Hawke Frontier ED binoculars

 

in the u.k.  that is what made me search there in the first place. i called hawke yesterday (the u.s. branch) and went over the issue of the rough focus wheel, their response : i will have to email the folks across the pond to resolve this issue. 

 

he was very helpful, i just thought i would see if they could offer a solution to the problem. i am going to keep them reguardless, i just wanted to see if something could be done. it never hurts to ask. i don't want a new pair or anything, i just was wondering if there was some way to make it move smoother. i really was supprised after playing with them for several nights, it did not loosen up. the kahles i sold, i had purchased on the sample list several years back. when i got them the focus was the same way, but after several nights of moving it back and forth, it broke free. maybe this will happen with the hawke, i will keep trying. i have a 1 year old little girl that is into everything. right now i just don't have as much time to play with binos, but it is worth it.

 

i informed the fella, at hawke, right off the bat that i purchased them in the u.k. and that was a non issue. they should stand behind their brand regardless of where it comes from. you got yours in the u.s. and apparently had the same problem.

 

hey, i am usa all the way, but i work hard for my money and saving $134 per binocular was a big deal to me. that comes to a total savings of $536 for all 4. i guess being an accountant makes me more of a tight wad than some people.  hee, hee.

 

There's really not a lot I can add to Koshkin's comments... but I'll try. 

 

I thought the Frontier ED was slightly inferior to the Razor in off-axis light management.  When slowly panning toward a white light source at night, I noticed a bit more flare and ghosting through the Hawke than through the Razor. 

 

Although the Frontier 8X43 ED has even greater FOV than the 8X42 Razor's expansive FOV (426' vs. 410'), I felt the difference in "usable" FOV was offset by the Frontier ED's softer field edge, as Koshkin mentioned.  Both binoculars seemed to have equivalently large "sweet spots."  My eyes could tell no discernable difference in resolution, contrast, and color between the Frontier and Razor in the center of the field.  Subsequent star testing yielded the same results, with both binoculars producing equally compact point sources of light in the field center, but when slowly panning to view stars toward the edge of the field, the Frontier began to exhibit coma further from the field edge than the Razor.  This is obviously a direct biproduct of the Frontier's softer field edge. 

 

I did not find the Frontier's slight edge fuzziness to be objectionable.  I brought both binoculars to my hunting camp during one of our joint family get-togethers.  During an evaluation session, I handed both to my wife and later to a hunting buddy of mine and asked their subjective opinions of the two with no further comments made on my part.  Both said they preferred the Razor's image solely because the Razor had a less reduction in image quality at the field edge.  My hunting buddy found the Frontier's soft field edge to be more objectionable than my wife did.  When pressed, both thought the center field image quality to be equivalent between the two binoculars. 

 

As Koshkin mentioned, I did notice that the Razor had a greater depth of field.  The Razor required less refocusing when viewing objects at varying distances than the Frontier did when viewing the same objects.

 

I found Chromatic aberration to be equally well controlled with the Frontier as the Razor, which is to say, it was almost non-existant with either binocular.  Both were slightly better in this regard than the Leica 8X32 Ultravid ED!

 

For low light performance comparisons, I located a cardboard box at my hunting camp that had a barcode label decal affixed to it.  The barcode decal had sharply defined black lines on a white background.  I placed the box 20 yards from my sitting position and alternated between viewing the barcode with the Frontier and Razor as darkness approached, with the goal of seeing which binocular could resolve the barcode line spacing further into darkness.  As a result, I could see no discernable difference in low light performance between the two, as nighttime rendered the barcode a grey blob at the same time for both optics.  What was surprising here was how well the Leica 8X32 Ultravid HD performed in comparison to the Frontier and Razor, despite its obvious exit pupil disadvantage.  With it, I was still able to resolve the barcode within 5 minutes or so of the point where I lost it with the Frontier and Razor.  Although the overall image was noticeably dimmer through the 8X32 Leica just before darkness than the two full-size bins, its outstanding resolution and contrast seemed to narrow the gap somewhat.  In good lighting, the little 8X32 Leica's excellent resolution and contrast provided a sharper defined image than the Frontier and Razor, which is to be expected given its much greater price tag.

 

I prefer the Razor's central diopter adjustment integrated with the focuser over the Frontier's right barrel mounted diopter adjustment.  While both seemed equally secure, the Frontier's adjustment was very stiff, and I just think the central diopter adjustment gives the optic a cleaner, more symmetrical appearance.

 

Ergonomically, the Frontier's shell felt more "grippy" than the Razor's due to the many small "bumps" and ridges on either side of the barrels.  Even though the Frontier's hinge spacing is narrower than the Razor's, I found finger placement between the hinges to be more comfortable with the Frontier because it has a radiused relief just behind the focus wheel that provided a very comfortable, natural place for my middle fingers to rest.  I thought that was a nice ergonomic touch.  Both binoculars seemed to balance equally well in my hands, no doubt due to their similar proportions.

 

I found the Frontier's carrying case to be quite unusual, yet nice, as it provides very good protection for the binocular.  My only issue with it is that fitting the binocular into the belt pouch and then inside the case is a pretty tight fit with the objective covers in place, and you have to retract the eyecups to get it all inside the case.  I don't know where the supplied neck strap and cleaning cloth is supposed to go, as once I got them out of the case, I have trouble fitting it all back inside and get the case zipped shut.  I did not open the package for the neck strap, so I didn't try it out to evaluate it.  The eyepiece cover fit nicely and was perfectly adequate, but I didn't care for the objective covers at all.  Not only are the tethers very thin and flimsy looking, but they wouldn't stay put very well during use for me.  I found I was constantly having to reinstall the retention loops during use, as they would easily slide off the objective barrels.

 

In short, I think this is one fine binocular that seems unbeatable at its price point!  In my opinion, I would still have to give the Razor a slight edge (no pun intended) over the Frontier, mainly due to the sharper field edge, better stray light control, and I prefer the Razor's eyecups and focuser.  I don't know whether my Razor has the earlier silvered prisms or the current dielectric prism coating, as Vortex replaced my first generation Razor after I dropped it and bent one of the eyecups.  However, it's hard for me to imagine another roof prism binocular retailing for less than $700 equaling the Hawke Frontier ED's remarkably good image quality.

 

BTW -- Koshkin, I will be shipping your binoculars back to you this week.  I'm sure you're ready to get them back!