Are we making ourselves crazy?

[Newtosavage]

I'm a confessed binocular junkie. Love the little things for how they enhance my experience in the outdoors, and I love "tools" in general so that is a deadly combination for me. LOL

For years, I've fallen into the "comparison" trap that we often get into with outdoor gear, or any gear for that matter, always wanting to know if there is something "better" out there compared to what we're using now.

Now, I admit it's not fair to someone reading this who hasn't been as fortunate as I have to test out literally dozens upon dozens of pairs of binoculars over a period of 30+ years - but I am starting to understand one thing. Some binoculars just make me happier than others, and it really has nothing to do with how they compare to any other binocular.

It's a realization that has taken me a long time to get to. I'm sure plenty of folks are there already, but after owning several of what I considered the "best of the best" optics recently, I've found myself clinging to some that - if compared spec for spec - would probably lose in a head to head comparison. But that's okay. Like women and beer, we all have our individual tastes.

So blessed is the man or woman who loves the gear they have and isn't constantly searching for the "next great thing."

I think in the future, any binoculars I consider buying will get to stand on their own feet, and not be compared side-by-side with something else. They will either make me happy in the field, or they won't. Period. End of story. I think I'll be a lot happier and more relaxed approaching things this way moving forward. I've grown tired of the constant comparisons and wondering if there is something out there that has a wider field of view, or more depth of field, or might be brighter, or lighter or whatever.

 

[EastMT]

Well, I have astigmatism, and I couldn’t decide myself. I bought Vortex 85 gen 2, swaro 65 non hd, and old school Nikon Fieldscope ED 60. Out of them all, I fell for the nikons. I now own and ed50, ed60, on the prowl for an ed82. I have several eyepieces, I can carry a big eye or a 21 oz 13-40 power depending on situation. I’ve found that with my eye problem, there’s really not that much difference in super high end scopes for me. The fixed power eyepieces in the Nikon blow most glass out of the water for me.

My binos are a pair for Brunton Epoch 10x42. I really want the swaro 10x30, but not in a hurry. These are so clear, they are great and were won at an NRA banquet. Hard to beat free quality glass no matter the brand.

I sold the vortex 85, swaro 65, my wife was shocked. I had talked about getting a swaro for years. If my eyes were better, maybe I could justify the price diff. Maybe after a laser fix.

All these high end brands are amazing, but due to differences in eye socket, your vision, hand size, nose shape, length of fingers, all this stuff can make a difference in what you like. Heck I had a $1800 rifle this year shooting a $159 VX1 2-7x33. Zero misses for the season.

I guess I figure I take enough money out of the family budget for hunting trips. If it comes down to buying better glass or hunting more, I’ll choose hunting more every time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Newtosavage]

That VX-1 2-7x33 scope is no slouch. I run at least one rifle with that on it at all times, and often more. It's one of my favorite scopes to use.

 

[Steve C]

Yeah it is an obsession, and yes we overthink optics choices to the point where we do make ourselves crazy. Remember the job of a good marketing strategy is to make us think that buying their stuff is really our idea. They are good at that, and we are equally good at falling for it, that's why it works.

When I started in reviewing optics I had the idea that there was really a best binocular. All that needed doing to ferret it out was to be careful with asking the right questions and doing adequate due diligence. That would lead to THE answer, Wrong...really wrong. I have long since given up being surprised at differing reactions to the same binocular. Choices have expanded greatly n the past decade or so. Technology transfer has largely occurred causing quality gaps to decrease dramatically. The advantage the top tier glass had over its non existent competition peaked in 1988 with the introduction of phase correction by Leica and Zeiss. Pentax abruptly cut that advantage in half when they released the WP phase corrected binocular in 1995. Technology transfer has cut, IMO, that advantage in half every five years or so.

We are at the point where you need an optical lab to ferret out differences in binoculars from $600 to 1,200 to those costing upward of $2,000. You do, in a certain sense, get what you pay for. The big guns are pricey for a reason. But thanks, IMO, to some of the competitive force exerted by the new companies, we have the big guns offering things like the Swarovski CL, the Zeiss Conquest HD, the Leica Trinovid HD, and the Nikon Monarch HG. Add in choices from the likes of Maven, GPO, Styrka, Tract and some others, the choices is not real easy. For some the brand will rule, for some the new offering has the promise of some improvement. Neither side is wrong or right, it is just personal stand in the matter.

I have come to conclude that any binocular is a collection of compromises. You will land on the one you like based on the overall effect of those compromises on your use of the binocular. Look at it as a three legged stool. The comfortable seat you choose to sit on is supported by three legs. One is the design, the other is optical quality, and the third is ergonomics. The supports connecting the three legs are things like brand, service, and cost. Get it right and you can sit comfortably on the stool for a long time. It doesn't matter is the stool is made from Pine, Oak, or exotic Teak. It matters that the compromises in choice suit you, not everybody else.

 

[Xlr8n]

Yeah it is an obsession, and yes we overthink optics choices to the point where we do make ourselves crazy. Remember the job of a good marketing strategy is to make us think that buying their stuff is really our idea. They are good at that, and we are equally good at falling for it, that's why it works.

When I started in reviewing optics I had the idea that there was really a best binocular. All that needed doing to ferret it out was to be careful with asking the right questions and doing adequate due diligence. That would lead to THE answer, Wrong...really wrong. I have long since given up being surprised at differing reactions to the same binocular. Choices have expanded greatly n the past decade or so. Technology transfer has largely occurred causing quality gaps to decrease dramatically. The advantage the top tier glass had over its non existent competition peaked in 1988 with the introduction of phase correction by Leica and Zeiss. Pentax abruptly cut that advantage in half when they released the WP phase corrected binocular in 1995. Technology transfer has cut, IMO, that advantage in half every five years or so.

We are at the point where you need an optical lab to ferret out differences in binoculars from $600 to 1,200 to those costing upward of $2,000. You do, in a certain sense, get what you pay for. The big guns are pricey for a reason. But thanks, IMO, to some of the competitive force exerted by the new companies, we have the big guns offering things like the Swarovski CL, the Zeiss Conquest HD, the Leica Trinovid HD, and the Nikon Monarch HG. Add in choices from the likes of Maven, GPO, Styrka, Tract and some others, the choices is not real easy. For some the brand will rule, for some the new offering has the promise of some improvement. Neither side is wrong or right, it is just personal stand in the matter.

I have come to conclude that any binocular is a collection of compromises. You will land on the one you like based on the overall effect of those compromises on your use of the binocular. Look at it as a three legged stool. The comfortable seat you choose to sit on is supported by three legs. One is the design, the other is optical quality, and the third is ergonomics. The supports connecting the three legs are things like brand, service, and cost. Get it right and you can sit comfortably on the stool for a long time. It doesn't matter is the stool is made from Pine, Oak, or exotic Teak. It matters that the compromises in choice suit you, not everybody else.

Nutshell. ^^

It's a good time in history to be an optics lover. It's also a great time for those guys who don't have a ton to spend to get fantastic glass at budget prices compared to just ten years ago. The Bushnell legend M is a perfect example.

 

[tdhanses]

Yes we can easily make ourselves go crazy in the optics game. Been there done that but I’m very content with what I have and have really made it a goal to just stop research optics, otherwise you’ll always be playing the game.

The day you find the best optic ever you’ll also see a unicorn.

 

[ljalberta]

It's definitely easy to go down an endless rabbit hole of searching out the latest and greatest when one could simply hunt and be satisfied with what they have. I can totally see where you're coming from, and maybe one day I'll share your same views on not directly comparing products. To me it's not that different from any other sport or hobby though. Like a race car driver, their love might be first and foremost the racing itself, but there is often a love of experiencing and trying different cars and comparing them to other ones. I could live with a single set of snowboard gear the rest of my life, but I love to try new boots and boards. Comparing them to past setups and expanding my knowledge of how technology applies in the real world to me is quite enjoyable. The pursuit of game in wild places in primary to me as well, however, I just love understanding gear, experiencing different systems or optics and understanding how the technologies relate to my personal use. Comparing that directly to experiences with other gear is an enjoyable part of the experience to me as well.

 

[Newtosavage]

I guess what I'm saying is, there is value in just looking at a single pair of binoculars for what it is. Without a direct comparison to anything else, before drawing a conclusion.

I think sometimes we get so hung up on minor specific deficiencies that we forget to look at the instrument as a whole. Every binocular has deficiencies of one kind or another. I think there is value in just using the optic for a while without any direct comparisons, and seeing if you meld with it or not over time.

 

[bbell]

That because you couldn’t see the unicorn with the lesser optics!

 

[Blue72]

Yep! Spending to much time looking at optics rather then through them!

 

[MattB]

Buy quality and leave it alone unless you have a compelling reason to make a change.