Robert Moore
Well-known member
The Vortex is a fine binocular for astronomy but just not in the same category as the NL.
Thanks a lot, great info, I'm considering the 12x, it sounds like it's a phenomenal glass!Hi,
I sold the Vortex 12x50 UHD after getting the 12x42 NL pure. The 12x NL has the best optics of any binoculars I have had or seen. I can see deeper when tripod mounted than my 10x50 Fujinon. ( both tripod mounted). The moon is just phenomenal in the NL. Pure white with no CA and extreme contrast like no other binocular the way it shows different shadings and texture. Bright stars and Jupiter are the cleanest I have seen also with no flaring and just a perfect little ball with no blue halo even going through focus it just stays white.
The Opticron rep Peter Gamby said on these forums that the modern optics are probably as good as it's going to get and I think he's right.I’ve tried the 10x42 HD and UHD side by side for a few days and kept the HD, sold it later on for other bins. I’m usually the guy who spends the extra money for the higher price options for the very small improvements that are gained, but in this case on these two vortex bins I found the optical performance during the day almost the same with slight improvement in CA in the UHD.
The thing that turned me to the HD is the build quality are literally the same. It’s not like going from a Nikon monarch 7 to a MHG where the improvement is all around. It just didn’t seem that there was enough of quality bump for the cost increase. And at the price of the UHD your getting to the price point of better build quality binoculars that will hold their value much better.
Paul
Obviously he is more knowledgeable than I am, but Id like to ad that Ive heard that about 10-15 years when the SE and EDG's were as good as it gets. Then came Swaro EL SV's, Leica UVHD+, Zeiss FL and HT's. Then I heard it was about as good as it gets, then came Leica Noctivids, Zeiss SF and Swaro NL's. I have them all and I see the difference.The Opticron rep Peter Gamby said on these forums that the modern optics are probably as good as it's going to get and I think he's right.
lighting conditions and atmospheric conditions have a huge part to play when checking out optics.
And a Mazda is not in the same category as a Porche. Swarovoski provides only the EL in a 12x50 binocular and it sells for $3,200, or 140% more than one pays to get the Vortex Razor UHD for at this time from B&H.The Vortex is a fine binocular for astronomy but just not in the same category as the NL. Swarovski only provides the NL
Funny you'd make that comparison, as I recently tried both binoculars and while the EL seemed excellent, I couldn't deal with the rolling ball and found myself to prefer the UHD. I'll be checking them out again and will look to see if the narrow field of view bothers me or not.And a Mazda is not in the same category as a Porche. Swarovoski provides only the EL in a 12x50 binocular and it sells for $3,200, or 140% more than one pays to get the Vortex Razor UHD for at this time from B&H.
The main drawback with the Razor UHD is the relatively narrow FOV of 236 feet at 1000 yards. The other Vortex 12x50 binos provide a much wider FOV.
There’s always the Leica’s.Funny you'd make that comparison, as I recently tried both binoculars and while the EL seemed excellent, I couldn't deal with the rolling ball and found myself to prefer the UHD. I'll be checking them out again and will look to see if the narrow field of view bothers me or not.
That’s the first binocular that got me interested in the 12x50, and it wasn’t all that long ago that would’ve never even considered a Vortex.There’s always the Leica’s.
Vortex website listsAnd a Mazda is not in the same category as a Porche. Swarovoski provides only the EL in a 12x50 binocular and it sells for $3,200, or 140% more than one pays to get the Vortex Razor UHD for at this time from B&H.
The main drawback with the Razor UHD is the relatively narrow FOV of 236 feet at 1000 yards. The other Vortex 12x50 binos provide a much wider FOV.
What marginal differences did you notice? For any of us considering one or the other it could be helpful to know what another member saw as the factors which might make the UHD a more appropriate choice, or the other way around.The HD cost me $800 versus $1400 for the UHD and I could not justify the additional $600 in terms of value added.
B&H Photo currently has these on sale.What marginal differences did you notice? For any of us considering one or the other it could be helpful to know what another member saw as the factors which might make the UHD a more appropriate choice, or the other way around.
Also curious as to where you found them for $800/1,400 when median price points seem to be around $1,100/1,800.
B&H has a pretty good deal then! UHD is a great binocular and for my purposes I think I like them quite a bit.B&H Photo currently has these on sale.
The HD is substantially lighter and more compact with very good optics.
The UHD is large and heavy , has AK prisms, excellent next level up optics. It’s much brighter, sharper, and better CA correction. But did I mention they’re bigger and heavier 😛.