nikon monarch 5 16x56 vs swarovski 15x56 HD (1 Viewer)

[bockos]

I want to ask what is the difference in brightness, contrast and resolution between these two binos? With which of them I can see cleared and sharper details? Thanks!

 

[Borjam]

I've got a pair of the Nikons. Very good sharpness, excellent resolution and contrast, but the large eyepieces are prone to pick up reflections from behind or the sides. The fat Monarchs really need better eyecups.

 

[cnick6]

Honestly I've never picked up the Swaros but I can safely say they would have *much* better image quality. The Nikon's are OK if on a budget. The Swaros would be a better investment; however, I would also consider the Zeiss 15x56 Conquest HD which is a very good price right now. Here's the 8x56 review: http://www.allbinos.com/index.php?test=lornetki&test_l=292

I sold my Nikon M5 20x56 model just recently. I also have the Vortex Razor HD 12x50 which is very good. If you have a chance to try the Razor HD I would highly recommend it. It's much more lightweight and manageable compared to a 56mm optic. The weight gets pretty significant with the fat binos. The Razor HD 12x50 is very lightweight for its power and resolution.

 

[bockos]

I read here http://www.outdoorlife.com/blogs/hunting/new-15x-monster-binos that nikon 16x56 is better than zeiss 15x56 hd and very close to resolution to swarovski hd, is that information correct? Thanks!

 

[Borjam]

I read here http://www.outdoorlife.com/blogs/hunting/new-15x-monster-binos that nikon 16x56 is better than zeiss 15x56 hd and very close to resolution to swarovski hd, is that information correct? Thanks!

The Monarch 5 has an amazing price performance ratio. I have the 8x42, and recently got the 8x56 and 16x56. Love them, but I haven't compared them to a Zeiss or Swarovski. I can say that I was very impressed when I tried them, and that I'm sure it's very difficult, if possible at all, to find something comparable at a similar price point.

Beware the reviews of the previous fat Monarch with non ED glass because there seems to be a huge jump from the previous models to the Monarch 5 with ED and dielectric prism coatings.

The only advice I can give you is to try them out. They are heavy although I think that other large binos are heavier, and they have a design flaw in tepee eyecups, making them too prone to reflections from behind or the sides.

I am looking for suitable winged eyecups.

 

[cnick6]

I read here that the nikon 16x56 is better than the zeiss 15x56 hd and very close to resolution to swarovski hd, is that information correct? Thanks!

Well, I think you misread that article somewhat. It says the resolution of the Swarovski is clearly superior that of the other binoculars. It then claims that the low-light test from the Nikon was equal to that of the Swarovski. This doesn't really make sense as I would expect the higher-resolution binocular to win the low-light test. So, I'm a little skeptical of their statements. I would need to try them for myself to be sure.

I never tried the 15x56 so I can't really comment honestly. The M5 20x56 were good but not exactly razor sharp.

PS. I'd purchase from a retailer like B&H Photovideo (NYC) or Eagle Optics (WI) and you can always return them if you don't like them.

 

[Hermann]

I read here http://www.outdoorlife.com/blogs/hunting/new-15x-monster-binos that nikon 16x56 is better than zeiss 15x56 hd and very close to resolution to swarovski hd, is that information correct?

Whoever wrote that blog may want to have his/her eyes checked.

And it's never a good idea to believe everything you find on the net.

Hermann

 

[Borjam]

Have you compared them yourself anyway?

 

[Hermann]

Have you compared them yourself anyway?

Nikon vs. Conquest. And the difference is obvious.

Hint: the Nikon doesn't win

Hermann

 

[Borjam]

Nikon vs. Conquest. And the difference is obvious.

Hint: the Nikon doesn't win

Thanks I was wondering.

I was surprised by the ratings in that website because, even though I know plenty of examples of lack of correlation between price and quality, it rarely happens with optical instruments.

I imagine that the reviewer scored them based on his expectations. Maybe the Monarchs were surprising for the price. Who knows.

I own the Nikons and, for the price I paid it's an amazing pair. Of course I am well aware of their limitations.

 

[plc22]

I read that article too a while ago and found it to be clearly biased against Zeiss.
I have looked throught the Nikon,you get a lot for the money it's true but it is not in the same league as the Conquest HD except for CA control where the Nikon is better, in every other department the Zeiss wins.