My short and simple take on the Meopta Meostar 10x42HD (2 Viewers)

[Rg548]

That might be true on the 8x32, but I thought we were discussing 10x42's. The Zeiss Conquest HD 10x42 has 93% transmission and the Meopta Meostar HD 10x42 has 84% transmission. That is almost a 10% difference and will certainly be noticeable in the brightness of the binocular. I know when I compared the Zeiss Conquest HD 10x42 to the Meopta Meostar HD 10x42 under different lighting conditions, there was an obvious difference in brightness.

Carl Zeiss Conquest HD 10x42 - binoculars review - AllBinos.com

The best binocular tests on the net. The comprehensive database of binoculars with their parameters and users opinions. Interesting articles and comparisons.

www.allbinos.com

Meopta Meostar B1 10x42 HD - binoculars review - AllBinos.com

The best binocular tests on the net. The comprehensive database of binoculars with their parameters and users opinions. Interesting articles and comparisons.

www.allbinos.com

It's easy to get hung up on brightness. And Zeiss always have bright images. I wouldn't disagree, but brighter doesn't always necessarily give a better picture.
It's why some folk prefer Leica, which aren't the brightest, but offer different characteristics.
Brightness isn't the be all and end all to everyone, or we'd all be using Habichts!!

The Meostars are brighter than my Swaro 8x25's.... but my Swaros are superb in anything but late evening.

I've owned Conquest and Abbe FL's and they are incredibly bright.
But I can still see the same object/animals with Swaro's, Leica's, Nikon's, Meoptas.... just a different flavour.

I prefer the Meostar image to the Conquest, regardless of anyones' write ups, or I would be looking through Conquests right now.
They produce a better QUALITY image. You have to remember, I wasn't looking to buy, and didn't need them.... but they were good enough for me to get my wallet out.

 

[[email protected]]

It's easy to get hung up on brightness. And Zeiss always have bright images. I wouldn't disagree, but brighter doesn't always necessarily give a better picture.
It's why some folk prefer Leica, which aren't the brightest, but offer different characteristics.
Brightness isn't the be all and end all to everyone, or we'd all be using Habichts!!

The Meostars are brighter than my Swaro 8x25's.... but my Swaros are superb in anything but late evening.

I've owned Conquest and Abbe FL's and they are incredibly bright.
But I can still see the same object/animals with Swaro's, Leica's, Nikon's, Meoptas.... just a different flavour.

I prefer the Meostar image to the Conquest, regardless of anyones' write ups, or I would be looking through Conquests right now.
They produce a better QUALITY image. You have to remember, I wasn't looking to buy, and didn't need them.... but they were good enough for me to get my wallet out.

I agree. But I think brightness is an important parameter that contributes to the quality of the view. It depends on how you are using your binoculars also. Are you using them under a canopy or early in the morning or at dusk? Brightness can be essential to a lot of people, and having a higher transmitting binocular can even allow you to carry a smaller and lighter binocular with a smaller aperture and get similar performance than carrying a bigger, heavier binocular with a bigger aperture with lower transmission. The weird thing is higher transmission is more significant in daylight than aperture size, and a bigger aperture is more essential under low light. I love a high transmitting binocular like the Habicht because in the daytime it just "sparkles" like magic. For me, it is very addictive. Here is a review on the Meopta Meostar HD 12x50 from Allbinos. They mention the lower transmission and slight yellowish tint, which I noticed in the Meostar HD 10x42. Not objectionable, but still there if yellow tint bothers you. If you look at Meostar transmission graphs, they are more yellowish compared to the Zeiss Conquest HD 10x42.

"The coloring is very pleasantly warm. A delicate yellowish hue with orange overtone is easy on the eye; you can really get used to it, of course, providing you don't compare it to a pair of binoculars with a perfect color rendition. Still in this area the Meopta lags behind the best instruments, so we think, with the price of the binoculars exceeding 1000 Euro its transmission needs some further improvements."

Meopta MeoStar B1 Plus 12x50 HD - binoculars review - AllBinos.com

The best binocular tests on the net. The comprehensive database of binoculars with their parameters and users opinions. Interesting articles and comparisons.

www.allbinos.com

 

[dries1]

++1 on the Meopta Meostars.

 

[HenRun]

I think you made a great purchase with the 10X42 HD and I agree with your overall assessment of them. They are built like a mini-tank and optically they are very impressive over a variety of conditions and excel in difficult lighting conditions over many competitors. If I were back in 10X territory I would not hesitate to get them again.

My former pair is with a good friend nowadays, I had a perfect sample and I can occasionally miss the 10x42HD, but it is also only a phone call away.

I ended up keeping my Meostar 12x50HD which is optically every bit as good as the 10x42HD - albeit in a much larger package. However with the Swarovski Pure 8x32 NL the 10x42HD ended up being too close to both the other two while the 8x and the 12x being a better pairing for my needs.

10x and above have the ability to focus "through" branches and vegetation that I find very useful in birding and other viewing, something 8x and below doesn't do as well so for an "only" pair I would have kept the 10x42HD. Now the usage is 70/30 between the Pure NL and the Meostar 8/12x but after the latest bird outing I decided to use the 12x more and not leave it behind. Had some really nice sightings and I felt I missed out on some great views with the 12x.

 

[Rg548]

So had the chance today to play with an NL 10x42 Pure next to my Meoptas in the hide.
I nearly didn't, as I was worried It would ruin my Meoptas. But curiosity won, I picked them up and had a play.

And I'm really glad I did !!
The Swaro view is flatter, a bit wider, slightly brighter...... but I have to say, not actually any better. Resolution was indistinguishable.
I actuall PREFERRED the slightly more colourful view of the Meoptas, it looked nicer. The Swaro was clinical in comparison.
Small details, distant tree tops etc showed no real advantage on either.
Swaro Build is exceptional, great feel, lighter, but the Meoptas are certainly not lacking in their build. Bit more utilitarian tank like, and heavier.

I was completely blown away by how the Meoptas stood their ground against those top Swaros.
So much so that I have to say if I had blown the money on NL's.... this test would have quite naffed me off. They were just different, but not better.
I am not a flat field fanatic, and I don't seem to really appreciate wide views, so these benefits, which account for some of the expense of the Pures are not a major concern to me.

These Meoptas are quite something...... really impressed 3 weeks in.

 

[HenRun]

I have the 8x32 NL Pure, and the Meopta Meostar 12x50HD. Love them both. The Meopta does not lag behind the Swarovski optically and they are a great pairing.

Last Sunday on an outing my friend had his Meostar 10x42HD with add on sun shield (rubber eye cups) and all three binos felt great in use.

The extra % in transmission on the Swaro is probably nice in dull weather but on a bright day the Meopta binos had a better gradient looking at birds on a power line. There was an aluminium bar on one tower that was washed out on the Swaro in the harsh light but on the Meoptas you could see the transition from shadow to bright aluminium.

Overall I like the Swaro the best but last couple of outings I have used the 12x50HD the most, on a monopod. Stellar optics.

I don’t know how I would go about it today but previously I had the 15x56 Meopta, which edged out the Swarovski SLC 15x56 for me. Also I tried the 12x Pure NL but did not part with the Meopta 15x until I got to try the Meopta 12x50 which suits my needs better with regards to eye relief with glasses.

I could easily live with a Pure NL 12x but at that price point I will rather stick with the Meostar 12x. Also I thought the Pure NL 12x42 as well as the SLC 15x56 were edged out by my Meopta binos in harsh, back lit conditions.

I really loved the Meostar 10x42 B1 Plus I had but the Swaro 8x32 is so good I don’t need a 10x and think my 8/12 combo does the job. I have a standing offer to buy the 10x back if he tires of it but I am afraid the usage would be low.

I will always be torn between a great 8x and a great 10x bino - so far the best remedy has been the Meopta 12x 😁

 

[Yarkho]

MHG is great glass no doubt…but the MeoStar is better imho. At least in the 8x32/8x42 configurations.

The ergonomics don’t gel with everyone but they worked for me.

I can attest for a Meostar B1+ 8x42 and Nikon Monarch HG 8x42 being "close".

The Meostar has more CA, because it is essentially an achromat (no HD glass). The CA is of the purple/yellow-green variety, and is hard to see in the green of nature.

The Nikon MHG also has CA, of the purple/teal variety, but a bit less of it due to ED glass. Although I hate purple CA, I prefer the ergonomics of the Meostar. Edge distortion seems similar in both.

As for the Meostar 10x42 with HD glass - they arrived last week. Much improved in terms of CA, I am quite happy so far.

 

[tenex]

so Dennis, if you were able to detect a lack of sharpness, "You're a better man than I am, Gunga Din!"

Oddly enough, when I finally tried a B1+ 8x32 recently, I too felt it subtly lacking in sharpness -- at first. I don't know whether this can also be an issue with the larger models, but fortunately I kept it a couple of days longer and realized I was having unusual difficulty getting the diopter setting right, which I still can't explain, but once corrected it was tack sharp as well as gorgeous overall. Unfortunately the eyecup ergonomics still didn't work for me, but otherwise it was a very fine binocular, and I would say worth more than its price except Meopta finally realized that, and one now has to find a good discount.

 

[tenex]

The Meostar [8x42] has more CA, because it is essentially an achromat (no HD glass). The CA is of the purple/yellow-green variety, and is hard to see in the green of nature.

...As for the Meostar 10x42 with HD glass - they arrived last week. Much improved in terms of CA, I am quite happy so far.

I wonder about this observation, because the touted HD/FL glass is in the objective correcting longitudinal CA for improved sharpness at higher magnification, while the color fringing complained of is lateral CA resulting (as I understand it) mainly from eyepiece design. So perhaps the difference you notice between these two models is in the eyepiece? (Have you tried the older non-HD 10x42?)

 

[Yarkho]

No I have not, bought my first binocular 3.5 years ago.

The B1+ 8x42 certainly has longitudinal CA as well as lateral CA, which progressively gets worse with increasing distance from axis.

The B1+ 10x42 has some lateral CA near the edge, which does not bother me. Expensive astro eyepieces have it too.

The two binos are nearly the same size, but the eyepieces are different - smaller and with shorter ER in the 10x42 model.

 

[Yarkho]

Due to the rain I spent some time at home, evaluating the performance of the Meostar B1+ binoculars.

As a result, I am not so sure anymore that the Meostar 8x42 is an achromat. In fact, when viewing an antenna against the dull grey-white sky, its CA is not that different in nature, even if it is more pronounced, from the 10x42 and 12x50 models.

This suggests either that (1) the 8x42 use some form of lesser ED glass compared to the "HD" models; or that (2) the B1+ 10x42 and 12x50 HD models do not use a high-end ED glass (such as S-FPL53), while the 8x42 has none. Either way, the HD models have noticeably better CA correction, but the effect is smaller than expected. In some respects, the comparison was similar to a comparison of astronomical 102mm ED doublets of S-FPL53/Lanthan to S-FPL51/Lanthan i did some time ago.

Due to the exit pupil of the 8x42 being 5,25mm in size, there is some leeway in the IPD - I can change it by a few milimeters while still seeing well. Yet the amount of CA on-axis depended strongly on the IPD, as well as the precise placement of my eyes. A few milimeters to the right, and the vertical antenna develops a green-violet sides. A few milimeters to the left, and it is the reverse, violet-green.

When viewing using single eye/tube, either one of them, I had difficulty perceiving CA in the center of the B1+ 8x42 FOV. When using both eyes, I saw CA immediately. Even center field, while there were (almost) none in the HD models. Interestingly, when hand-held, the HD models showed no CA on-axis, but I could detect it when the binoculars were placed on a tripod.

The fact that I can detect CA even center-field in the 12x50 model is slightly bothersome, as it means that I am likely the kind of guy that would complain about on-axis CA even in the "alpha" binoculars. (Roger Vine stated that a Meostar 12x50 had less CA compared to EL 12x50).

Does any of you have any information as to the nature of ED/HD/UHD/etc. glass used in the Meostar or "alpha" brands?