Before I move forward with my novice binocular comparison below, let me make some disclaimers and give a little background. Be forewarned, this post is VERY lengthy. I am far from an optics expert. In fact, I'd say I'm the opposite of an expert. I am also far from a professional writer. My photos are also not the highest quality but I wanted to get something in here for a visual reference. All that said, I feel like there are a lot of guys like me out there using $200-$300 binoculars that wonder if it's really worth the price of upgrading their binoculars. Hopefully my perspective may be helpful to those people. I'm sure others with more knowledge and experience can and will chime in but these are my opinions and observations; they may or may not help in your research.
First off, a little background on my optics history and journey. I grew up hunting with a rifle, binos were rarely carried by anyone when Dad took me out and basically not available for my use. I understood their usefulness and bought my first set of binoculars about 10 years go, a $25 pair of Bushnell's that literally fell apart after less than one year of use. That prompted some research to better understand the reasoning for the massive price differences between binoculars. I ultimately purchased some Nikon Monarch's as an "upgrade". At the time I saw some large price tags for Swaros, Leica's etc. and couldn't imagine why anyone would pay that much for binoculars. I paid about $250 for the Monarch's and was incredibly happy with the clarity they provided in comparison to my old Bushnell's. My thinking at the time was "the more magnification the better" so I went with 12x42's, more on that later. At one point I also purchased a Barska spotting scope but that thing was so hazy I felt like someone had rubbed a coating of butter on the lens. I could see better with my Nikon Monarchs at 100 yards so I got rid of the Barska. I've hunted with the Nikon Monarchs for the last 8 years now and have been lucky enough to kill 7 big game animals while using them. I only point this out because there is often a perception (at least with new hunters) that if you don't spend $$$ on optics you won't be successful, which is not true at all, though I'll admit optics certainly can help. That is my basic history/experience with optics other than rifle scopes.
Now for the reasons I upgraded this year. Over the years I've learned a lot more through experience. One of the things I learned is that I don't have a steady hand for holding high power binoculars. 12x is just too much for me to hold steady without a tripod and it renders the binoculars mostly useless past 100 yards freehand. That problem only get's worse with the excitement and exertion leading up to finding/shooting an animal. While I could see well enough to know if a buck had antlers, counting how many points on each side became a tough task with everything in view shaking & moving. I missed out on two bucks that I wasn't sure were legal in the unit I was hunting in Wyoming because I couldn't tell if they had 3 points on at least one side until it was too late. I had a couple of tripods, but felt they weren't worth bringing along. I wanted something light, but wasn't willing to spend much money since I already owned a big camera tripod for photography. So I ended up with a Sunpak $16 tripod that was so unstable and difficult to use it wasn't worth carrying the 26.56 Oz. Here is a comparison of my tripods now, the two mentioned and my new Promaster XC525C.
20160610_073408
A couple of years ago my dad bought some Leica Geovid's in 10x. I looked through those and instantly recognized I could see much better simply because there was less movement on my part. The glass was really clear but was way out of my price range. I realized I needed some lower power binoculars but didn't want to buy new ones unless I was sure it was an upgrade. I spent the last few years researching and saving and ended up buying some Maven B2's this year. The following comparison isn't to say that Maven B2's are the best glass out there, but should give a better understanding of what the extra $750 in price got me with my upgrade.
On to the comparison. Please note that I am fully aware of some major differences making this a complete apples to oranges comparison. For starters, the Maven's have a bigger objective lens and lower magnification. That should automatically make them brighter in low light conditions as well as increasing the field of view. Put all of that aside as my point is to show the differences the upgrade made for me, and the magnification and objective size was part of that upgrade.
First some quick specs on the two binoculars:
Maven B2 9x45 Binoculars- 33.5 Oz.
Nikon Monarch 12x42 Binoculars- 22.36 Oz
20160608_215453
As a first comparison, the Maven's are very noticeably bigger and heavier. In the past that might have bothered me but in my AGC Bino Harness I don't notice extra weight so it's not a problem for me. Everyone has to decide for themselves what balance of weight/size/performance they want. For me the extra size and weight isn't an issue IF the performance is better. Both pairs of binoculars feel good in my hands, the Nikon appears to have a more "grippy" surface but the Maven's really feel solid and easy to hold.
For my optical comparison, I mounted both binoculars on tripods and adjusted the diopters to my eyes. I still have more testing/comparing I'd like to do in different environments but on my back deck mounted atop 2 tripods was a good start. From my back yard I have a view up to the mountain ranging 5-7 miles away depending on where I'm looking, as well as some trees 50 yards away to the West and another group of trees 330 yards away to the East. These are the main distances/objects I used for my comparison.
As a side note I was also comparing the Outdoorsmans tripod adapter to the Field Optics Research adapter. Both are solid, the fit and finish is nicer on the Outdoorsmans, I found the Outdoorsmans much easier to release quickly, but the Field Optics research weighs about .5 Oz. less.
20160608_215757
I started comparing the two binoculars side by side at around 8:00 p.m. and began by looking at various points on the mountain miles away. My very first initial reaction when comparing clarity was that the Maven's were more clear, but not but much. At that moment I had a small amount of buyers remorse for spending the money on the upgrade, but as you will see that changed by the end of my comparison. Score a point for the Monarchs with the price & weight difference.
Next, I started to look for specific differences between the two. The first big difference that stood out to me was the field of view being much bigger on the Maven's, as expected. What I didn't expect was how much I really liked having the extra field of view, especially with the binos on a tripod. It makes it very easy to pick up on movement. I should also point out that I didn't miss the extra magnification at all when looking at the mountain so the added field of view is a positive for me without leaving me wanting extra magnification. Score a point for the Maven's. While admiring the field of view, I started comparing the edge to edge clarity. There was a big difference here with the Maven's. To my eye, there is a very slight loss of clarity on the Maven's on the very edge of the glass. I'm talking maybe the last 3% if measuring the radius from the center of the lens. With the Nikon's it was probably more like the last 20-25% of the radius from the center of the lens lost clarity. That extra loss in edge to edge clarity only compounded the field of view problem on the Nikon's. Score another point for the Maven's.
20160608_215401
My next step was to get some harsh conditions to look at. I pointed both binoculars towards the trees to the west, about 50 yards away and compared the clarity while looking at something with the sun behind it. All of a sudden, the gap in clarity between the two binoculars got much wider. Everything appeared more hazy with the Nikon's. I can only guess this has something to do with the lens coatings but it made the Maven's look MUCH more crisp and clear than earlier in my comparison. I could still see the leaves okay with the Nikon's but it caused more eye strain and wasn't pretty. The harsh lighting also made the edge to edge clarity of the Nikon's even worse than before. As the skies darkened, around 9:15, I noticed the harsh lighting conditions made this effect even worse to where only the inner 20-25% of the lens was clear and able to focus on leaves. Score another point for the Maven's as it did quite well under these harsh lighting conditions. In a field situation with similar lighting conditions, that could easily have made the difference in spotting an animal or not.
Some time around 9:23 p.m. while looking at the trees to the East about 330 yards off I noticed that it was getting tough to differentiate the different shades of green through the Nikon's and things were just turning into dark shapes. By comparison the Maven's didn't start to lose color fidelity for another 18 minutes. By 9:25, it was getting pretty tough to see things through the Nikon's. Looking back to the West at the trees 50 yards off, I could no longer make out the shape of a broken branch approximately 3" in diameter. Again, the Maven's could see it for another 12 minutes. Official sunset on the day of my testing, June 8, 2016 was at 8:58 p.m. That means that the Nikon's would have been mostly useless for the last 5 minutes of legal shooting light. The Maven's, on the other hand, would have taken me several minutes past legal shooting light under these conditions. Score another point for the Maven's.
In conclusion, I still need to spend more time with the Maven's but at this point I'm very happy with the extra money spent. In tough glassing conditions the B2's really separated themselves from the cheaper Monarch's. Often the best hunting times are right at first and last light, I feel like the Maven's can help me find and analyze my prey much better during these conditions so it's a benefit to me. I know how my eyes feel after a long day of glassing with the Nikon's and it isn't pretty. After I spend more time behind the Maven's I'll see how my eyes feel but my initial impressions indicate that they will cause much less eye strain. Could I get by with some lesser quality glass? Sure, I've done it for years but I will probably miss some opportunities as a result. For me and the way I hunt, this was a worthwhile upgrade. Hopefully my comparison helps others decide if upgrading is worthwhile for them. If anyone has any questions about any of the gear listed I'm happy to compare what I have and answer any specific questions.
First off, a little background on my optics history and journey. I grew up hunting with a rifle, binos were rarely carried by anyone when Dad took me out and basically not available for my use. I understood their usefulness and bought my first set of binoculars about 10 years go, a $25 pair of Bushnell's that literally fell apart after less than one year of use. That prompted some research to better understand the reasoning for the massive price differences between binoculars. I ultimately purchased some Nikon Monarch's as an "upgrade". At the time I saw some large price tags for Swaros, Leica's etc. and couldn't imagine why anyone would pay that much for binoculars. I paid about $250 for the Monarch's and was incredibly happy with the clarity they provided in comparison to my old Bushnell's. My thinking at the time was "the more magnification the better" so I went with 12x42's, more on that later. At one point I also purchased a Barska spotting scope but that thing was so hazy I felt like someone had rubbed a coating of butter on the lens. I could see better with my Nikon Monarchs at 100 yards so I got rid of the Barska. I've hunted with the Nikon Monarchs for the last 8 years now and have been lucky enough to kill 7 big game animals while using them. I only point this out because there is often a perception (at least with new hunters) that if you don't spend $$$ on optics you won't be successful, which is not true at all, though I'll admit optics certainly can help. That is my basic history/experience with optics other than rifle scopes.
Now for the reasons I upgraded this year. Over the years I've learned a lot more through experience. One of the things I learned is that I don't have a steady hand for holding high power binoculars. 12x is just too much for me to hold steady without a tripod and it renders the binoculars mostly useless past 100 yards freehand. That problem only get's worse with the excitement and exertion leading up to finding/shooting an animal. While I could see well enough to know if a buck had antlers, counting how many points on each side became a tough task with everything in view shaking & moving. I missed out on two bucks that I wasn't sure were legal in the unit I was hunting in Wyoming because I couldn't tell if they had 3 points on at least one side until it was too late. I had a couple of tripods, but felt they weren't worth bringing along. I wanted something light, but wasn't willing to spend much money since I already owned a big camera tripod for photography. So I ended up with a Sunpak $16 tripod that was so unstable and difficult to use it wasn't worth carrying the 26.56 Oz. Here is a comparison of my tripods now, the two mentioned and my new Promaster XC525C.
20160610_073408A couple of years ago my dad bought some Leica Geovid's in 10x. I looked through those and instantly recognized I could see much better simply because there was less movement on my part. The glass was really clear but was way out of my price range. I realized I needed some lower power binoculars but didn't want to buy new ones unless I was sure it was an upgrade. I spent the last few years researching and saving and ended up buying some Maven B2's this year. The following comparison isn't to say that Maven B2's are the best glass out there, but should give a better understanding of what the extra $750 in price got me with my upgrade.
On to the comparison. Please note that I am fully aware of some major differences making this a complete apples to oranges comparison. For starters, the Maven's have a bigger objective lens and lower magnification. That should automatically make them brighter in low light conditions as well as increasing the field of view. Put all of that aside as my point is to show the differences the upgrade made for me, and the magnification and objective size was part of that upgrade.
First some quick specs on the two binoculars:
Maven B2 9x45 Binoculars- 33.5 Oz.
Nikon Monarch 12x42 Binoculars- 22.36 Oz
20160608_215453 As a first comparison, the Maven's are very noticeably bigger and heavier. In the past that might have bothered me but in my AGC Bino Harness I don't notice extra weight so it's not a problem for me. Everyone has to decide for themselves what balance of weight/size/performance they want. For me the extra size and weight isn't an issue IF the performance is better. Both pairs of binoculars feel good in my hands, the Nikon appears to have a more "grippy" surface but the Maven's really feel solid and easy to hold.
For my optical comparison, I mounted both binoculars on tripods and adjusted the diopters to my eyes. I still have more testing/comparing I'd like to do in different environments but on my back deck mounted atop 2 tripods was a good start. From my back yard I have a view up to the mountain ranging 5-7 miles away depending on where I'm looking, as well as some trees 50 yards away to the West and another group of trees 330 yards away to the East. These are the main distances/objects I used for my comparison.
As a side note I was also comparing the Outdoorsmans tripod adapter to the Field Optics Research adapter. Both are solid, the fit and finish is nicer on the Outdoorsmans, I found the Outdoorsmans much easier to release quickly, but the Field Optics research weighs about .5 Oz. less.
20160608_215757I started comparing the two binoculars side by side at around 8:00 p.m. and began by looking at various points on the mountain miles away. My very first initial reaction when comparing clarity was that the Maven's were more clear, but not but much. At that moment I had a small amount of buyers remorse for spending the money on the upgrade, but as you will see that changed by the end of my comparison. Score a point for the Monarchs with the price & weight difference.
Next, I started to look for specific differences between the two. The first big difference that stood out to me was the field of view being much bigger on the Maven's, as expected. What I didn't expect was how much I really liked having the extra field of view, especially with the binos on a tripod. It makes it very easy to pick up on movement. I should also point out that I didn't miss the extra magnification at all when looking at the mountain so the added field of view is a positive for me without leaving me wanting extra magnification. Score a point for the Maven's. While admiring the field of view, I started comparing the edge to edge clarity. There was a big difference here with the Maven's. To my eye, there is a very slight loss of clarity on the Maven's on the very edge of the glass. I'm talking maybe the last 3% if measuring the radius from the center of the lens. With the Nikon's it was probably more like the last 20-25% of the radius from the center of the lens lost clarity. That extra loss in edge to edge clarity only compounded the field of view problem on the Nikon's. Score another point for the Maven's.
20160608_215401My next step was to get some harsh conditions to look at. I pointed both binoculars towards the trees to the west, about 50 yards away and compared the clarity while looking at something with the sun behind it. All of a sudden, the gap in clarity between the two binoculars got much wider. Everything appeared more hazy with the Nikon's. I can only guess this has something to do with the lens coatings but it made the Maven's look MUCH more crisp and clear than earlier in my comparison. I could still see the leaves okay with the Nikon's but it caused more eye strain and wasn't pretty. The harsh lighting also made the edge to edge clarity of the Nikon's even worse than before. As the skies darkened, around 9:15, I noticed the harsh lighting conditions made this effect even worse to where only the inner 20-25% of the lens was clear and able to focus on leaves. Score another point for the Maven's as it did quite well under these harsh lighting conditions. In a field situation with similar lighting conditions, that could easily have made the difference in spotting an animal or not.
Some time around 9:23 p.m. while looking at the trees to the East about 330 yards off I noticed that it was getting tough to differentiate the different shades of green through the Nikon's and things were just turning into dark shapes. By comparison the Maven's didn't start to lose color fidelity for another 18 minutes. By 9:25, it was getting pretty tough to see things through the Nikon's. Looking back to the West at the trees 50 yards off, I could no longer make out the shape of a broken branch approximately 3" in diameter. Again, the Maven's could see it for another 12 minutes. Official sunset on the day of my testing, June 8, 2016 was at 8:58 p.m. That means that the Nikon's would have been mostly useless for the last 5 minutes of legal shooting light. The Maven's, on the other hand, would have taken me several minutes past legal shooting light under these conditions. Score another point for the Maven's.
In conclusion, I still need to spend more time with the Maven's but at this point I'm very happy with the extra money spent. In tough glassing conditions the B2's really separated themselves from the cheaper Monarch's. Often the best hunting times are right at first and last light, I feel like the Maven's can help me find and analyze my prey much better during these conditions so it's a benefit to me. I know how my eyes feel after a long day of glassing with the Nikon's and it isn't pretty. After I spend more time behind the Maven's I'll see how my eyes feel but my initial impressions indicate that they will cause much less eye strain. Could I get by with some lesser quality glass? Sure, I've done it for years but I will probably miss some opportunities as a result. For me and the way I hunt, this was a worthwhile upgrade. Hopefully my comparison helps others decide if upgrading is worthwhile for them. If anyone has any questions about any of the gear listed I'm happy to compare what I have and answer any specific questions.
