Age old debate 2 - 42's vs 32's

Stinky Coyote

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2013
Messages
176
Location
Alberta
:)

I run leica 10x32 ultravid hd and could not he happier for my needs and uses. They had a 6m larger fov than the 42mm go figure, plus being around 20oz r just ducky round the neck, never wishing for a bino harness, never wishing for more mag or fov, or image quality, years later I still smile everytime I look in them and man do I find game with them. Curious what the preferences r here on rokslide?
 

Travis Bertrand

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Mar 9, 2012
Messages
3,470
Location
Reno,NV
Every bino serves a purpose, I'd love to get my hands on some 8x32s. For my hunting I choose the 42s because of first and last light is very important. The 8x32s would be great for stalking and compliment my 15x56s nicely. 15s are a true game changer for me as well.
 
Last edited:
OP
S

Stinky Coyote

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2013
Messages
176
Location
Alberta
I thought the 10x32's might give me issue at shoulder light but hasn't bothered me, they shut me down so close to dark it I'm good with it, kind of same idea as the 15x56 swaros will walk away from a 12x50 or 10x42 in low light even though exit pupil is smaller, high quality glass and magnification trumps exit pupil more than many realize it seems, I'm running the minimalist big eyes, as a one bino guy these most versatile for me. I do have some 15x on the list for certain applications and truck work but always seem to get bumped for other stuff but having made the switch from 42's years ago, no going back, love the little spectacles, get me by on foot, bowhunting, excel when really searching off tipod or window mount...it's the one bin I cannot live without, I can and will add more but not a critical item on the list when these already in stable.
 

Matt Cashell

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Feb 25, 2012
Messages
4,180
Location
Western MT
I also don't go for the 10x32s for exit pupil reasons. Having had 32s and 42s of the same magnification next to each other in low light, there is a pretty big difference, IMO. Then there are the issues handholding such a light 10x when you have to keep your eye centered on the smaller exit pupil. 8X32s for me in the 32 class.

Stinky brings up a good point though with the Swaro 15X56s: We tend to oversimplify when we say exit pupil = brightness. When we get to big objective glass like the 56mm stuff twilight factor can start to overcome exit pupil. then there is the additional resolution potential the larger objective provides.
 

Justin Crossley

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Feb 25, 2012
Messages
5,314
Location
Buckley, WA
I can't tell a difference between the Swaro 10x42 and 10x32 at low light. Not saying that they're the same, but I can't see the difference.
I actually prefer the Swaro 10x32s because they are lighter and smaller.
 
OP
S

Stinky Coyote

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2013
Messages
176
Location
Alberta
And,

Other things I like r the shorter eye relief as I hate using cups twisted out, and the shorter relief of the 32's let's me tilt my head down ever slightly and my brows rest on the top edge of eye pieces which gives me fog free glassing as the air flow is there but I get solid stable view having contact or an 'anchor' with my head, a couple mm more eye relief might force me to use the eye cups out a bit to have that anchor. Not critical stuff mind u, just things I've come to learn as u would with any gear. The shorter eye relief for the 32's may or may not work with eyeglass wearers? But it does give the trade off of bigger fov than the 42 hd's, 118m @ 1k vs 112m. The biggest reason i took the gamble and switched to the 32's though was both size and weight, just got tired of the bulk, fighting a harness etc. Having just a light keychain lanyard string type just tied on for a neck strap all that's needed, 42's just too heavy for that, just a pleasure to have on the neck in comparison.

So much easier to have on your neck at the ready ensures no excuses in passing up any opportunity to glass an opening during a hike when tired etc. I use them more because of their size/weight, name of the game IMO. I wasn't sure exactly how I'd get on with them but it's gotta be past 5 years now and I don't even watch what's coming down the pipe regarding Bino's, pretty hard to care when everytime i look thru them i smile at that amazing image. Matched with a crf1600 rangefinder and I'll just keep trucking right along beyond happy. Was curious how many others felt about the 32's and also to relay my happiness with giving them a go.

And went with 10x over 8x as I know how much more glassing I do from a mount than freehand I knew I would adapt freehand and it doesn't take long. As straight up handholding glass I would take a 6x or 7x if I could but likely be forced into an 8x with the quality level I like...but western hunting techniques/methods of finding quarry the 10x was the only answer, do not wish I could go back and choose the 8x instead.
 
Last edited:

AGPank

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2013
Messages
954
I would like to try 8x32 for archery hunting. The smaller size and less weight would be welcome.
 

Racethesunset

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2013
Messages
639
Location
Arizona
Thanks :)

These threads could also haven worded - "New age question - Ideal exit pupil vs weight" Or something more technical given this crowd.

At 10x, 42+ is sufficient for glassing first and last light, and in dense forest. Usually a 10x50 will be noticeably brighter for about 5-10 minutes each day, and all night long if you have your eyes to the skies.

I have a variety of optics in the 8x30-32mm range, and they don't light up quite as well as an 8x42 for the first and last 5-10 minutes of visible light.

If you are in the shadows a lot or are a night owl, I think the 8x42 or the 10x50 are going to the be the best objective size.

If you are concerned about weight, a quality 8x32 (I am think Swarovision here) will be nearly as bright as a 10x42 counterpart.
 

AGPank

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2013
Messages
954
After seeing the new Razor and Meopta HD, I'd like to see them offer something, maybe it's not a big enough market. Meostar should be able to make the change quick since they already have a non-hd model.
 

Matt Cashell

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Feb 25, 2012
Messages
4,180
Location
Western MT
After seeing the new Razor and Meopta HD, I'd like to see them offer something, maybe it's not a big enough market. Meostar should be able to make the change quick since they already have a non-hd model.

AGP,

Have you seen the little Meostar? I don't think it would benefit much, if at all from ED glass. Like many 8X32s, it doesn't show much CA anyway. You should definitely look at one if you get the chance. Before the HD 10X42, the 8X32 was my favorite of the series.
 

AGPank

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2013
Messages
954
BB,

I haven't seen the Meostar 8x32. I do like the specs, light weight, wide FOV. Doesn't seem to be much of a price break from the 42mm hd to the 32mm model.
 

CrzyTrekker

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2012
Messages
725
Location
San Luis Valley, Colorado
I love Swaro 8x32s. Small, light, and easy to carry in a small chest holster. I like the steady (not shaky) field of view you get with 8x glass.

Used to have larger bins and routinely left them in the Jeep.
 

Racethesunset

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2013
Messages
639
Location
Arizona
The 32mm objective size seems to be gaining popularity across disciplines, e.g. birding, hunting, spectator sports. Probably not astronomy, because of light gathering (as BB has stated, it DOES make a difference - mathematically you can't escape the calculation of exit pupil, or how it relates to the size of your pupil).
 
OP
S

Stinky Coyote

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2013
Messages
176
Location
Alberta
BB,

Doesn't seem to be much of a price break from the 42mm hd to the 32mm model.

Alpha class glass is still alpha class glass. You are simply choosing a size you prefer. Pricing between the 42/32's is super close on top end stuff from what i've seen, i understand why. I converted a long time 42mm swaro guy last year and i rarely convert this guy on anything as he's been at it a long time and knows what he likes. Everytime he peeked through my leica's when asking to have a look at something (he always forgets what i carry as he could care less) he always said right away jesus these are nice bino's...what are they again? lol, i'd tell him everytime, the 32mm is not a penalty, its a bonus, 20 oz and the more compact size seem so much more nautral fit for something around one's neck...and for us weight watching mountain guys....well you know, that was a big draw too but throw alpha class 32's up to your face and you'll forget they are 32's and remember they are alpha class as many seem to equate 32's with less of a bino...that is a mistake...and as BB says, when you throw 10x's on a tripod its unreal, i could not agree more, as mentioned, my ultravid 10x32 hd's have a bigger fov than the 42's....they are staggeringly good off the tripod too, anyhow, when my buddy had enough with his swaro 42's he phoned and asked me one more time what bino's i have (cracks me up) so he went out and bought em, and last i checked he was very happy with them, when spec shopping on new bins, don't miss out comparing the 32mm specs against the 42's most seem to shop for, when a guy goes through all his gear to find the most for the least weight etc. and increased convenience and handiness etc. and versatility etc. the alpha class 32's are pretty incredible, unsure i'd say go with lower price point 32's but the alpha's...yes
 

Matt Cashell

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Feb 25, 2012
Messages
4,180
Location
Western MT
Alpha class glass is still alpha class glass. You are simply choosing a size you prefer.

Stinky,

I think this is a little over-simplified.

The larger objectives provide a brighter image AND more resolution potential. Whether that extra resolution is noticeable to the viewer or not is dependent on the viewer, but still exists technically.

I agree the top of the line 32s are very impressive, and have drawn closer in performance to the 42s in recent models. I am glad they work for you, and I am sure they will work for many.

For me the 10X32 configuration, even at the top of the market, provides too small an exit pupil. This not only affects brightness in really low light (to me), but also the ability to handhold steady. WIth a 10x32 you combine a smaller exit pupil (which makes it harder to keep your pupil in the exit pupil for a steady image) with light weight (20 ounces doesn't dampen vibrations as much as 30).

So there is always a tradeoff. What you get in one area (small size and light weight) you lose in others (brightness, resolution, steady handheld view).

To some, the small losses in performance are worth the relatively big gain in weight reduction, and 32s are the way to go.

To others, 10 ounces in a bino harness is no big deal, and they appreciate even the small gains the 42s provide.

When it comes to 10x bins, I am in the latter group.

I don't think either are wrong.
 

Matt Cashell

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Feb 25, 2012
Messages
4,180
Location
Western MT
Ya, but don't forget, Stinky could sell himself ocean front property in Kansas, even if he didn't have any for sale. I have read his posts for a while and once he has his mind convinced, that is all that matters...

;)

I see the winky smiley and know you're just giving Stinky a friendly jab, but:

Stinky just seems to be avid about his preferences, like most of us. I took it as just letting Roksliders know what works for him and his buddy.
 
OP
S

Stinky Coyote

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2013
Messages
176
Location
Alberta
I don't think either are wrong.

agree 100% BB!, my big point is if your shopping, don't discount them, try them against the 42's, you may be surprised, i have not had one instance cept maybe a little on foot bowhunting i'd like less mag, but its all about tradeoffs, i suck it up and steady my hands and all is forgiven lol

crazy_davey, are you saying i should be in sales? lol, i get that a lot. :) yes i'm convinced but even more so after say 5 years of hunting hard and finding more game than i've ever found (mostly due to tripod/window mounting bino's, not necessarily because they are 32mm ;) ), the extra mag makes up for the apparent low light issues of the smaller exit pupil, at least enough(for me) that i've never thought i made a wrong choice, just as in low light the extra mag in the 15x56 swaro's walks away from the 12x50/10x42's and seeing stuff you want to see...i'm not saying its the final answer for everyone, eye glass wearers may demand more eye relief plus for many they are both too small and or not good enough at the ragged edge of shoulder light, and for guys who really do count on those first few/last minutes of light it is something to consider, of all the trade offs i've made to get the bins i have the gains have been more than worth it, just sayin

and yes BB, just an avid/freak about this stuff lol, all good in the hood with my brothers from other mothers, you'll have to jab alot harder than that to get me going

and looks like i have at least one guy seeing it like me, even on the low light issue, its you and me Justin, we are ahead the curve lol
 
Top