Having 2 pairs of binoculars. Which would you choose? (1 Viewer)

[NDhunter]

If you could only have two pairs of binoculars. Which two would you chose to cover up all your needs? If you still would miss something, you may choose a third. But there must be a good reason for it.
I am asking this question myself... Having two pairs already and always said two is enough. But still playing with the idea to add a third one. But where does it stop? Isn't it like, I want more more more... can't you just be satisfied with what you already have? It is not that the money is growing on my back. And even if it does, there are probably better causes.
Just asking myself. Bird and nature watching is my passion, so no problem that is costs something. But can it be covered in two pairs of binoculars and one scope?

Ps. I have 10x32, 8x42 and 17-40x56. But asking myself do I miss a pocket bin, 10x50 or 12Y power?

You pose an interesting question. What is your 17-40x56, I am not familiar ?
Jerry

 

[Ignatius]

Owning just one pair is easy - my beloved T*FL 7x42.
Having two, however, is such a difficult question that right now I have no answer, except that the FL would be one of them.

 

[ReinierB]

You pose an interesting question. What is your 17-40x56, I am not familiar ?
Jerry

The swarovski scope ATC 17-40x56.

Having just one: NL 10x32
Having two: NL 10x32 + SLC 8x42
Having three: NL 10x32 + SLC 8x42 + Curio 7x21
Having four: add the EL 12x50

All 4 powers and all needs (for me) covered.
And of course a scope. No need for a bigger one.

 

[Binovehje]

Two is difficult but three is easy. Big, medium and small. for example 7x21, 8x32 and 10x42-56.

My current lineup:
7x21 Curio
8x30 Companion
10x40 Habicht

The two smaller are 90 % of my use but sometimes at a bird tower longer reach is nice and size is not an issue. So if I had to choose only two, it would be small and medium sizes and lower magnifications. If the choice was about money, I would invest in these sizes first as quality matters more. Especially in the very small category only Curio has been good enough to be useful. On the bigger end it’s easy to find rather good old porros for very little money.

Update on my post before. The companions have been upgraded to NL 8x32 and the 10x40 went back to previous owner and I got instead Canon 18x50. Still would be difficult to use only two but those two would be Curio and NL. But it’s really useful to have one with bigger size and longer reach also. The Canons are mainly competing in usage with my scope.

 

[Rg548]

My current set up...

Zeiss HT 8x42
Leica Ultravid 8x20

At the moment all basis covered...
HT... mega performance, low light, general use, stargazing.
Ultra... pocket friendly, carry anywhere, always available, but compromised.

Would maybe consider swapping out to a Curio, but those Ultras are so well made, and do such a great job, its a hard one!

 

[Viraj]

If I were to narrow it down to just two pairs, my top choices would likely be the Curio 7x21 and NL 10x42. The Curio's exceptional performance undoubtedly makes it a versatile substitute for an 8x32. Apologies for the delay in responding to this thread! 😊

 

[Pinewood]

Hello,

My choice for two, similar to Viraj's, is a 7x and a 10x. However, I would go with a now hard to find 7x42 and a 10x32. However, of late, I carry only an 8x32, with a good wide field. I did wish I had my 10x32, this morning. I saw a wader on the opposite shore of Central Park Lake and had a hard time identifying it with my 8x32.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur

 

[[email protected]]

I do mostly daytime birding now, so I like a 32mm for the smaller size and weight. I like to have an 8x for closer in birding and a 10x for more open country. Likewise, I have settled on the NL 8x32 and the SF 10x32. They both have their strengths and weaknesses, but they are pretty good binoculars overall.

 

[ReinierB]

I do mostly daytime birding now, so I like a 32mm for the smaller size and weight. I like to have an 8x for closer in birding and a 10x for more open country. Likewise, I have settled on the NL 8x32 and the SF 10x32. They both have their strengths and weaknesses, but they are pretty good binoculars overall.

Why not the other way around? So NL 10x32 and SF 8x32. FOV NL 10x32 > FOV SF 10x32 and FOV SF 8x32 > FOV NL 8x32.
Or did it just happen to be this way?

 

[dorubird]

I do mostly daytime birding now, so I like a 32mm for the smaller size and weight. I like to have an 8x for closer in birding and a 10x for more open country. Likewise, I have settled on the NL 8x32 and the SF 10x32. They both have their strengths and weaknesses, but they are pretty good binoculars overall.View attachment 1577220

welcome back!

 

[[email protected]]

welcome back!

Thanks! Still have the Habicht 7x42? Are you ready to argue?

 

[[email protected]]

Why not the other way around? So NL 10x32 and SF 8x32. FOV NL 10x32 > FOV SF 10x32 and FOV SF 8x32 > FOV NL 8x32.
Or did it just happen to be this way?

I got a deal on each one, so it kind of turned out that way. I would be satisfied with the SF in both 8x and 10x or the NL in 8x and 10x, but I like and appreciate the differences between the two binoculars. It is fun to change back and forth. The CA and glare control are a little better on the SF, but the NL has sharper edges. The focuser is a little smoother on the SF, but the NL is still excellent. Both are very bright.

I think anyone would be satisfied with either, but you might prefer either for different reasons. It would be best to try them both to see which you like the best. It is kind of like the difference between a Porsche and a Ferrari. They are both fun to use in their own way.

 

[ReinierB]

the NL has sharper edges and a bigger AFOV.

I don't think that is true. The AFOV of the SF 10x32 is larger than the AFOV of NL 8x32.
The NL 8x32 doesn't really shine with is AFOV compared with all the other NL's.

 

[[email protected]]

I don't think that is true. The AFOV of the SF 10x32 is larger than the AFOV of NL 8x32.
The NL 8x32 doesn't really shine with is AFOV compared with all the other NL's.

You're correct. I wrote that without comparing the specifications on them. Just lazy, I guess. That is an interesting fact. Usually an 8x32 has a bigger AFOV than an 8x42, like for example the EL 8x32 has a bigger AFOV than the EL 8.5x42. I had the NL 8x42 and for me, it had more glare at the bottom of the FOV than the NL 8x32 and my guess is Swarovski reduced the AFOV on the NL 8x32 versus the NL 8x42 to reduce the glare.

I do notice the difference in the larger FOV of an NL 8x32 versus the EL 8x32 which I had, though. It is a significant jump. The differences between an EL 8x32 are not huge, but the differences are there. If you don't care about the FOV size, you can save some money by buying an EL 8x32, and they are smaller and slightly lighter than an NL 8x32. The NL 8x32 does have a smoother focuser than the EL 8x32 though, if focusers are important to you.

 

[dorubird]

Thanks! Still have the Habicht 7x42? Are you ready to argue?

Yes, I'm ready
Yes, I still have Habicht 7x42 and I like it more and more as time goes on.

Here is my choice of only two binoculars explained in detail

Having only 2 pairs of binoculars I will chose:
First ona I clearly opt for the SF Victory 10x42. It is the most comfortable binoculars I have tested. It has a body with "consistency" when held in hands. It sticks to eyes by itself, thanks to the superb ergonomics, and I feel it is a 10x only in resolution, not for the imagine shaking. So the first pair of binoculars is undoubtedly this one! The biggest proof that it is the first choice and the best binocular for me is the test of passing of time. This SF10x42 is my oldest set of binoculars, which has remained "faithful" to me for so many years. I was had many different binoculars in my kit, but this one remained!
View attachment 1577321


But for choice of the SECOND pairs, the choice would be more complicated because I have three options (suitors), each with his own advantages:

Mainly the fight is between Nikon MonarchHG 8x30 vs Swarovski Habicht 7x42.
Nikon MHG 8X30 has the advantage of versatility. It has a very large visual field of view (8.3°), with acceptable clarity even up to the edges. It is more comfortable for glasses, and it has a good quality image with pleasant colors. Short close focus! Mechanical quality olso superb. But the most important thing of MHG 8x30 is that these qualities are sealed in an extremely small and light body (450g), which is not much bigger than an 8x25 bino.
View attachment 1577322

Swarovski Habicht 7x42, on the other hand, is from another story. It's a pair of binoculars with personality. Habicht likes to torture you and then reward you with a unique experience. From the moment you hold it in your hand torture begin...It has a bony structure, spartan to the touch. The focus requires force to rotate (but mine softens over time). The AFOV is a spartan one of only 46°, similar to an astronomical orthoscopic eyepiece. But paradoxaly with this small 6.5° field of view, the magic of these binoculars begins. The beauty is that, being very small, you can easily spot it immediately to the edge of the fieldstop, with both eyes without effort. This magic is amplified by the exemplary stability and large depth field of 7x, fantastic clarity of the image. And, in the world of binoculars, Habicht has the best transmission of light at all wavelengths. To this recipe of magic, is added like a salt and pepper, the three-dimensionality specific of a porro binos . The body has the classic porro beauty and is sealed for water.
View attachment 1577323
SO it's hard to choose between versatility and magic. Sometimes I need versatility, and sometimes I feel need for magic. It depends a lot on my mood and concrete situations. When I want relaxation and a unique experience, I choose Habicht 7x42.
But more often I see myself in situations like expeditions, animal photography, or other action situations, where I choose versatility of Nikon MHG 8x30 over the magic. Because MHG 8x30 it is so compact and does not burden my luggage much, and I do not feel its presence around my neck that much, and that without feeling that it lacks optical and mechanical qualities.
View attachment 1577326

But what about the third option, and more precisely what is it? I can put it in my backpack or pocket and forget about it there. It is the binocular carried everywhere, but used the least, due to the fact that it is the binocular for emergencies and unforeseen situations. It is a design object, just as it is good for a pair of binoculars carried everywhere, to make you happy when you look at it as an object itself. This does not mean that it does not have real optical and mechanical qualities such as image definition, contrast, superb colors and last but not least, the most comfortable focus system in the world of pocket binoculars, thanks to the oversized focus wheel comparared to binocular scale. So the third option for second pair of binoculars it is Leica Ultravid 8x20. But, being extremely small, I don't count it anymore... because with or without UV 8x20 in my backpack I don't feel the difference. So UV it is out of the race because it'll stay in my backpack anyway It's so small, and it's like a mechanical/optical jewel. It is a keeper in any situations! Maybe the fact that I no longer count the Ultravid 8x20 in the race, and it has this special and privileged status, that means that these small binoculars are actually my seeking second choice?!
View attachment 1577325

However, if someone forces me to choose only two: As I said, clearly and easily, instantly, the first choice will be the Zeiss SF 10x42. But the second choice will be very difficult to make. Maybe the Nikon Monarch HG 8x30 due to its usefulness in use. But then I will immediately miss the magic of the Habicht 7x42, or the gem of the Ultravid 8x20. I'd be happy with any of these three bino, to make the team with Zeiss SF, appreciating each one's unique qualities. So I'll flip a coin

 

[[email protected]]

I loved the SF 10x42 BUT for some reason, maybe my facial structure, I got an orange crescent of glare at the bottom of the FOV in both the SF 8x42 and SF 10x42. Allbinos says it is caused by reflections behind the eyepiece diaphragm.

Carl Zeiss Victory SF 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

"The Zeiss Victory SF is the proof that it is possible to produce a pair of binoculars with a very wide field of view which is also perfectly corrected. If not for that strange slip-up with reflections beyond the eyepiece's diaphragm, most likely caused by a shiny ring inside tubes which aren’t baffled properly by apertures, you would get an instrument optically perfect, an ideal."

In the Zeiss SF 10x32 I don't get the "orange crescent glare" nor do I get the "blue ring of death" that some see in the SF 10x32, but I saw it in the SFL 10x40. The Zeiss SF 10x32 is a perfect binocular for me with no black-outs apparent.

The Nikon MHG 8x30 doesn't work for my eye sockets and facial structure with the eye cups being too short for the ER resulting in it being a floater where I have to hold it away from my face to avoid blackouts. For me, it is a no-go.

I understand the appeal of the Habicht 7x42. The brightness is amazing, and the glare control is awesome, but the narrow FOV and hard focuser makes it difficult for me to follow fast moving birds with. The DOF does help, but it doesn't make up for those shortcomings entirely, IMO. For just observing, it is very cool.

Have you ever tried an alpha 10x32 like the NL or SF? You might like the small size and light weight compared to your SF 10x42 if you bird mostly in the daytime. I find very little difference versus the SF 10x42 unless you bird in low light a lot. Eye placement comfort is about the same also.

 

[edwincjones]

Day to day my choices vary,
but today a larger IS pair and a smaller 8x32
specific models to be determined

edj

 

[dorubird]

Some binoculars come and go, but the ones that stay with us for years, those are our precious choices.

Some binoculars come and go, but the ones that stay with us for years, those are our precious choices. The Time Test is the best form of choice, but it takes time We are all looking for the perfect binoculars for us, but there comes a time when the choice comes naturally after long experiences! It's a subjective trip, but after many years my precious choice is Zeiss SF 10x42, I use it for everything: birding, nature, astronomy, etc. It is a complete pair of binoculars.
I wish each of you to reach own favorite binoculars that will delight you for as long as possible.
View attachment 1577992

 

[tenex]

If you could only have two pairs of binoculars. Which two would you chose to cover up all your needs? If you still would miss something, you may choose a third. But there must be a good reason for it.
I am asking this question myself... Having two pairs already and always said two is enough. But still playing with the idea to add a third one. But where does it stop?

This thread has run for over a year, so it's time to ask Reinier to answer his own question. Has it stopped, and where?

 

[William Lewis]

I don't think it's stopped for him yet!

I might change my 2 and go for the SLC neu 7x42b and maybe an ultravid 8x20.

Ask me again in a year.