New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - 10 X 42’s verses 8 X 56?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Check GunBroker.com for SWFA's No Reserve and No Minimum bid firearm auctions.

10 X 42’s verses 8 X 56?

 Post Reply Post Reply   Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/26/2007 at 16:38
windstrings View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: October/19/2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 81
Do any of you gentlemen have any thoughts on the 8 X 56 verses the 10 X 42's?
I'm thinking "Swaro's" here.

The exit pupil jumps from a 4.2 to a 7.0 which would be good for viewing from moving unstable platforms as well and excellent night vision, but my negatives are the extra height "2.4 inches", weight "another 14.8oz, and only 15 feet added to the  FOV, as well as loosing 2 power.

It seems the extra height is killing any Field of View advantage by the bigger lenses?

I'm also concerned that the added nightvision from the larger exit pupil may be offset by the lower power...
I've read that getting the image "closer" has almost as much effect at helping night vision as does increasing the exit pupil?
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/26/2007 at 17:22
ND2000 View Drop Down
Optics Journeyman
Optics Journeyman
Avatar

Joined: January/29/2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 308
Windstrings -

I think you are complicating the issue a little bit.  For starters, understand that with Swarovski, you are getting some of the best glass on the market.  As a result, all differences are marginal at best, because both would be of such high quality.  Personally, I think you will find the 10x42 a little better, because they will be that much smaller and lighter in your hands.  Coatings have as much to do with brightness as the exit pupil, that is for sure.  In any event, your eyes likely cannot benefit from a 7mm pupil anyway.  You would only notice a difference at the extremes of daylight.

You will notice the 14.8 oz weight difference and added length much more than any brightness.

ND2000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/26/2007 at 17:46
windstrings View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: October/19/2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 81
I appreciate your response... I"ve read that only the young "ie: 20ish year olds" can really dilate that far down..... Since I"m around 50... I"ve read mine will not go below 5 even in the best of cases.. If thats true, the only benefit I would obtain would be from movement while viewing as the larger exit pupil would give me more grace.
It sounds like a 10 X 50 would be more ideal as the exit pupil is 5... but like you said.. larger, more weight for less than a mm more exit pupil may not be worth the consideration for that either.


Edited by windstrings
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/26/2007 at 19:44
Bird Watcher View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master
Avatar

Joined: August/30/2006
Status: Offline
Points: 1490

The higher the number (7) the larger the exit pupil, the smaller the number (4) the smaller the exit pupil.

 

I'm around 60 and my eye pupils dilate/open to 6mm+ in darkness.

In bright sunlight my eye pupils close down to 2mm's.

 

Unless the majority of your hunting is done in low light the 8x56mm would be overkill.

 

 



Edited by Bird Watcher
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/26/2007 at 21:18
windstrings View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: October/19/2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 81
bird Watcher, It sounds like your eyes are very healthy.....

http://singularsci.com/Accessories2.htm
http://www.astronomics.com/main/definition.asp/catalog_name/ Astronomics/category_name/t1cpr9srvrxjh9lpvlh/Page/1
http://www.competitor.com/index.asp?pid=2739

I think I would like a 10 X 50 if I could find it.... but the 10 X 42 should be fine too.... in reality.... I never hunt less than dusk.... but you just never know about the future!
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/27/2007 at 03:16
Acenturian View Drop Down
Optics Journeyman
Optics Journeyman
Avatar

Joined: September/07/2004
Status: Offline
Points: 543

It may be slightly brighter but 14.8 oz is almost a pound extra in weight. I am a firm believer in oz make lbs in the field.  I have a pair of Swarovski 10x42 SLC and they are not overly heavy infact I like a little weight in my nocs but they are far from light weight. I would think more weight would be too much.

 

Also mine are plenty bright enough to allow me to hunt well past legal or ethical shooting hours.  Swaro makes a great product you won't be disappointed.



Edited by Acenturian
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/27/2007 at 04:53
Bird Watcher View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master
Avatar

Joined: August/30/2006
Status: Offline
Points: 1490

windstrings,

 

You might also consider the Minox HG 10x43 BR asph at 22.9 ozs. or the HG 10x52 BR asph at 27.3 ozs.

 

www.minox.com

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/27/2007 at 10:28
windstrings View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: October/19/2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 81
I've about decided except for very "special" applications... the 8 X 56 is not an optimal "no pun intended!" binocular....

The 10 X 50, on the other hand may be worth the added exit pupil advantage for the extra weight... but even that gets into "special application".

The 8 X 50 looses all of its close focusing.. I believe minimal focus goes to 30 feet?
It not only weighs 50% more than the 10 X 42, but is obviously bigger and more bulky, along with more expensive.
Due to those disadvantages, the demand for purchase for the 8 X 56 is less so one can save even more when special discounts become available as in the bargain bin at the southern store..... I believe about 600.00 off regular price which is a big temptation for anyone needs the special extras it offers.

Unfortunately, there is no "perfect" anything.... job, shift, or toy... there are many variables to consider in any purchase.

Although I think I would jump on a pair of 10 X 50's if I could find them discounted as the extra light gathering ability is "fun" if nothing else, but I think I'll pass on the 8 X 56's. Maybe mainly because of the drop in power... but the other disadvantages are considerable rather than nominal.

I appreciate everyone's help in my decision.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/27/2007 at 13:52
Acenturian View Drop Down
Optics Journeyman
Optics Journeyman
Avatar

Joined: September/07/2004
Status: Offline
Points: 543

Yes, a 56mm objective is going to be HUGE and the weight is going to be a huge factor as well. As far as 10x vs 8x that will come down to personal preference.  Where are you going to be hunting or using the binoculars.  I have a nice set of 8.5x pair of Swifts and my 10X Swarovski.  I like the 10x but I hunt out west with lots of cayons and open timber. Someone who is hunting closed in woods as in the east my find that a lower power binocular is the way to go.

 

Weight is a major factor when walking up and down canyons all day.  For me personally I like having a bit of weight on my binoculars. I was all set to buy Zeiss FL's (which are brighter then my Swarovski although I still like the Swaro over all image) the FL's were very light weght, in fact too light in my opinion for a 10x binocular. The higher the magnification the harder it is to steady the binocular, I was having a hard time holding them steady standing in a parking lot, I could only imagine huffing and puffing up and down hills with them.  I also liked the overall feel of the Swaro in my hand.  However if your in the market for high end binoculars and you are going to be spending that much money you need to go check them out in person. I think of it like televisions, I have always liked the softer image of a Sony TV but that is not to say that Toshiba or Hitachi make bad tv's just what looks good to "your eyes". 

 

At that level of optics you really can't go wrong. Several brands that I was looking at last year that compete with the Swarovski was

 

Zeiss Fl series

Leica Tinovid

Nikon Premiere LX

Leupold Golden Ring

Kahles

Bushnell Elites

 

Also someone mentioned the Minox HG series, I haven't seen or handled a pair but they look nice.

 

Good luck an dlet us know what you went with

 

AC

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/30/2007 at 20:11
windstrings View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: October/19/2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 81
I finally settled "finally" on the 10 X 50's Swarovski SLC.

They are indeed a notable difference heavier than the 10 X 42, but seem more stable and able to see clearly due to the extra weight and length.... maybe a tiny bit similar to holding a rifle on a target verses a pistol.....

They do not feel too heavy to hunt with... but I can tell I would not want to go on a 15 mile hike with anything heavier!

Just before I settled, I tried the Leica Duovid 10/15x50..... it only made me feel that much better about my Swarovski purchase.....

Not only was their FOV much less, they were terrible "not clear" on the 15X setting.... maybe I didn't know what I was doing, but they looked like poor cheap (*(&(* brand..... surely I didn't know what I was doing?....... but nevertheless the feel of quality with the diopter and smoothness or operation did not compare to the total professional feel of the Swarovski's.......

Enough Leica bashing..... that was just my experience...I know they make good units based on many reports.... but the pair I had were either terrible, or at best not user friendly.

Anyway.... hopefully my search is over.... I know I can't afford to search anymore!

Thanks for everyone's help in my decision.

 Post Reply Post Reply
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Similar Threads: "10 X 42’s verses 8 X 56?"
Subject Author Forum Replies Last Post
Swarovski 10 X 42 SLC verses 10 X 50 SLC windstrings Binoculars 0 10/31/2007 8:11:53 AM
FS Vortex Razor 10 X 42 Brocksw Optics For Sale 1
Swarovski binos which power 7-42 or 10-42 bms Binoculars 13
Leica Ultravid 10 X 42 v.s. Swarovski EL 10 x 42 Loves to Hunt 85 Binoculars 6
Meopta HD 10-42 ccoker Binoculars 1
SWFA SS 10-42 Cobra7 Tactical Scopes 28
Zeiss 10 x 42 FL KrazeLegs Optics For Sale 4
Best Low Light 10 x 42 Binocular KrazeLegs Binoculars 48
SWFA SS 10 X 42 MOA scope Rainman Rifle Scopes 1
SS HD 10-42 Help surefire44 Rifle Scopes 1


This page was generated in 0.484 seconds.