Since so many people ask for boot comparisons on here, I figured I'd share my experience trying out these two pair of boots since I actually bought and evaluated the fit and features of each. I'm sure many of you are familiar with these models, but I hope some other newbs out there like myself finds it useful.
So this is actually my first high-end hunting boot purchase. I've mostly hunted whitetails in PA and OH and bears in some of the nastiest country in PA as far as big game goes, and I've had boots from Rocky, Wolverine, Cabelas, and Danner to let you know where I'm coming from. After last years experience in Colorado that put the final nail in the coffin of my trusty Wolverines, I knew I had to step up to some superior quality boots.
I was looking to buy some general mountain hunting boots to use for probably 1-3 trips out west per year, and hunting deer and bears in the hilly and mountainous areas of PA. I was able to get a nice discount on a pair of Lowa Tibets, which I'm sure many of you are familiar with, and a pair of Zamberlan Lynx 1014 for about the same price of about $285 shipped. These are both about $350-380 boots straight retail. Here's what I thought of them.
Fit: First off, let me start with saying that although no medical professional has ever told me I have low arches and have never had flat feet problems, the running shoes I always buy are supposed to be for people with low arches (Brooks GTS) and I love them, and their normal arch support shoes always hurts my feet after a while. That said, the Zamberlans were definitely more comfortable than the Lowas. The footbed felt just like my running shoes with the Lynxs and I can feel them cup my heel and kinda lock it in. The Tibets were also very comfortable, but they did not caress my foot like the Lynxs did. Also, the arch support came up into my foot just a little too much for my liking. Walking around my house didn't bother me much, but I feared that after a couple miles trekking into the bush that would start to wear on my pretty good. Other aspects of fit were great for both boots. Both fit true to size for my 9.5 size foot. Plenty of room in the toe area to wiggle my toes. My foot didn't slosh around in the boot either. With the Zamberlans I did detect a slight amount of movement between my foot and the boot as I walked around the house. Not enough to be of concern, but more than the Lowas. If you laced them up a little tighter, it pretty much went away, and I think once they break in it will be gone. I felt that the lacing system on the Lowas made it easy to really lock your foot into the boot, however, if you didn't tie them tight as well, there was some movement.
Ankle support: I tested this by standing with one foot the edge of on my reloading bench such that the lateral side of my foot hung off the edge, as if I partially stepped on a rock, so that if I totally relaxed my foot would pronate in the way most people sprain their ankles. I did this with both feet. I felt that both boots provided adequate ankle support for me. I felt the Lowas were a tad more stiff in the ankle area, but admittedly, the Lynxs are marketed as a lighter boot for earlier seasons whereas the Tibets are more of a true all season boot, but highly intend to do some archery elk hunting in the future, so it didn't really matter to me. I don't feel I'd roll my ankle in either. The sole seems to be about equally stiff between the two. They both have Vibram soles so I guess you might expect that.
Build quality and form: Moving up from 150 - 200 dollar boots to 350+ dollar boots, the increase in quality is apparent. I don't think i need to compare overall quality of these two brands. The Tibets seem slightly sturdier overall, but as I said earlier, that is more the purpose of the boot than a difference in quality. The Tibets are noticeably more bulky though, however. The Zamberlans are much more svelte, again, like my running shoes almost, which i think will give me better feel underfoot of what I'm walking on. One possible weakness I found on the Lynxs though is that one of the accent pieces of leather around the ankle seems like it'd get torn up if you scraped it hard on some rocks or walked though a bunch of low hanging thorny stuff. The Lowas are much more plain and dont seem to have anything that'll get ripped easily. It might be a non issue but it was just an observation I had.
Lacing and other features: The Lowas have a nice lacing system that, as I said earlier, makes it easy to really lock your foot into the boot. The eyes for the laces over the toe section have rollers on them, and the final eyes before the hooks lock the laces, so once you pull the toe section tight, it doesn't loosen when you release the tension. The Zamberlan laces eyes are more traditional. They also have a lace locking system, but it is the first pair of hooks that have a kind of barb on them that holds the lacing over the toe section tight. The Lowas also have a pair of hooks offset as you go up the boot, which is the part that really locks the foot into the boot. The Lynxs have these two kinda, but I think the Lowas execute it better. Laced up tight, neither boot is going anywhere. The Tibets have a rubber rand, but to me I don't see the benefit of one. These are boots intended for hard use. They're gonna get scuffed up and weathered. The only times I hear people talking about a rand is when it comes unglued or gets a split in it. None of my previous boots have had a rand and I use them in super rocky areas. They get scuffed, but I don't intend on walking down a fashion runway in them any time soon. They still work just fine.
Final decision: I actually went with the Zamberlan Lynxs based mostly on comfort,fit, and bulk. The Lowas have a lot of slight upgrades like the lacing system and are a tad sturdier, but it's not like they leave the Lynxs in the dust anywhere because of them. To me, the Zamberlans to feel significantly more comfortable than the Lowas and are just more sleek, and I think that'll be of great importance when putting on miles with a pack. If the Lowas fit like the Zamberlans, or if I could not get the Zamberlans for the same discounted price of the Lowas, I would have chose the Tibets and just worked on the fit with some aftermarket insoles, but the Lynxs are just feel too damn good and I feel they'll perform just as well as the Tibets where it matters. As a perk, the Lynxs look kinda cool too.
So this is actually my first high-end hunting boot purchase. I've mostly hunted whitetails in PA and OH and bears in some of the nastiest country in PA as far as big game goes, and I've had boots from Rocky, Wolverine, Cabelas, and Danner to let you know where I'm coming from. After last years experience in Colorado that put the final nail in the coffin of my trusty Wolverines, I knew I had to step up to some superior quality boots.
I was looking to buy some general mountain hunting boots to use for probably 1-3 trips out west per year, and hunting deer and bears in the hilly and mountainous areas of PA. I was able to get a nice discount on a pair of Lowa Tibets, which I'm sure many of you are familiar with, and a pair of Zamberlan Lynx 1014 for about the same price of about $285 shipped. These are both about $350-380 boots straight retail. Here's what I thought of them.
Fit: First off, let me start with saying that although no medical professional has ever told me I have low arches and have never had flat feet problems, the running shoes I always buy are supposed to be for people with low arches (Brooks GTS) and I love them, and their normal arch support shoes always hurts my feet after a while. That said, the Zamberlans were definitely more comfortable than the Lowas. The footbed felt just like my running shoes with the Lynxs and I can feel them cup my heel and kinda lock it in. The Tibets were also very comfortable, but they did not caress my foot like the Lynxs did. Also, the arch support came up into my foot just a little too much for my liking. Walking around my house didn't bother me much, but I feared that after a couple miles trekking into the bush that would start to wear on my pretty good. Other aspects of fit were great for both boots. Both fit true to size for my 9.5 size foot. Plenty of room in the toe area to wiggle my toes. My foot didn't slosh around in the boot either. With the Zamberlans I did detect a slight amount of movement between my foot and the boot as I walked around the house. Not enough to be of concern, but more than the Lowas. If you laced them up a little tighter, it pretty much went away, and I think once they break in it will be gone. I felt that the lacing system on the Lowas made it easy to really lock your foot into the boot, however, if you didn't tie them tight as well, there was some movement.
Ankle support: I tested this by standing with one foot the edge of on my reloading bench such that the lateral side of my foot hung off the edge, as if I partially stepped on a rock, so that if I totally relaxed my foot would pronate in the way most people sprain their ankles. I did this with both feet. I felt that both boots provided adequate ankle support for me. I felt the Lowas were a tad more stiff in the ankle area, but admittedly, the Lynxs are marketed as a lighter boot for earlier seasons whereas the Tibets are more of a true all season boot, but highly intend to do some archery elk hunting in the future, so it didn't really matter to me. I don't feel I'd roll my ankle in either. The sole seems to be about equally stiff between the two. They both have Vibram soles so I guess you might expect that.
Build quality and form: Moving up from 150 - 200 dollar boots to 350+ dollar boots, the increase in quality is apparent. I don't think i need to compare overall quality of these two brands. The Tibets seem slightly sturdier overall, but as I said earlier, that is more the purpose of the boot than a difference in quality. The Tibets are noticeably more bulky though, however. The Zamberlans are much more svelte, again, like my running shoes almost, which i think will give me better feel underfoot of what I'm walking on. One possible weakness I found on the Lynxs though is that one of the accent pieces of leather around the ankle seems like it'd get torn up if you scraped it hard on some rocks or walked though a bunch of low hanging thorny stuff. The Lowas are much more plain and dont seem to have anything that'll get ripped easily. It might be a non issue but it was just an observation I had.
Lacing and other features: The Lowas have a nice lacing system that, as I said earlier, makes it easy to really lock your foot into the boot. The eyes for the laces over the toe section have rollers on them, and the final eyes before the hooks lock the laces, so once you pull the toe section tight, it doesn't loosen when you release the tension. The Zamberlan laces eyes are more traditional. They also have a lace locking system, but it is the first pair of hooks that have a kind of barb on them that holds the lacing over the toe section tight. The Lowas also have a pair of hooks offset as you go up the boot, which is the part that really locks the foot into the boot. The Lynxs have these two kinda, but I think the Lowas execute it better. Laced up tight, neither boot is going anywhere. The Tibets have a rubber rand, but to me I don't see the benefit of one. These are boots intended for hard use. They're gonna get scuffed up and weathered. The only times I hear people talking about a rand is when it comes unglued or gets a split in it. None of my previous boots have had a rand and I use them in super rocky areas. They get scuffed, but I don't intend on walking down a fashion runway in them any time soon. They still work just fine.
Final decision: I actually went with the Zamberlan Lynxs based mostly on comfort,fit, and bulk. The Lowas have a lot of slight upgrades like the lacing system and are a tad sturdier, but it's not like they leave the Lynxs in the dust anywhere because of them. To me, the Zamberlans to feel significantly more comfortable than the Lowas and are just more sleek, and I think that'll be of great importance when putting on miles with a pack. If the Lowas fit like the Zamberlans, or if I could not get the Zamberlans for the same discounted price of the Lowas, I would have chose the Tibets and just worked on the fit with some aftermarket insoles, but the Lynxs are just feel too damn good and I feel they'll perform just as well as the Tibets where it matters. As a perk, the Lynxs look kinda cool too.
