x32. The lighter more compact alpha 8x32, but with less of a warranty reputation than Swarovski.
- Kowa Prominar 8x33. Worth a look.
- Kowa BD XD II 6.5x32. If nothing looks to be a good compromise, maybe having a pair of these and a set of 10x42's could be optimal. Or it could be a case of having both wrong things, too.)
On researching what to get, I can tell that this is a very personal thing. What's right for one is not necessarily right for another. Some people consider certain features essential that others feel are overrated. The only thing everyone agrees on is to get high-end glass, which I will do.
I want the best all-around choice. I am hunting in the east. While we don't have wide open vistas with animals in the open, looking far across a swamp, burn, or clearcut or down a shoreline during a moose hunt could be likely. However, I am primarily looking into brush and shadows in a forest, trying to pick out parts of a still animal at a couple hundred yards. I don't have to count points either, we don't have those rules here. I just have to find them.
I've had the opportunity to look through some at stores and I've walked around the woods with my friend's cheap 10x42's and my 8x30 Swarovski rangefinder. I've noticed that my style of glassing is a lot of jumpy panning from spot to spot, using the focus to shift the field and "cut" through the bush. This will be mostly handheld use, and I won't have a spotter. And with all of this panning, a bit of edge-to-edge distortion is better than having a rolling-ball effect.
I have it narrowed down to 8x42, 8x32, or 10x42. I'm stuck on deciding which way to go, with each one leaning more towards power, portability, or exit pupil. I have the following thoughts on each, but I'm not really sure:
10x42: If I was hunting the west this would be the one. But I did find some crucial benefits with these in the woods. If I am "scanning" the bush, I found them the best at cutting through the brush with the focus. The narrower FOV made me slow down my scan and pick things apart more. When looking farther into the woods I found that my scan mostly follows the horizon, not requiring a huge FOV. I feel that with these I could actually pick out a patch of fur, but it would take me a while to scan to it. When using them to investigate something I saw with my naked eye I found them slower than the 8's, but it was like I was right there next to the object. When using them to look for small game up close like a grouse in a tree, they were hopeless. I didn't notice a problem with shake, I could keep them steady enough handheld to see more than I could with an 8. Because I am moving the binos a lot while searching, that steadiness seems to be less important than watching. But over a day's use they could have more fatigue and eyestrain, and taking a one-handed look while still-hunting might be much shakier.
8x42: They might be just as good as the 10's for what I want to do, because I might have been handicapped by trying to judge this power using a monocular rangefinder. I spent some of the time wanting for more power, and a bit of the time wanting less, so the power level might be right. But I did notice when scanning far into the woods that I was looking more for a face or a leg than an eye, nose, or ear like I was with the 10's. The depth of field was deeper so brush was slightly less easy to pick apart. Theoretically I might catch more movement with these with their bigger FOV, like an ear flick or a leg shuffling, but I don't know... I didn't get to experience that. When investigating an object seen with the naked eye they were adequate, not bringing me right there like the 10's, but enough to see what I needed to. Looking closer for small game was reasonable. These would be the steadiest and most forgiving option for peripheral blackout and eye fatigue, but I might not run into that issue as much as a hard-core western glasser.
8x32: The lightweight handy option makes these stand out. They have the same exit pupil as 10x42's, so I'm not giving much up there. They might shake a bit more from being lighter, but that 7-10 ounces shaved off makes me think that I'll take them with me on more occasions. They would be good for long still-hunts and small game hunting where i want something less in the way, and be taken canoeing/hiking sometimes too. The few minutes less of twilight that these might not be useful could be offset by their greater utility overall. But are they really that much smaller than the 42mm glass? Enough to be worth it?
So, 10 or 8? If 8, then 32 or 42? If you read this far and can share your experiences, thanks. It already helped just to jot my thoughts down.
(PS - Models I am looking at so far are:
- SLC 10x42, 8x42. You can still get them. I am concerned about the "slow" focus knob mentioned in reviews, for shifting the field of focus through bush.
- EL's: 8x32, 8.5x42, 10x42. I am concerned about "rolling ball" effects from the field flatteners, because I am using them handheld and panning a lot. The x42's are bigger than SLC's.
- Zeiss Victory SF 8x32. They seem similar to the EL's, but with less field flattening effects.
- Leica Ultravid HD 8x32. The lighter more compact alpha 8x32, but with less of a warranty reputation than Swarovski.
- Kowa Prominar 8x33. Worth a look.
- Kowa BD XD II 6.5x32. If nothing looks to be a good compromise, maybe having a pair of these and a set of 10x42's could be optimal. Or it could be a case of having both wrong things, too.)
Last edited:
