Visit the SWFA.com site to check out our current specials. |
Gun-Tests Optics Review Part II |
Post Reply |
Author | |
Rusty
Optics Apprentice Joined: April/12/2004 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 147 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Posted: August/15/2005 at 10:49 |
Has anyone read the second part of this review? If you have, could you summarise the findings from this review. I do not get Gun-Tests, and am curious about the results.
|
|
SteveSF
Optics GrassHopper Joined: May/17/2005 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 37 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Sorry that I don't have it with me at the moment. They said that all the over-$1,000 binoculars that the looked at (only 3 were evaluated Zeiss Victory FL, Leica Ultravid, and Swarovski EL; all 10x) were excellent. For ergonomic reasons and build quality (although I don't understand this), they liked the Zeiss best. They said that the Leica was heavy compared to the others. They were not very specific as to their reasons for their judgments. Sorry that I can't remember more at this time. The article was quite short, only a few pages and most containing specifications.
|
|
gremlin
Optics Apprentice Joined: February/16/2004 Location: left of center Status: Offline Points: 115 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Rusty-- Where'd you get a chance to read the first part? Was it somewhere here in this forum? Darn, go on vacation for a little while and you miss out on the good stuff!
|
|
Chris Farris
TEAM SWFA - Admin swfa.com Joined: October/01/2003 Location: Texas Status: Offline Points: 8024 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
We have a new Catagory and subforums.
Part I and Part I are posted under the Gun-Tests Magazine forum. |
|
tbone1
Optics Apprentice Joined: May/31/2004 Status: Offline Points: 195 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Thanks Chris for posting the Gun Tests review. Somebody explain this to me. They claimed that the Leica were optically excellent and the brightest of the three but they didn't pick them because they felt too heavy "tipping the scales at 37.3 oz making them the heaviest of the group". That is pretty amazing since every other pair of Ultravid 10x42 weighs 27oz. It appears that someone accidently misprinted the specs. Probably an honest mistake, but what bothers me is that they typed up a review based on false information and claimed the Leica felt too heavy to carry and they prefered the Zeiss since they were lighter. This is impossible since they weigh exactly the same as the Zeiss. They are also more compact. My point is that they obviously didn't feel too heavy and they must have based part of their review on specs rather than strictly on performance. |
|
xenophobe
Optics Apprentice Joined: July/29/2005 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 26 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
At least the Cornell binocular article has some merits, but is far from
unbiased or even fair... This "review" isn't any more informative than
a gun magazine's "What's New" section.
|
|
SteveSF
Optics GrassHopper Joined: May/17/2005 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 37 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
tbone1 and xenophobe are both right.
The "Gun Tests" people know firerarms, but their binocular reviews don't explain their judgments well, or at all. I was puzzled by their two reviews, too. I'm sure that the over-$1,000 binoculars reviewed were all nearly flawless and indistinguishable in their views; for practically everybody, the choices between these are based on ergonomics. As xenophobe said, other magazine reviews are similar.
Anyway, what are your impressions of the binoculars reviewed by Gun Tests? I'm curious if you agree or disagree. |
|
SteveSF
Optics GrassHopper Joined: May/17/2005 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 37 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
A correction: the Swarovski that was reviewed was an SLC model, not EL. My apologies.
|
|
Brady
TEAM SWFA - Admin Casino Cruiser Joined: May/20/2004 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 1844 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I weighed both the Ultravid and the FL out of curiosity. I found the Ultravid actually weighs a little less then the FL.
Ultravid - 26.24 oz FL - 26.88 oz
Makes you think they based their whole review off specs and stats. Rather than actual hands on viewpoints. If I handled them constantly I sure wouldn't get the impression that the Ultravids are heavier. When they are in fact lighter. How can you do a write up on something, and base your main dispute from a spec that is this inaccurate? |
|
xenophobe
Optics Apprentice Joined: July/29/2005 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 26 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I just weighed my Ultravid 10x42 BL without strap or rainguard. They weigh 24.6 oz
|
|
Rusty
Optics Apprentice Joined: April/12/2004 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 147 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Chris, SWFA Staff,
Thanks for posting the reviews. Every bit of information helps.
Crusty Rusty |
|
Chris Farris
TEAM SWFA - Admin swfa.com Joined: October/01/2003 Location: Texas Status: Offline Points: 8024 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Gun Test editor sent me a revised review that I uploaded, so if anyone was reading this thread and reads the review it has now been corrected.......thanks to OT members. He is also running a correction in the printed magazine. |
|
Post Reply | |
Tweet
|
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |