I bought a pair of Bushnell 10x42 Ultra HD Legend binoculars recently. They are made with ED glass and I believe they give fantastic image quality etc. But many birders keep telling me there's nothing comes close to Swarovski. As I've never tried them as they are just so expensive, I wondered what other posters think of them compared to binos such as Legend Ultra HD?
As some one who has in the last 2 months parted with £1600 (I did take a large intake of breath before passing the money over) for a pair of Swarovski 10*42 Swaro Vision and I have not been dissapointed. My other pair were Opticron 10*42 which have served me well for 20yrs and I cannot see much difference in very good light but when the light is poor ( which is often) they are amazing, it is almost like they suck all the availble light into the binoculars! Also as a specs wearer they give me a much wider field of view (if thats the correct description) which again makes it easier to see/find the birds. They are meant to be my last pair binoculars and do not see any reason for them not to be.
But to be honest there is a lot of the 'keeping up with the Jones' in birding ie if you do not have the most expensive pair of binoculars/telescope then you are not a true birder which is really bull--- and if you are happy with what you are using why worry.
I agree with your 'keeping up with the jones' comment completely. There's definite snobbery in the birding world.
My Bushnell Legend Ultra HD binos cost £300 and are highly regarded by optics experts, even getting a positive mention in the 2010 Binocular Awards (they recommended looking at them as well as Nikon before buying) - see http://www.binoculars.org/uncategorized/binocular-of-the-year-awards-announced-for-2010/
I suspect Swarovski are best in low light, as you suggest, but I believe the Ultra HD are excellent in low light too. I think I will go into a shop and compare the two before I make my mind up!
As you pay more and more for binoculars, the 'extra' you get follows a law of diminishing returns. A £300 pair will be noticeably better than a £100 pair in virtually all conditions but above that kind of price range the improvements become increasingly subtle.
As an owner of the Swarovskis, I think they are superb but would agree that they're VERY expensive for what is a small improvement over much cheaper binoculars.
Where they score very well is, as has been said, at low light, when looking into the sun, where there is less 'milkiness' to the image and for their close focus. They also will replace 'wearable' parts, such as screw in eye-cups, quickly and free of charge. Where they let themselves down a little is the multiple wheel turns for the focus range (improved slightly on the latest models) and the protective coating, which has a habit of delaminating from the body in hot weather. Again, this is rectified free but you have to send them away in this case.
You do get what you pay for, but the last few hundred quid buy you very little!
Stew.
For all your optical needs and answers to any questions pop down to Saltholme this weekend for our optics event. Top, mid, and budget range binoculars all on show and side by side for comparison :)
Hi I have just bought myself a pair of Hawke Frontier 10x43 ED binoculars £250 and think they will be hard to beat
very good field of view and very bright I think these could give the big boys a run for there money
Happy birding Les