Midsize Binocular Shootout: Opticron Oregon 8x32 vs Sightron Blue Sky 8x32 vs MavenB3 (1 Viewer)

[ads]

This was a test of the following binoculars:

• Opticron Oregon 4 LE WP 8x32
• Sightron SII Blue Sky Series 8x32
• Maven Outdoor Equipment Company B3 8x30

I spent about 15 hours evaluating the binoculars side-by-side in a number of different situations.

                           Opticron	Sightron	Maven
       Center Resolution	7		4		9
         Sweet Spot Size	5		7		5
           Field of View	8		5		9
              Brightness	3		7		8
                Contrast	3		7		8
         Color Rendition	5		7		7
           Glare Control	3		8		4
              CA Control	4		6		5
                Focusing	6		5		7
              Ergonomics	7		7		7
                  Weight	7		8		8
  Minimum Focus Distance	6		3		4
        Objective Covers	7		4		7
           Ocular Covers	7		2		7

Sample size = 1, 1, 1
I have no affiliation with the manufacturers.
Opinions subject to revision.

The Opticron and the Maven are actually quite similar optically... essentially the same FOV and sweet spot size... but the Maven's higher-specification glass provides considerably more contrast and brightness. The Opticron's view is somewhat dark and dingy by comparison. The center resolution of the Opticron is quite good, but the Maven is quite a bit better. Their control of glare is similar... which is to say rather poor. I experienced annoying glare under many conditions with both binoculars. Their field of view and sweet spot size are similar. The field of view of the Maven is ever so slightly larger, but it's so far at the edge of the limits of one's vision that it's not particularly useful.

The Sightron provides a beautiful view overall, but center resolution is somewhat disappointing. Optical designs are a series of tradeoffs, so it's not surprising if center resolution was compromised in the name of a large sweet spot, given the price point. If you are not blessed with high visual acuity, the tradeoff may be a very good one for you. If however you desire very high center resolution, the Sightron is probably not a good choice.

The weights of the binoculars are within 10% of each other.

Weights (bincocular with objective and ocular covers)
Opticron 545 g
Sightron 512 g
Maven 501 g

 

[FrankD]

Thank you for sharing that with us.

I can't say I agree with all your findings but I do find the overall "trend" to be very similar to my own experiences.

Considering the sample size is only one unit for each binocular I will chalk the difference in findings up to that.

 

[OPTIC_NUT]

Very interesting.....all kinds of trade-offs, some surprises.
I wonder how the Maven and Opticron would do with a short hood.

 

[ads]

I can't say I agree with all your findings but I do find the overall "trend" to be very similar to my own experiences.

Hi FrankD... Which of my findings are most different from yours?

Sample variation is always present (though it may be insignificant). I may have received a "bad copy" of the Blue Sky, but I have not noticed any resolution differences between the barrels... so I don't know. If it wasn't for the below average center resolution, it would be a great binocular for me. As it is, I'm going to return it and not order a replacement.

 

[[email protected]]

This was a test of the following binoculars:

• Opticron Oregon 4 LE WP 8x32
• Sightron SII Blue Sky Series 8x32
• Maven Outdoor Equipment Company B3 8x30

I spent about 15 hours evaluating the binoculars side-by-side in a number of different situations.

                           Opticron	Sightron	Maven
       Center Resolution	7		4		9
         Sweet Spot Size	5		7		5
           Field of View	8		5		9
              Brightness	3		7		8
                Contrast	3		7		8
         Color Rendition	5		7		7
           Glare Control	3		8		4
              CA Control	4		6		5
                Focusing	6		5		7
              Ergonomics	7		7		7
                  Weight	7		8		8
  Minimum Focus Distance	6		3		4
        Objective Covers	7		4		7
           Ocular Covers	7		2		7

Sample size = 1, 1, 1
I have no affiliation with the manufacturers.
Opinions subject to revision.

The Opticron and the Maven are actually quite similar optically... essentially the same FOV and sweet spot size... but the Maven's higher-specification glass provides considerably more contrast and brightness. The Opticron's view is somewhat dark and dingy by comparison. The center resolution of the Opticron is quite good, but the Maven is quite a bit better. Their control of glare is similar... which is to say rather poor. I experienced annoying glare under many conditions with both binoculars. Their field of view and sweet spot size are similar. The field of view of the Maven is ever so slightly larger, but it's so far at the edge of the limits of one's vision that it's not particularly useful.

The Sightron provides a beautiful view overall, but center resolution is somewhat disappointing. Optical designs are a series of tradeoffs, so it's not surprising if center resolution was compromised in the name of a large sweet spot, given the price point. If you are not blessed with high visual acuity, the tradeoff may be a very good one for you. If however you desire very high center resolution, the Sightron is probably not a good choice.

The weights of the binoculars are within 10% of each other.

Weights (bincocular with objective and ocular covers)
Opticron 545 g
Sightron 512 g
Maven 501 g

The interesting thing here is the low on-axis resolution of the Sightron Blue Sky which to most is a very important characteristic of a binocular. It seems that result is going to draw a lot of discussion because the Blue Sky's have been highly touted on Bird Forum for a long time. I think Frank said in his famous review of them said "As I mentioned the apparent sharpness is excellent. It comes exceptionally close to rivaling the 8x32 SE's" so it shows you opinions can vary. I like how you put numerical values in a table in an easy to read format. That makes it easy to see what binoculars scored the highest in the areas that are important to you. I would find it strange that there would be that much sample variation especially when you say both barrels were that way. It is refreshing to see some new reviews from different members to get more diverse opinions on various binoculars. Having had the Blue Sky's I do agree with your low scores on FOV, focusing, objective covers, ocular covers and I do remember them having a big sweet spot and not being for me either particularly sharp in the centerfield. They did not wow me and I really didn't keep mine that long either.

 

[brocknroller]

Thanks for those 15 hours of comparisons! You must have been cross-eyed by the end of it. :eek!:

While I get that the relative value of the numbers tell us how the bins compared to each other, the actual value of the numbers is not clear. For example, you rated the Opticron's and Maven's sweet spot as a 5. What does that mean in terms of percentage of the FOV that is in focus, hopefully not 50%? Frank rated the sweet spot at 75%. So on a scale of 1-10, a 7.5, if you take 10 being sharp to the very edge.

Well, no matter anyway. The poor glare control on the Maven is a turn-off. How come we didn't hear about this from Frank??? Nada word. Is this another "now you see it, now you don't" glare bins like the 8x32 SV EL?

Frank's B3 Review

<B>

 

[ads]

Hi Brock... I broke my testing into a lot of smaller sessions, but still it was tiring.

My numerical ratings have no absolute meaning... other than my general idea of 0 = horrible and 10 = perfect. I guess I could have just ranked each binocular against each other as first, second, third in each category, but I think the 1-10 scale adds some information regarding my opinion in relation to other binoculars. This is all just my opinion. I have two other 8x binoculars at the moment, but neither is alpha level. I do have a Zeiss Victory in 10x.

People have mentioned glare as being an issue with the Nikon M7, so maybe it's not surprisingly that the Maven B3 has glare issues too. Unfortunately I don't have access to the Nikon.

 

[FrankD]

ads,

Well you have already hit on two of the key differences. For one I certainly would not rate the centerfield "apparent sharpness" as poor or below average. I think Brock was kind enough to quote my original impressions and I would continue to offer those comments. If I remember correctly I think I even put a small "booster" to the back of it and noted very little loss in image quality.

Truth be told I am guessing you received one at the bottom end of the "acceptable" range. Going by memory here I only remember one other comment in the entire Sightron thread where someone felt the apparent sharpness was not up to par. Every other individual that has purchased or utilized it has been impressed by it and centerfield performance has never been an issue.

After owning mine for over three and a half years now and comparing it to countless other models, including several $1000+ models, I never felt it was lacking in apparent sharpness.

It is a shame though that you chose not to replace it as I would be curious if it was the unit or just your impression of it.

The second discrepancy would be the glare/stray light comments with the Maven. I haven't had an issue with it at this point and have been using them on a daily basis. I did own two of the Nikon M7 8x30s and both suffered from an uncoated "ring" which did cause stray light concerns and also a loss of contrast. I don't see either with the Maven.

Lastly, my impression of apparent sweet spot size in the Maven is notably larger than your estimate. The key to that being that my choice of words includes the term "apparent". You could also use the phrase "general impression under regular use". If you go back and review those pictures I posted you will see that the "general impression" does seem to change depending on the subject being observed. The tree pics give the impression of a smaller sweet spot while the playset and dog pics give the impression of a much larger one. As a result I believe our impressions of sweet spot size are highly subjective and certainly can be dependent on issues such as the flexibility of the user's eyes.

Hi FrankD... Which of my findings are most different from yours?

Sample variation is always present (though it may be insignificant). I may have received a "bad copy" of the Blue Sky, but I have not noticed any resolution differences between the barrels... so I don't know. If it wasn't for the below average center resolution, it would be a great binocular for me. As it is, I'm going to return it and not order a replacement.

 

[chartwell99]

The weights of the binoculars are within 10% of each other.

Weights (bincocular with objective and ocular covers)
Opticron 545 g
Sightron 512 g
Maven 501 g

Wow - the Sightron is the lightest 8 x 32 binocular I have used in years. Very interesting that the Maven is even lighter!

 

[[email protected]]

ads,

Well you have already hit on two of the key differences. For one I certainly would not rate the centerfield "apparent sharpness" as poor or below average. I think Brock was kind enough to quote my original impressions and I would continue to offer those comments. If I remember correctly I think I even put a small "booster" to the back of it and noted very little loss in image quality.

Truth be told I am guessing you received one at the bottom end of the "acceptable" range. Going by memory here I only remember one other comment in the entire Sightron thread where someone felt the apparent sharpness was not up to par. Every other individual that has purchased or utilized it has been impressed by it and centerfield performance has never been an issue.

After owning mine for over three and a half years now and comparing it to countless other models, including several $1000+ models, I never felt it was lacking in apparent sharpness.

It is a shame though that you chose not to replace it as I would be curious if it was the unit or just your impression of it.

The second discrepancy would be the glare/stray light comments with the Maven. I haven't had an issue with it at this point and have been using them on a daily basis. I did own two of the Nikon M7 8x30s and both suffered from an uncoated "ring" which did cause stray light concerns and also a loss of contrast. I don't see either with the Maven.

Lastly, my impression of apparent sweet spot size in the Maven is notably larger than your estimate. The key to that being that my choice of words includes the term "apparent". You could also use the phrase "general impression under regular use". If you go back and review those pictures I posted you will see that the "general impression" does seem to change depending on the subject being observed. The tree pics give the impression of a smaller sweet spot while the playset and dog pics give the impression of a much larger one. As a result I believe our impressions of sweet spot size are highly subjective and certainly can be dependent on issues such as the flexibility of the user's eyes.

When I reviewed the Maven I didn't see a lot of glare issues either. It wasn't the best binocular I have ever seen for glare but it wasn't too bad. It was noticeably better than the Nikon 8x30 M7 which too me had a veiling glare across the entire field but that was one of the first samples and later some commented that Nikon fixed the glare problem. I like the numerical ratings. It is like some of the car reviewers use and makes ranking the binoculars easier. I wonder if the apparent sharpness of the centerfield of the Sightron is being confused with the sweetspot size since it is so large.

 

[Tom Bombadil]

This is an interesting observation. I just took my Sightron out with 5 other binoculars, no alphas but a couple of fairly decent ones, including a Nikon Premier LX-L, an older Bausch & Lomb Custom, an older Nikon 7x35. The Sightron's center resolution held up very well in this group. I didn't see any softening in its images at all.

 

[ads]

Lastly, my impression of apparent sweet spot size in the Maven is notably larger than your estimate.

Hi FrankD... I gave no absolute value to it, so do you mean your impression of the sweet spot sizes of the Maven compared to the Blue Sky are reversed from mine?
Which has a larger sweet spot in your opinion, the Maven or the Blue Sky? (Actually we need to specify whether we are talking about in percentage terms or in feet terms since their FOV's are different). I can test them again today or tomorrow. I will compare them in feet/meters terms.

As for center resolution, I've compared that many times so I feel confident about my assessment (unless I was cursed with a bad copy of the Blue Sky.)

 

[ads]

I compared the Blue Sky and the B3 again today. I feel the Blue Sky has a just slightly wider sweet spot (in linear terms) than the B3. The B3's sweet spot is hampered by significant Petzval field curvature: Unlike the Blue Sky, the outer part of the FOV of the B3 can be brought into focus by turning the focus wheel.

Focusing of the B3 is very good. The combination of high center resolution and very smooth wheel with a fast ratio, makes focus quick to obtain.

The tension of the central hinge of the B3 is too low. I think FrankD already pointed that out.

Light from just outside the B3's FOV is manifested as very bad glare, even under mild conditions. This can be demonstrated by going near a street light, and looking near the light, but keeping the light just out of the FOV. Unfortunately it's not just street lights which cause the problem... Regular sky does too. For me, glare is the downfall of the B3.

 

[brocknroller]

"Very bad glare" Das is nicht so gut. Curious why Frank doesn't see this in his sample if it's that bad. I know people have different tolerances about what is acceptable to them for various optical characteristics/flaws, but up until recently (after reading the thread on the glare problem/no problem in the 8x32 SV EL), I thought that everybody would see VG if it were present in a particular bin.

Now it seems that VG might be joining the ranks of subjective differences in CA, RB, pincushion, and brightness that various users either see differently or don't see at all. I wonder what the more scientific minded members such as David (typo), Binastro, Henry and Holger think about this?

I know eye position plays a role, and I've repositioned my eyes to reduce VG in bins, but if the VG is "very bad" like it was in the ZR 7x36 ED2, some will always be present no matter how I adjust my eyes, plus as I pan, I will have to readjust my eyes since eye positioning is critical, and I can't get comfortable with a bin that I have to continually adjust to.

If eye positioning due to your facial structure rather than repositioning your eyes is the critical factor, then the only way to find out if you fall into "yes, I see it" or "no, I don't" camp is to try one yourself.

<B>

 

[HighNorth]

Isn't the Maven B3 about 3-4 times as expensive as the Opticron and the Sightron? Do you think it is a fair comparison?

 

[cycleguy]

ads,

Nice job!!! :t:

There are two things in your review that jumped out at me. The first is the center resolution of the Sightron, and the second is the glare control of the Maven.

I was a Sightron 8x32 Blue Sky owner way back when Frank introduced them. It wasn't the binocular for me so I parted with it, but I never found issue with the center resolution.

After seeing your comments on the Maven's glare control, I started wondering if that 8x30 format has some inherent issue with it. But, am thinking otherwise after reading Frank's and Denco's comments. Maybe this is something some users are more susceptible too??? Kind of like me and CA.

Anyways, a great job and your efforts are much appreciated...

CG

 

[ads]

Isn't the Maven B3 about 3-4 times as expensive as the Opticron and the Sightron? Do you think it is a fair comparison?

I have tried to evaluate each model fairly. The binoculars are approximately the same form factor, so I think it's reasonable to compare them. I'm not concealing the price differences.

I stand by my opinion that glare in my copy of the Maven was not well-controlled. There was one very harsh test condition in which it did perform better in terms of glare than other models which usually bettered it. In that particular condition, the center of the field remained relatively unobscured compared to others, but in general in did not perform as well for glare, and I noticed glare under quite a few normal viewing conditions with the Maven. And testing with a light source just out side of the FOV (a street lamp), the difference between the Maven and the Blue Sky was immediately apparent.

After further testing, I think I should bump the center resolution rating that I gave the Blue Sky up to a 5. I may have a bad copy. I really have a lot of trouble getting the diopter setting set correctly with the Blue Sky. Sometimes the diopter adjustment feels like it has a detent... and sometimes it feels like it doesn't... odd.

I should also bump up my sweet spot size rating for the Maven and the Opticron. There's not very much difference between the 3 of them.

 

[Stet]

I had a similar experience with my first copy of the blue sky I bought a couple years ago. My impressions of its sharpness were not matching with what others were posting and I could never get the diopter set right. So I sent them back and got another pair and found them noticeably sharper. I've had them a couple years now and I still marvel at how sharp they are for the price. The only time I find them a little lacking is when trying to discern fine detail in a far away bird, but I think the brightness may come into play here also. Still enjoy the heck out of these bins!

 

[pete_gamby]

Isn't the Maven B3 about 3-4 times as expensive as the Opticron and the Sightron? Do you think it is a fair comparison?

Just as some background (inside?) information, these three have the following relative factory cost prices:

Oregon 4 - 100* ($135 MAP)
Sightron - 90 ($179 Amazon, OpticsPlanet, Adorama)
Maven - 420 ($500 MSRP)

* These are of course not the actual cost prices in any currency but I thought you might care to see how they relate. I put the Oregon at 100 to highlight that compared to its MAP, its cost is relatively higher than the Sightron.

Cheers, Pete

 

[ads]

Hi Pete... Can you explain those numbers a little more? Why do you think the Blue Sky is cheaper to produce than the Oregon? I think it's pretty clear that the Blue Sky clearly has better coatings and/or glass than the Oregon. I think if Opticron spent a little more on improved coatings, it might best the Blue Sky in most aspects.