Rank these binocular brands according to their build quality! (1 Viewer)

[Dennis Mau]

We often talk about build quality as related to different brands of binoculars, so I thought it would be interesting to have a sort of poll ranking the various binocular brands according to their build quality or overall fit and finish. Which of these brands impresses you or don't impress you when you open the box and based on your experience with the binocular long term which ones are the most trouble free. Are alpha's really worth the price difference in the long term, or is an inexpensive binocular just as trouble free? There is a lot of experience here on Bird Forum, so the results should be intriguing. Here is the list of brands. If you want to throw in another brand or specify a model like SF or NL in the line-up, go ahead.

1) Leica
2) Swarovski
3) Zeiss
4) Nikon
5) Meopta
6) Canon
7) Alpen
8) Bushnell
9) Vortex
10) Leupold
11) Vanguard
12) Hawke
13) Steiner
14) Zen-Ray
15) Kowa
16) Fujinon
17) Opticron
18) Gosky
19) Athlon
20) Tasco

 

[lmans66]

Going to be tough to do as many of these I have not tried and of the brands I have tried/owned....quality might depend on what 'line' is known. For example, there is a huge difference in quality between the Zeiss SF and Terra, ..... or are you counting the alpha bins once manufactured by Nikon or just their current non alpha line? ...

Yes, could be interesting but not sure how 'quality' can be substantiated ....jim

 

[GrampaTom]

The conversations here often titled "build quality" are really more about "fits and finishes". Build quality has to contain data about how well a product is made/functions, not just fits and finishes. How well does it perform? How many nits occurs at delivery. How often it gets returned, how well do they hold up over time? Not sure how we can respond to this as no one here that I know of, has that sort of data. Its been said by others Swaro has, reportedly more returns than others. We dont know that, but even if we did, without sales data its meaningless. If they sell more, and quality was equal to other brands they would experience more returns. Who would have better build Q? if they sell more and have a lower percent returned, they would have superior build q.

Maybe we should stick to mountain goats...

 

[NZbinodude]

If by 'build quality' you mean perceived build-quality - then yes, I think Leica binoculars inspire the most confidence. They're generally finished a little nicer than the others. Leica puts more emphasis on beautiful design, whereas Swaro and Zeiss (and others) take a more utilitarian approach.

That said, Leica products are no more immune to manufacturing defects and design flaws than any of the others.

As far as 'fit & finish' goes, I think it's dropped across the entire board (and not just with respect to optical devices, but most consumer items). Cost of living has sky rocketed, and labor is expensive.

 

[NZbinodude]

Interesting view point! Don't you think the Noctivid is pretty utilitarian in design? You're right that Leica's are designed beautifully. I have not had a lot of long term experience with Leica's, but it is fascinating that they are no more immune to defects and flaws. Initially, it seems like they are built like a tank. I think quality has dropped also. You are hearing about problems with even the alpha brands that you never heard before.

Yeah, the Noctivid is quite utilitarian compared to some of the other models in the Leica line up. But they've still got quite an understated appearance, and the quality of the rubber armoring trumps anything Swaro or Zeiss have on offer. I agree that Leica binos 'feel' more hard-wearing.

The problems I've personally had with Leicas include a squeaky hinge and some rangefinder issues (in a couple of Geovids).

 

[yarrellii]

Yes, "build quality" is a sketchy matter to define. As NZbinodude says, one thing is the "perceived" build quality, but then how do you define "build quality"? Is it the fact that a device can last long without any issues? Something like "reliability"? Car magazines have been making long-term endurance test for decades, where they drive for 100.000 km and then dismantle the entire car piece by piece to check how every part of the vehicle was affected.

So, if such a thing to be taken as a model, only binoculars with a proven record of having XXXX hours in the field should be taken into account.

Or else, one could do a series of inquiries about long-time ownership and the perception of quality (also like with cars), but then this would factor the perceived and subjective idea of quality, or the bias towards a particular brand from a user. Say user X has had one Leica and it was a bad experience, then for the next 20 years this user only buys Zeiss, then his vote would be conditioned.

It's a difficult issue, indeed. As it's to be exptected, more expensive binoculars (like Z, Sw, L, etc.) are supposed to go through tighter processes of QC and make use of finer materials, but then, every week one hears about a binocular from Z, Sw, L, etc. developing a problem in the focuser or, like myself, buying a brand new Zeiss from a certified dealer... only to find a hair inside the objective lenses (yes, it was immediately exchanged by a new one, but I guess this comes as a surprise when you buy a Zeiss for nearly 1000 €).

So, I guess the original post should include clues to extract some "objectivable" from the experience of forum members.
Like:
- with a minimum use of 5 years (or 10, for example), which is the brand/model that did not needed service... or that did not suffer degradation (in the armour, focus wheel, etc.).

It's just an idea, but I think something else is needed to focus the question a bit more. Otherwise, it's nothing but a game of "perceived" quality... and I'm perfectly OK with it But it's just another game.

 

[jgraider]

Meopta
Leica
Swaro
Zeiss
Nikon
Bushnell
Vortex
Zen Ray

 

[GrampaTom]

What brands in your experience have YOU had fewer problems with from the moment you opened the box, and after you have used the binocular for a while? What brand would you again and what brand would you NEVER buy again?

I'm irrelevant to this question. Very much a "beware the man with one gun guy." I love binos for what they do, not as objects in and of themselves. They are tools. If I buy another it has to provide some sort of true complimentary utility. Fits and finishes matter in that choice, but are secondary considerations. I'm certainly not qualified to comment of build quality.

 

[GrampaTom]

So you consider the functionality of the binocular first and build quality second? I am reading you, correctly? What binoculars have you had the least problem with in the field, and which ones have you had more problems with?

Ive owned 4 from 1970 till now. First from USMC PX was Bushnell Custom 936, (stolen out of car summer 2020). In 1985 as in industry insider, a Zeiss 1040B MIWG. In 2020, as a nobody, a short focus EL 1042 and a Zeiss Victory Pocket 825. All have been essentially perfect. I get youre trying to lead the conversation around to your question. As we cant have data, any answers that come will be purely subjective opinions and mostly based on esthetics. As you can tell from answers already "style" is very much tied up, (maybe confused), in such a conversation about fits and finishes. I dont think this one's gonna go anywhere Dennis.

 

[A2GG]

As NZbinodude says, one thing is the "perceived" build quality, but then how do you define "build quality"? Is it the fact that a device can last long without any issues? Something like "reliability"?

Yes, reliability is how I'd define it.

Unfortunately, I've never had one binocular for many years.

I've owned a Ultravid 7x42 for about 4 years and it functioned well the whole time with no change from when I bought it new. It had a nice smooth focus. I'd declare it well constructed and reliable.
I've had 2 Swaro CL each for a couple years or so and those worked pretty well too. Even my first binocular, Leupold Yosemite porro (Chinese made) had no issues for the 4 years owned until I donated it.

I've had 3 bins with issues:

Nikon MHG 8x30 - rubber separated from focus wheel. I still own this binocular. I haven't repaired it yet. It's still usable.

Opticron Countryman HD 8x42 - same issue as MHG. I sent it in to Opticron and they fixed it.

Cabela's (Meopta) Euro HD 8x32 - rubber peeling up on bridge out of the box.

 

[Binastro]

There is much variation in consumer binoculars, so ranking is difficult.

Fujinon Porros have been dropped 9ft onto concrete with no harm.

Basically you get what you pay for.

A £20,000 to £200,000 professional camera or T.V. lens is built well.
So would a similar price military optic.
However, if it is complex it might not survive a big knock.

Probably military grade repairable binoculars are well built.

Optics that go into orbit are well built.

Leica lenses have also been dropped from 20ft and survived.

Leica, some Zeiss, Hensoldt, Swiss, TTH binoculars seem well built.
Also Ross 10x80 very heavy WW2 binoculars.
Den Oude Delft optics are well built.
Williamson aerial optics were built well.
Also AGI. Aerial and General Instruments.
Vinten cameras are very tough.
Nikon and Topcon cameras are well built.

The Fujinon binoculars used in helicopters seem well built.
£10,000 to £20,000 with interchangeable night vision and day eyepieces.

10x60 Zeiss WW2 binoculars, also to a lesser extent the 10x50, maybe 7x50? Zeiss and Leitz 7x50 WW2 binoculars.

Binoculars used from aircraft generally.

Field glasses 1880 to 1920 are well built, but few want them now.

Regards,
B.

 

[Ted Y.]

Fujinon Porros have been dropped 9ft onto concrete with no harm.

This binoculars where in a soft case, hard case?

 

[Binastro]

The Fujinon binocular was displayed on top of a large cabinet without protection.

It fell onto the concrete floor.

It was I think a rubber armoured Fujinon.

Zeiss used to regularly drop some of their binoculars 1.5 metres onto a hard floor 'by accident' i.e. on purpose to show that the binocular remained collimated.

There are different levels of tests applied to military specifications for binoculars.

Although military optics are very well made some are shipped with shock meters in the shipping case.
If the limited g number is exceeded then the optics are rejected.

Even optics launched into space have specified limits, which have to be high.

I mentioned other things than binoculars, because, say, Nikon are used to making tough cameras they have the knowledge to make tough binoculars.
This does not mean every Nikon binocular is tough.
Some Nikon binoculars are well known for not coping with knocks.

Although, say, the Nikon F is a strong camera, some later Nikon compact cameras were poorly built.
They may have come from non Nikon sources and just had Nikon names.

I really don't think that the list of twenty binocular makes can be put in any meaningful order.

In many cases the same factory makes binoculars, which are sold under numerous names.
Perhaps as many as ten different names for essentially the same binocular.

The Hensoldt 16x56 light weight binocular c.1955 is one of the best built binoculars that I have seen.

The 25x105 Schneider binocular seems well built, as does the Russian 15x110 EWA binocular.

The 8x30 Czech made copy of the 1940s Zeiss seems very well built.

B.

 

[Dennis Mau]

Ive owned 4 from 1970 till now. First from USMC PX was Bushnell Custom 936, (stolen out of car summer 2020). In 1985 as in industry insider, a Zeiss 1040B MIWG. In 2020, as a nobody, a short focus EL 1042 and a Zeiss Victory Pocket 825. All have been essentially perfect. I get youre trying to lead the conversation around to your question. As we cant have data, any answers that come will be purely subjective opinions and mostly based on esthetics. As you can tell from answers already "style" is very much tied up, (maybe confused), in such a conversation about fits and finishes. I dont think this one's gonna go anywhere Dennis.

You're probably right, but I am trying!

 

[Dennis Mau]

Yes, reliability is how I'd define it.

Unfortunately, I've never had one binocular for many years.

I've owned a Ultravid 7x42 for about 4 years and it functioned well the whole time with no change from when I bought it new. It had a nice smooth focus. I'd declare it well constructed and reliable.
I've had 2 Swaro CL each for a couple years or so and those worked pretty well too. Even my first binocular, Leupold Yosemite porro (Chinese made) had no issues for the 4 years owned until I donated it.

I've had 3 bins with issues:

Nikon MHG 8x30 - rubber separated from focus wheel. I still own this binocular. I haven't repaired it yet. It's still usable.

Opticron Countryman HD 8x42 - same issue as MHG. I sent it in to Opticron and they fixed it.

Cabela's (Meopta) Euro HD 8x32 - rubber peeling up on bridge out of the box.

You have had a lot of rubber peeling off and separating issues, haven't you! I agree that the Leica's seem to have good build quality. Their armour seems especially durable. I am not so sure about how long the armour will last on the MHG, but I like you have never had one for a long time. I had to laugh when you said your first binocular was a Leupold Yosemite porro because that was my first binocular also. I think I bought it at Walmart, but actually it was a pretty good binocular. How did you like the Opticron Countryman HD 8x42.? I have never had, I don't think, any Opticrons.

 

[Dennis Mau]

The Fujinon binocular was displayed on top of a large cabinet without protection.

It fell onto the concrete floor.

It was I think a rubber armoured Fujinon.

Zeiss used to regularly drop some of their binoculars 1.5 metres onto a hard floor 'by accident' i.e. on purpose to show that the binocular remained collimated.

There are different levels of tests applied to military specifications for binoculars.

Although military optics are very well made some are shipped with shock meters in the shipping case.
If the limited g number is exceeded then the optics are rejected.

Even optics launched into space have specified limits, which have to be high.

I mentioned other things than binoculars, because, say, Nikon are used to making tough cameras they have the knowledge to make tough binoculars.
This does not mean every Nikon binocular is tough.
Some Nikon binoculars are well known for not coping with knocks.

Although, say, the Nikon F is a strong camera, some later Nikon compact cameras were poorly built.
They may have come from non Nikon sources and just had Nikon names.

I really don't think that the list of twenty binocular makes can be put in any meaningful order.

In many cases the same factory makes binoculars, which are sold under numerous names.
Perhaps as many as ten different names for essentially the same binocular.

The Hensoldt 16x56 light weight binocular c.1955 is one of the best built binoculars that I have seen.

The 25x105 Schneider binocular seems well built, as does the Russian 15x110 EWA binocular.

The 8x30 Czech made copy of the 1940s Zeiss seems very well built.

B.

Interesting about the Fujinon! That had to be one of their big rubber covered porro's, probably. Isn't the Nikon E2 8x30 easy to knock out of collimation if you drop it? I have heard that somewhere. Is the Hensoldt 16x56 German made? It would have to be a big porro probably.

 

[dries1]

Most of the glass Hensoldt made for the military is almost indestructible. I have the DF 8X30 IF in my vehicle.

 

[Dennis Mau]

Most of the glass Hensoldt made for the military is almost indestructible. I have the DF 8X30 IF in my vehicle.

Where did you get them? On eBay?

 

[Binastro]

My two 8x30 Hensoldt monoculars are from a binocular that had a broken hinge.

So no. Few things are indestructible.

The 16x56 Hensoldt is a roof prism binocular.

The Nikon 20x120 and WX binoculars are probably well built.

Also Leica BA and BN.

Zeiss Conquest HD. Tough but useless eye cups.
Zeiss Classic 7x50 rubber armoured built well.
Zeiss 20x60S. Built well, yet fragile. Strange combination.

Toyota Land Cruiser well built. (Not a binocular, but tough).
Mercedes 190E also.

There is a battery in Britain that has been working non stop for about 182 years.
It was originally said by the maker to last perhaps 5 years.

Regards,
B.

 

[A2GG]

You have had a lot of rubber peeling off and separating issues, haven't you! I agree that the Leica's seem to have good build quality. Their armour seems especially durable. I am not so sure about how long the armour will last on the MHG, but I like you have never had one for a long time. I had to laugh when you said your first binocular was a Leupold Yosemite porro because that was my first binocular also. I think I bought it at Walmart, but actually it was a pretty good binocular. How did you like the Opticron Countryman HD 8x42.? I have never had, I don't think, any Opticrons.

Interesting they had the Yosemite at Walmart. I think I got mine from Eagle Optics.

A couple other bins had slightly loose rubber in spots on the body but this is normal. They only glue it down in some spots on the body because they may need to remove the rubber to do repairs. Rubber peeling off the focus wheel is not normal of course and the rubber peeling at the edge of one side of the bridge on the Meopta also not normal.

The Countryman HD was very sharp and had a quality central
image. It just had a narrow FOV. It had nice ergonomics and was relatively light weight. I really liked its understated plain look and the texture of the armor. I just wish it had a wider FOV. It was also somewhat finicky with my eyeglasses at the time which had a thicker frame than the glasses I use now.