Best 10 x 40/42 binoc

[bedrok]

My 50 year old eyes finally need better glass than my 35 year old Leica Trinovids, which were once the best you could get but now get beat by anything over $200. I'm trying to find binocs with good light transmission that have eye cups that fully seal to my face like the old Liecas and don't let light in around the edges. Every time I look through Swarovski ELs, the clarity and brightness astound me but my eyes are seeing around the edges as well as through the lenses. Every pair I try does this to some extent. With the candidates being the Swaros, Leupold Mojave, Vortex Razor, Zeiss (I forgot which model), I'm liking the Leupolds the best but as I said, they're far from perfect. Does anyone else have this problem and any suggestions?

 

[pwrdbycotn]

I have this problem as well. I know swaro offers and optional eyecup with "wings" so to speak to keep external light out. The steiner nighthunter xp's have cups that block the light as well.

 

[timberbuck]

You can buy a Swarovski winged eyecup set for the current SLC or SV binoculars. Comes with its own rainguard also.

 

[bedrok]

Thanks for the info. While we're on the subject, any opinions about optical performance of "mid range" ($400 to $700) binocs would be appreciated. Nikons didn't make it because I've seen and heard of too many getting moisture inside. The Mojave beat the Vortex Viper in clarity and light transmission but that was on a cloudy day outside the store and not really in twilight conditions. Are there others I should be looking at? I'm about to give up on the Swaros, it makes sense to spend twice as much ($500 compared to $250) to get twice the glass but I can't bring myself to spend another $1800 for 5 to 10% better performance.

 

[LeddSlinger]

Thanks for the info. While we're on the subject, any opinions about optical performance of "mid range" ($400 to $700) binocs would be appreciated. Nikons didn't make it because I've seen and heard of too many getting moisture inside. The Mojave beat the Vortex Viper in clarity and light transmission but that was on a cloudy day outside the store and not really in twilight conditions. Are there others I should be looking at? I'm about to give up on the Swaros, it makes sense to spend twice as much ($500 compared to $250) to get twice the glass but I can't bring myself to spend another $1800 for 5 to 10% better performance.

Oh it's a LOT more than "5%-10% better performance. Take those cheap binos out in twilight and put them up against the Swaro EL Swarovision or compare them while glassing at long range and watch how the colors and contrast fade horribly in cheap glass while the Swaros remain razor sharp and provide true and crisp color rendition. Then when you get done come back and try to make that same statement about only being 5%-10% better. If you still don't see the astronomical amount of difference, then perhaps your eyes need a little more help than what any premium glass can provide.

 

[Adluginb]

I myself have the Swarovski 10x42's. Buy once cry once is my theory. About the only less expensive binocs I would even consider buying are the Nikon Monarchs. Just an opinion though....

 

[nateisw]

A lot of binos that Steiner makes have the conforming eyecup. My only personal experience with Steiner binos are with a pair of very old and abused 10x50 military style binos we use at work. They might have been close to top of the line 20-30 years ago but any $200 pair nowadays is probably better. Although, they have held up pretty well considering they've spent a couple of decades sitting on the dash of a fire truck every day.

 

[NWmissouriman]

I get along quite well with my Leupold BX-3 Mojave's. I'm sure they aren't really comparable to swaro's, but I personally decided to put more money into a better scope because it is what will make or break you when it comes down to it(I wish I could have justified both). As far as your eyecup problem I won't be much help as I wear glasses. I actually came across the receipt from my bino's today and seen I got them on sale for $329 (10x50).

 

[ARKLITE881South]

I myself have the Swavorski 10x42's. Buy once cry once is my theory. About the only less expensive binocs I would even consider buying are the Nikon Monarchs. Just an opinion though....

I totally agree about the Swaroski's i looked at a pair of 10x42 EL's a couple of yrs ago, almost bought them, but, decided not too. I've got a pair of Leupold 10x42 Gold rings that are 28 yrs old and still pretty good glasses. Well, at the end of last year, i came home, found a pair of 10x32EL's that had been used very little, got all the paper work, even a hard [aluminum] case to pack them in. I've NEVER been sorry i spent the money. Do it, get the very best you can afford, then add a little bit and get the Swavorski's You'll never be sorry, and start enjoying them now. Then, i found a gently used Swavorski spotting scope, couldn't help myself, bought that too. OH, boy, is THAT nice!!!! You only live once. IF you get one or the other, you'll say, "why didn't i buy these a long time ago".

 

[LeddSlinger]

I get along quite well with my Leupold BX-3 Mojave's. I'm sure they aren't really comparable to swaro's, but I personally decided to put more money into a better scope because it is what will make or break you when it comes down to it(I wish I could have justified both). As far as your eyecup problem I won't be much help as I wear glasses. I actually came across the receipt from my bino's today and seen I got them on sale for $329 (10x50).

That's backwards. Can't shoot animals if you can't find them. Only time you look through your scope is to shoot. Any decent $300-$500 scope will hold zero, give a clear sight picture, and make true adjustments. What else do you need???

But binoculars in that same price range will never even come close to helping you see animals like you will with high end alpha glass. I also guarantee if you sat with your eyes in those Leupold's for an hour straight, you will have a pounding headache later on from eye strain.

Alpha glass allows you to clearly view longer distances in all lighting conditions for much longer periods of time with no eye strain.

I have a perfect example of the difference in glass quality from the last time I went hunting with my father. We were hunting antelope on the plains when I spotted some animals moving about 1500-2000 yards out. He had a set of 12x42 Nikon Monarchs, and I had a set of 10x42 Vortex Razor HD's so he already had me beat on the magnification end, but not even close to the clarity I had. The conversation while viewing the animals went exactly like this;

Me: "Look, there's something moving out there"

Dad (gets his binos up first): "Oh yeah, looks like antelope"

Me (looking through my binos now): "No Dad, those are deer, just hard to tell with the sun behind them"

Dad: "Are you sure?....Oh I suppose they are deer because they are pretty big, must be mule deer"

Me: "Maybe...No those are Whitetail deer, do you see the one facing away from us with the big white outline on it's tail?

Dad: "No"

Me: "Well it's a whitetail for sure...Oh look, they are starting to run, something must have spooked them, now we should be able to see if there are any bucks in the group"

Dad (after all deer came into view again): "Looks like a bunch of does"

Me (scanning from front deer to back as they were running): "No, that third one is a little buck...3X3 Dad. Oh and there's a nicer one, really short tines, but looks like at least a 4X4."

Dad: "I don't see the antlers, are you sure?"

Me: "Dead positive Dad. Watch them as they come closer and you'll see what I'm talking about"

Dad (As deer continued to run angling towards us and to the left): "Still don't see it.........Oh wait...Now I do. Man, you could see all those antlers way out there into the sun? Tell me again what kind of binoculars you are using?"

The deer had covered about 500 yards distance closer to us before he could make out with 12X what I could clearly see much further with 10X. HUGE difference and it was all solely due to glass quality.

If my Dad would have wanted to shoot one, he would not have had time to get set up by the time he figured out there were bucks in the group because they were gone soon after he finally saw them. With my glass, I identified the bucks and species right away and would have had plenty of time to get into position if they had been something I wanted to shoot.

But most folks never know there is that much difference until they use alpha glass in the field. But I do know that you will NEVER find a hunter that has owned alpha glass going back to using the cheaper glass. And to think, my Vortex Razor HD's are not even close to as good as the new Swaro EL Swarovision glass, yet I still had that much of an advantage over my father's mid-priced glass.

Buy once, cry once. You'll never regret it. I used cheap glass for a long time before I bought a good set of binos and I wholeheartedly regret every single hard earned penny I wasted on the cheap stuff.

 

[Sully2]

I went with Zeiss 10 x 50 with HD.

 

[NWmissouriman]

That's backwards. Can't shoot animals if you can't find them. Only time you look through your scope is to shoot. Any decent $300-$500 scope will hold zero, give a clear sight picture, and make true adjustments. What else do you need???

But binoculars in that same price range will never even come close to helping you see animals like you will with high end alpha glass. I also guarantee if you sat with your eyes in those Leupold's for an hour straight, you will have a pounding headache later on from eye strain.

Alpha glass allows you to clearly view longer distances in all lighting conditions for much longer periods of time with no eye strain.

I have a perfect example of the difference in glass quality from the last time I went hunting with my father. We were hunting antelope on the plains when I spotted some animals moving about 1500-2000 yards out. He had a set of 12x42 Nikon Monarchs, and I had a set of 10x42 Vortex Razor HD's so he already had me beat on the magnification end, but not even close to the clarity I had. The conversation while viewing the animals went exactly like this;

Me: "Look, there's something moving out there"

Dad (gets his binos up first): "Oh yeah, looks like antelope"

Me (looking through my binos now): "No Dad, those are deer, just hard to tell with the sun behind them"

Dad: "Are you sure?....Oh I suppose they are deer because they are pretty big, must be mule deer"

Me: "Maybe...No those are Whitetail deer, do you see the one facing away from us with the big white outline on it's tail?

Dad: "No"

Me: "Well it's a whitetail for sure...Oh look, they are starting to run, something must have spooked them, now we should be able to see if there are any bucks in the group"

Dad (after all deer came into view again): "Looks like a bunch of does"

Me (scanning from front deer to back as they were running): "No, that third one is a little buck...3X3 Dad. Oh and there's a nicer one, really short tines, but looks like at least a 4X4."

Dad: "I don't see the antlers, are you sure?"

Me: "Dead positive Dad. Watch them as they come closer and you'll see what I'm talking about"

Dad (As deer continued to run angling towards us and to the left): "Still don't see it.........Oh wait...Now I do. Man, you could see all those antlers way out there into the sun? Tell me again what kind of binoculars you are using?"

The deer had covered about 500 yards distance closer to us before he could make out with 12X what I could clearly see much further with 10X. HUGE difference and it was all solely due to glass quality.

If my Dad would have wanted to shoot one, he would not have had time to get set up by the time he figured out there were bucks in the group because they were gone soon after he finally saw them. With my glass, I identified the bucks and species right away and would have had plenty of time to get into position if they had been something I wanted to shoot.

But most folks never know there is that much difference until they use alpha glass in the field. But I do know that you will NEVER find a hunter that has owned alpha glass going back to using the cheaper glass. And to think, my Vortex Razor HD's are not even close to as good as the new Swaro EL Swarovision glass, yet I still had that much of an advantage over my father's mid-priced glass.

Buy once, cry once. You'll never regret it. I used cheap glass for a long time before I bought a good set of binos and I wholeheartedly regret every single hard earned penny I wasted on the cheap stuff.

Backwards to some does not make it backwards for all. I simply gave my opinion. Personally, I'd rather find the animal in my average binoculars and then take a better look with my ATACR on 25x.
At that point I'm just another step closer to being ready. Sure I'd like to have been able to buy a pair of swaros to go with it, but not everyone has $5,000 laying around after they've built a reliable rifle and the components to keep it fed. It's simply my opinion, to each their own.

 

[bedrok]

Oh well, never too old to learn. Being bull headed like others here, I was going to stick with Swarovski ELs or if I didn't want to spend the bucks, leupold. After trying a bunch in Cabelas, we took a few pairs outside on a fairly dark, cloudy morning and glassed into timber about 600 yds away. Of course the Swarros beat the Leupolds hands down but we had also brought a pair of Vortex Razor HDs, and after switching back and forth between those and the Swarros, it was a draw, except the Swarros were flatter. I'm sure if I set them both on tripods at dusk I could I could find some difference, but not the 5 to 10 percent I mentioned.
I only tried the Vortex because of their warranty and the fact that when I emailed different companies my eye cup question, I got a quick, detailed response FROM A HUMAN. Now I'm definitely going to try other Vortex products, If I hadn't spent so much money with Nightforce lately, I'd give one of their scopes a try.

 

[lloydsmale]

ive been playing with my new leupold mckinleys lately and am very impressed for the money. im sure a top end pair of zeiss or swarovskis would beat them but at two to three times the money for the small performance gain i just cant see it.