What's your most used binocular? (1 Viewer)

[hopster]

Honestly, and surprising myself by saying it, the Meopta Meostar 12x50 HD. Since I got it I use the Noctivid 8x less and less, which is a shame as it's such a beautiful glass. Probably because I spend most of my time near the coast, looking over fields or scanning for raptors. Even in the woods though, if I see something with the naked eye I can usually find and follow anything that's not fast moving and flighty with the 12x unless it's really close.

I love how much detail I can get on a bird and how it fills the frame. It works great for birds in flight handheld (fast focus helps), on the home-made versatile walking pole/monopod that I always take with me anyway it's plenty stable enough for precise long-term viewing at all angles, and if you really want the full observation experience then take a light tripod with ball head. Almost no CA either which is amazing for a 12x.

I wonder if I should put the Noctivid on the market and convert the cash into a 15x56 (either Meostar or SLC) for the really long distance work on a tripod which I am starting to want? I don't think I'll ever want to use a scope, so that is the closest I'll get. I might regret getting rid of the Noctivid though I have a Zeiss VP 8x25 which is excellent for a small 8x (usually for travel and casual use in cities or when cycling) but it can't compete with the NV for brightness, colour and immersion in the view.

 

[A2GG]

I mostly use my Trinovid hd 8x32 after buying it new back in April this year.
I also have a Swaro CL 8x30 (original model) which I use sometimes as my ‘compact’ binocular.

 

[Rg548]

My 'old' answer was my CL8x25's.
My 'new' answer are my Ultravid 8x20's.

These little things , as awkward as they are, are ALWAYS with me.
No regrets.

My favourite are still my 8x32BN's
But most used are the little Ultravids, if we are counting time at the oculars!!

 

[Dominique B.]

the cash into a 15x56 (either Meostar or SLC) for the really

..... if you have the opportunity to save a little more money then I recommend the SLC 15x56. The Meopta is a good glass but the SLC is better in many optical characteristics, including mechanically.

To answer the thread question, I prefer to use the Swarovski 8x32 EL SV. I also really like using the CL 10x30.
I'm still looking for the EL 10x32 SV but it's no longer available here in Germany.

 

[hopster]

..... if you have the opportunity to save a little more money then I recommend the SLC 15x56. The Meopta is a good glass but the SLC is better in many optical characteristics, including mechanically.

I'm interested in your perspective on this because it may be a decision that I have to make. Several people here and elsewhere who have compared the two directly (which I haven't) suggest that the difference between them is not that great. The SLC seems to have a slightly brighter and wider FOV and more ER; the Meostar is perhaps sharper in the centre with less CA and a better handling of difficult lighting. Would you agree with those assessments and is there anything else that you think would make the SLC a better purchase? It would have to be clear to justify the cost difference.

The optical performance in the central FOV, build quality and warranty on my Meostar 12x50 HD would be hard to beat - even if the B1+ does look a bit like a Klingon military artefact.

 

[edwincjones]

Zeiss 8x32 FL

-good optics
-light weight and easy on neck
-adequate for most viewing

edj

This was accurate back then (2022)
but really this" my most used" changes from time to time,
depending on interest and activities.

edj

 

[Dominique B.]

.. I'm interested in your perspective on this because it may be a decision that I have to make. Several people here and elsewhere who have compared the two directly (which I haven't) suggest that the difference between them is not that great. The SLC seems to have a slightly brighter and wider FOV and more ER; the Meostar is perhaps sharper in the centre with less CA and a better handling of difficult lighting. Would you agree with those assessments and is there anything else that you think would make the SLC a better purchase? It would have to be clear to justify the cost difference.............

I would be happy to give you information based on my experiences - MY experiences! I'm copying my first inspection at the time because I was interested in both binoculars. I was looking for 15x binoculars and also took the Meopta with me into the narrow circle.

From the Jülich forum:

....................well, the dealer called and if I wanted to, I could look at the Meopta HD 15x56 that I had ordered for viewing.
Of course I still wanted to.
Bedingungen um 15:50 Uhr, Regen, trübes, trübes Licht, schönes Wetter – aber meiner Meinung nach auch gut für diesen angestrebten Vergleich Meo vs. Swaro.
However, I only had 30 minutes on the speedometer, but I was able to save 20 of them because:

Meopta:

• very pleasant to the touch design
• not as difficult as its metrics suggest
• Reinforcement very well made and pleasant to the touch, valuable and robust
• Eyecups have no intermediate catches, but the end position is locked and maintained
• Bend bridge is much too light for a glass of this size, much too light
• Central drive roller is well designed but too difficult to move. In addition, the set stopping point of the roller bounced back marginally against the direction of rotation.

Presumably caused by seals and their frictional forces. I think the sealing material (surface O-ring?) is pulled along in the direction of rotation and is therefore under tension. This surface displacement, when in contact with the roller, pulls it back by the amount of the displacement when it is at a standstill. This wasn't noticeable in the focus, but was noticeable in the operation and I didn't feel comfortable at all.

• Diopter adjustment was OK in my opinion.
• the glass is a bit top-heavy

SLC Swaro:

• short, like the tbsp. With small differences but in my opinion well made, flawless.
• Articulated bridge is set very tightly
• MT excellent with no play and the directional resistances absolutely the same.
• Reinforcement very pleasant, although noticeably softer - a matter of taste
• Eyecups with locking steps and lockable
• well, in my opinion, no one can put aside what I think is the best diopter mechanism a'la Swaro.
• the SLC is very COMPACT, I really didn't think of a 15x56, I mean, very handy and definitely usable for certain periods of observation when detached from the tripod (not stabilized).
• it fits perfectly in the hand, in mine.

First of all, in my opinion, the Meostar HD is fine - if the "blemishes" weren't so noticeable.
Overall, however, the Swarovski SLC is definitely the far better model - design, size and execution, for me without any doubt.

And visually?

ALSO !!!

Why?

Because for this post I get a lift belt, a field bag and 1kg of peanuts + shortbread from the Swarov advertising department.

No.

Because unfortunately, in my opinion, the Meopta can in no way live up to the image of the SLC. I had previously informed myself as much as I could about the MeoStar HD and had English-language reports (Pinac) translated using a transiluator if it was within my reach. I would have been happy if another manufacturer would save my wallet with an acceptable loss in performance. But I can't understand the reports I know.
Sure, it's all a very individual matter, but given the two models I have, it's not really worthy of any educational debate.

• The Meopta's viewing behavior is very good, but the GF IMMEDIATELY seemed too tubey to me compared to the SLC
• with the SLC the observer is there, with the Meopta he is outside. I didn't come into the picture. It didn't pick me up.
• the SLC is BRIGHTER
• sharper
• also the edge zone
• the CA is spread very well on both
• the SLC image has more substance, flesh (especially in the light of today's weather), seems fresher and present
• the Meopta collapsed
• the SLC is more contrasting and lively
• the colors, certainly resulting from the aforementioned, are more pleasing and balanced
• the whole picture of the SLC is lively, fresh, airier, more pleasant

- with the SLC it was almost fun for ME, listen ==> in a hunting shop!!!!!! to "admire" the neon signs of the weapons industry

The overall package of the 15 SLC stands out quite clearly from the Meostar HD.

Well, I really don't mean that in a bad way, but if you place the Meopta relatively close to the SLC, please check this assessment again.
However, it is not impossible that I got a Meopta model that was really not that good. However, this would then again indicate a spread, which I would not accept either. But I'm sure that even a 0 error Meopta won't come close to the performance of the SLC.
Isn't that somehow a confirmation of what is sometimes always doubted? The premium class is probably not “worth” the money, but the quality of its class is in my opinion. unchallenged. Unfortunately and almost logically. And strikingly, for me, Swarovski is really on to it at the moment (that's what someone says, who unfortunately had to let Leica be phased out and has passed the Zeiss hurdle).

if you want to read more ..... sorry in German with pictures .....

Swarovski SLC 15x56 W B / Teil 1 Mechanik

 

[Paultricounty]

My most used binoculars go in cycles of a few weeks to a few months. For the last few months it’s been the Leica Noctivids in 8x42. But regardless of the cycle , there’s always a vintage SWA 7x35 coming along, currently its the Bushnell Rangemasters.

Paul

 

[Upland]

Nikon Monarch HG 10x42. I’m constantly amazed at how good these are for the price. Very lite as well which is very important to me.

 

[Prestdj]

my main go to is my meostar 8x42 heavy but great just feels solid, i still use my Bausch and Lomb Elites(the 1990 version) i have 2 pairs 8x42 and a 10x42 just because they have sentimental value plus there still good to look through. plus they look sexy! for the time all top binoculars were german so just looked functional the elites had class and style. if watching from the window i use a bog standard jenoptem 8x30 which if lucky can still be a great binocular

 

[hopster]

I would be happy to give you information based on my experiences - MY experiences! I'm copying my first inspection at the time because I was interested in both binoculars. I was looking for 15x binoculars and also took the Meopta with me into the narrow circle.

From the Jülich forum:

....................well, the dealer called and if I wanted to, I could look at the Meopta HD 15x56 that I had ordered for viewing.
Of course I still wanted to.
Bedingungen um 15:50 Uhr, Regen, trübes, trübes Licht, schönes Wetter – aber meiner Meinung nach auch gut für diesen angestrebten Vergleich Meo vs. Swaro.
However, I only had 30 minutes on the speedometer, but I was able to save 20 of them because:

Meopta:

• very pleasant to the touch design
• not as difficult as its metrics suggest
• Reinforcement very well made and pleasant to the touch, valuable and robust
• Eyecups have no intermediate catches, but the end position is locked and maintained
• Bend bridge is much too light for a glass of this size, much too light
• Central drive roller is well designed but too difficult to move. In addition, the set stopping point of the roller bounced back marginally against the direction of rotation.

Presumably caused by seals and their frictional forces. I think the sealing material (surface O-ring?) is pulled along in the direction of rotation and is therefore under tension. This surface displacement, when in contact with the roller, pulls it back by the amount of the displacement when it is at a standstill. This wasn't noticeable in the focus, but was noticeable in the operation and I didn't feel comfortable at all.

• Diopter adjustment was OK in my opinion.
• the glass is a bit top-heavy

SLC Swaro:

• short, like the tbsp. With small differences but in my opinion well made, flawless.
• Articulated bridge is set very tightly
• MT excellent with no play and the directional resistances absolutely the same.
• Reinforcement very pleasant, although noticeably softer - a matter of taste
• Eyecups with locking steps and lockable
• well, in my opinion, no one can put aside what I think is the best diopter mechanism a'la Swaro.
• the SLC is very COMPACT, I really didn't think of a 15x56, I mean, very handy and definitely usable for certain periods of observation when detached from the tripod (not stabilized).
• it fits perfectly in the hand, in mine.

First of all, in my opinion, the Meostar HD is fine - if the "blemishes" weren't so noticeable.
Overall, however, the Swarovski SLC is definitely the far better model - design, size and execution, for me without any doubt.

And visually?

ALSO !!!

Why?

Because for this post I get a lift belt, a field bag and 1kg of peanuts + shortbread from the Swarov advertising department.

No.

Because unfortunately, in my opinion, the Meopta can in no way live up to the image of the SLC. I had previously informed myself as much as I could about the MeoStar HD and had English-language reports (Pinac) translated using a transiluator if it was within my reach. I would have been happy if another manufacturer would save my wallet with an acceptable loss in performance. But I can't understand the reports I know.
Sure, it's all a very individual matter, but given the two models I have, it's not really worthy of any educational debate.

• The Meopta's viewing behavior is very good, but the GF IMMEDIATELY seemed too tubey to me compared to the SLC
• with the SLC the observer is there, with the Meopta he is outside. I didn't come into the picture. It didn't pick me up.
• the SLC is BRIGHTER
• sharper
• also the edge zone
• the CA is spread very well on both
• the SLC image has more substance, flesh (especially in the light of today's weather), seems fresher and present
• the Meopta collapsed
• the SLC is more contrasting and lively
• the colors, certainly resulting from the aforementioned, are more pleasing and balanced
• the whole picture of the SLC is lively, fresh, airier, more pleasant

- with the SLC it was almost fun for ME, listen ==> in a hunting shop!!!!!! to "admire" the neon signs of the weapons industry

The overall package of the 15 SLC stands out quite clearly from the Meostar HD.

Well, I really don't mean that in a bad way, but if you place the Meopta relatively close to the SLC, please check this assessment again.
However, it is not impossible that I got a Meopta model that was really not that good. However, this would then again indicate a spread, which I would not accept either. But I'm sure that even a 0 error Meopta won't come close to the performance of the SLC.
Isn't that somehow a confirmation of what is sometimes always doubted? The premium class is probably not “worth” the money, but the quality of its class is in my opinion. unchallenged. Unfortunately and almost logically. And strikingly, for me, Swarovski is really on to it at the moment (that's what someone says, who unfortunately had to let Leica be phased out and has passed the Zeiss hurdle).

if you want to read more ..... sorry in German with pictures .....

Swarovski SLC 15x56 W B / Teil 1 Mechanik

Thanks. You certainly seem to prefer the SLC!

The difference in mechanical and optical quality is certainly clearer for you than many others that I have heard. Any other opinions on this here please?

 

[wanderlust1967]

Most used, the Curio by far, I feel naked if I leave home without them, I consider the best ever the NL8x32, and the most loved are the SLC's and the objects of desire are the Leica's UV 8x20 and Retrovid 7x35.

 

[Bentley03]

If the x32 Ultravid HD+'s had a smidge more eye relief, the 8x would almost certainly be my most used binocular (it was for quite a while), but I eventually became fed up with having to jam them hard against my glasses to get the full field of view, and have a slight preference for 10x binoculars too.

My most used bins (for quite some time now) are my 2016 vintage 10x32 EL's. A perfect fit and fulfill my needs almost all of the time.

 

[Rolosama]

I started birdwatching with old Bushnell 7x35 binoculars, then moved on to Nikon Prostaff 8x42s, then the Monarch 5 10x42s that I use regularly. I also use Vortex Diamonback HD 10x42.

 

[Elkhornsun]

Around the house it is a 10x32 but when I go hiking it is a more compact 10x25 bino. Big difference in light transmission between the 10x25 and the various binos with 20mm objectives and no gain in compactness. A 25mm objective has a surface area that is 56% greater than that of a 20mm objective.

 

[Ruff-Leg]

Zeiss Victory SF 8x42. I've had them nearly six years and use them every day, across North America and the Neotropics. Never looked through another make/model that makes me want to switch. They're perfect for me.

 

[Thotmosis]

The last months from my house i use the Habicht 8x30 a lot in combination with Leica 12x50 if i want see to details.
Nice combination.

 

[Thotmosis]

My most used binoculars go in cycles of a few weeks to a few months. For the last few months it’s been the Leica Noctivids in 8x42. But regardless of the cycle , there’s always a vintage SWA 7x35 coming along, currently its the Bushnell Rangemasters.

Paul

I really like those Bushnell Rangemaster 7x35’s. Until now they don’t show up here in the Netherlands for sale.

 

[Maljunulo]

Zeiss SF, 8X32 and Fujinon FMT-SX, 10X70.

Most used because they are the only ones I have.

 

[jafritten]

Ultravid 8x32 by far. The reason for this is mainly that the 8x32 configuration strikes a good balance between portability, optical performance and ease of use.

Same would be true of a 7x35. I used to have a pair of Retrovids and really liked the view. However, apart from some mechanical deficiencies in my sample, I never felt comfortable chucking them into my rucksack.

I do appreciate larger apertures and exit pupils but when I leave the house I leave them on the window sill more often than not.

I happened across a NOS pair of Zeiss Victorys recently. I used to have a pair a couple of years ago and have always regretted letting them go. Time will tell which 8x32 will prevail as the most used pair. The Victorys seem more robust and have a better panning behaviour but the Ultravids have much nicer colours. Here they are in juxtaposition. The Leicas may seem larger but they are not; it's just the perspective or the lens I used.