Introduction
For the truly serious birder, choosing a pair of binoculars can be more critical even than choosing a spouse --- indeed, many birders come to know their binoculars so intimately (and spend so much quality time with them) that they develop a deep emotional bond to their optics. After all, the ideal birding optics are less technological implements than they are extensions to the self, providing visual sensory abilities that should have been designed into our human forms right from the start. The Divine Creator is obviously not a birder.
Unfortunately, quality optics can cost more even than diamond rings. Even more frustrating, perhaps, is the confusing array of competing brands and models: Swarovski, Leica, Zeiss, Nikon, Bauch and Lomb; SLC's, EL's, Trinovids, Ultravids, Ultras. Which is the best for you?
I've only been birding for 14 years, but during that time I've had the good fortunate to own a number of top-quality binoculars and spotting scopes. My recommendations below will be mostly useful to those who are prepared to spend top dollar for some good glass. For those who are more financially constrained, I include reviews of several cheaper models in the second half othis article; there are also a number of excellent reviews of less-expensive glass at Better View Desired. One relatively affordable model that I have had some experience with is reviewed later on this page (the Celestron Regal, which in the past has been identical to the Orion Savannah and has also ben marketed under several other names by companies such as Eagle Optics and the like).
In this review I will be emphasizing two things: (1) optical quality, and (2) ergonomics. As stipulated above, the ideal binoculars should feel like a natural extension of the self, and this includes not only their visual capabilities, but also their (external) physical handling. Note that while I am an eyeglass wearer, I don't wear my eyeglasses in the field (except when doing bird photography), so that the following reviews may not apply as well for those who absolutely must wear eyeglasses even when birding. Eyeglass wearers should thoroughly read up on the topic of eye relief before making a purchase.
True Luxury: Swarovski and Leica
It was soon after becoming interested in the New World warblers that I decided to upgrade my binoculars to the absolute best glass that I could afford. Unfortunately, I couldn't decide between the current offerings of Swarovski and those of competing manufacturer Leica. The good news (for you, the reader) is that I couldn't make up my mind, and decided to buy one of each. In this section I compare them to each other.
The older Swarovskis are known as SLC's (or sometimes as Habicht --- I'll use the term SLC in this article, though I've no idea what it stands for). A pair of Swarovski SLC's is pictured below:
I bought my SLC's (10x42) new for about $900 at a Wild Birds Unlimited shop outside Washington DC in about 1997. They were optically superb. I remember lending them to a veteran birder who was still using 15-year-old Zeiss binoculars -- he must have said "these are excellent" about 10 times before (reluctantly) handing them back to me.
The SLC's were not exceptionally lightweight, but they were very well-balanced in the hand, and were covered in a rubber coating just soft enough to feel good in your hand when you squeezed them. The focus knob on my pair felt a little stiff, and I always expected that it would loosen up with use, but it never did. Eventually the knob became entirely dysfunctional (it wouldn't focus at all, no matter how much I turned it) and I had to send it back to Swarovski for repair. They did fix it, free of charge, and it worked fine afterward, except that after the repair the knob was even stiffer than before. A stiff focus knob can be very annoying when you're trying to follow a bird in flight, and I tend to be pretty obsessive about overall handling of my binoculars, so I decided to retire them via eBay. It is interesting to note that I sold them for about $900 --- the same price I paid for them when they were brand-new, about 7 years prior. Quality binoculars really do hold their value!
After selling the SLC's I replaced them with a pair of newer Swarovski EL's (10x42):
As you can see, these have a fairly radically different shape from the SLC's. In particular, they feature an "open-barrel" design which allows you to wrap your fingers almost all the way around the two barrels; with the older SLC model this was not possible, since the focusing mechanism filled the space between the two barrels. In the case of my EL 10x42's, I find that this works quite well, though my hands are about medium-sized and I find that the barrels on this model could be a bit smaller. But on the 10x42's there is a very nice "thumb groove" on the bottom of both barrels (not visible in the picture) which helps a lot both to grip the unit and to balance it.
Optically, these binoculars are superb. I really can't tell the difference between the sharpness of the older SLC's and these newer EL's, since both are razor sharp. The new EL's definitely have a much better hand-hold and in my 10x42's I've found that the focus knob is just smooth enough (though not as smooth as my Leicas --- see below).
I also bought a pair of the smaller EL 8x32's. The ergonomics of this model are truly amazing. They fit my hand like no other binocular ever has (with the possible exception of the Celestron Regals --- see below). I once ran into a birder who also had the EL 8x32's, and he said he wished he could find a way to have them surgically attached to his hands. He wasn't joking. When I'm using my EL 8x32's I truly feel like I've become one with these optical prosthetics. And despite having only a 32mm objective lens, they seem as bright as any other binoculars I've owned. In principle I'm sure they're not as bright as larger Swarovski models, but in practice I just never seem to notice (and I guess that's what matters).
The open-barrel design is definitely a leap forward in binocular ergonomics, and I fully expect that in time all the competitors will converge on essentially the same design. The only other company I know of which offers an open-barrel design is Bausch-and-Lomb (now Bushnell) with their newest generation of Elites. I've never held a pair of Elites in my hand, though I've heard only good things about them. The newest models run about $1000, which is a little bit cheaper than the Swarovskis, though by no means cheap. My very first pair of binoculars was in fact a Bushnell, and though they were in the sub-$100 category, my only complaint was that they were only 7-power.
Now on to the serious competition. At the same time that I bought my Swarovski 10x42 SLC's (back in '97, as I recall), I also picked up a pair of Leica 8x42 Trinovids, which are pictured below in the 10x42 configuration (the 8x42's look identical). Since the Swarovskis were 10-power, I chose the 8-power model for my Leicas, so that I'd have both magnifications available when needed. This has worked exceptionally well, and to this day I keep a pair of 10's and a pair of 8's, so that if I know I'm going to be birding in a place with large open spaces (such as at an eagle nest on a lake or wide river) I can take along the 10's, whereas if I'm going out to watch warblers at close range in a meadow or forest setting, I can take along the 8's instead.
Both the SLC's and the Trinovids were optically excellent --- I honestly could not say that one was better than the other. They did give different views, however. To me, the Leicas always seemed to give a more 3-dimensional perspective than the Swarovskis, which may be due to a difference in depth-of-field between these two models. Whereas the Swarovskis seem to flatten everything into a single plane, thereby rendering everything super sharp and in-focus, the Leicas seem to leave more of the background out-of-focus, making the bird somewhat more prominent. That's just my personal impression. I can say that, while I became extremely fond of both models, I did tend to use the Trinovids more often than the SLC's, and probably tended to favor them a bit. But as I recall this was largely an issue related to power (8 being more useful for most of the birding I was doing at the time --- i.e., warblers and sparrows, rather than raptors) and smoothness of the focusing mechanism.
Ergonomically, the SLC's and the Trinovids both had their tradeoffs. Whereas the focus knob in my SLC's was always too stiff for my liking, the Trinovids had (and continue to have) a perfectly smooth focusing mechanism. Focusing my Trinovids is truly a pleasurable experience. Not only does the knob turn very easily, but the amount of turning required to focus in on a subject is (in my opinion) ideal --- a quick "major" turn finds the focus well enough to identify the bird and begin to follow it, while smaller "minor" turns allow fine-tuning of the focus for optimal viewing pleasure.
Like the SLC's, the Trinovids are a bit heavy by today's standards (though the weight never bothered me too much). Unlike the SLC's, however, the Trinovids had an awful exterior surface. You can see from the above photo that the barrels have prominent ridges on them. The outer material is very hard, so that during the excitement of watching a bird, the action of squeezing the Trinovids in your hand can become quite uncomfortable, especially with those ridges digging into your skin. Furthermore, the overall shape of the unit is very "chunky", so that it's hard for people with medium-sized hands to wrap them comfortably around the entire body. In time you can get used to the odd shape of the Trinovid, and for years I walked around in the field with these things effectively "surgically attached" to my hands. But I always wished they were a bit smaller.
Once when I was out in the field I ran into a woman carrying the 8x32 version of the Trinovid, and she let me trying it out. It was amazing. The optics were, as far as I could tell, virtually identical to those of my larger 8x42's, but the package was significantly smaller, and in particular I found that they fit my hands perfectly. Although they sported the same hard, ridged exterior as the larger Trinovids, the reduced size made an enormous difference in the ergonomics of the unit. Since that day I have lusted after these binoculars, but have never owned a pair myself. Although the Trinovid line has been supplanted by the newer Ultravid line from Leica (see below), I still think about buying a pair of these older 8x32's --- and if you ever get a chance to buy a pair of these at a bargain price, you should seriously consider it!
At about the same time that I replaced my SLC's with the newer Swarovski EL's, I also upgraded my Leica Trinovids to the newer Ultravid model from Leica (pictured below), though I kept the Trinovids as a back-up. While the optics in the Ultravids are as excellent as ever, the real improvement is in the ergonomics. The focus knob is still super smooth, but now Leica has replaced the hard, ridged outer covering of the unit with a soft rubber layer, and also trimmed quite a bit off of both the weight and the size of the body.
Now when I grip my Ultravids I find that they feel much more natural in my hands than the older Trinovids. I can finally wrap my hands all the way around the body. I think Swarovski still has a slightly more ergonomic body shape due to their "open barrel" design, though the focus knob on the Leicas is still significantly better. Also, while the eyecups on the Trinovids were of the push-pull kind that very easily got pushed out of their proper setting, the Ultravids now employ the superior twist-up eyecups just like the Swarovskis (both the EL's and the older SLC's have this feature).
Recalling my pleasurable (though brief) experience with the 8x32 Trinovids, I did try out the 8x32 Ultravids for several days, but ended up sending them back to the dealer in exchange for the 8x42's, as I found the 8x32 Ultravids to be too small for my hands (which, as I've noted already, are medium-sized, as male hands go). I've read other reviews by male birdwatchers who found the 8x32 Ultravids to be too small for their hands; females with smaller hands may indeed find these to be of the ideal size. On the other hand, the 8x42 Ultravids are just about the perfect size for my hands, whereas the 8x42 Trinovids were a bit too big. So, it looks like all the Leica models got reduced pretty significantly in size. Keep this in mind if you are thinking of buying binoculars via mail-order; make sure you can return whatever pair you order if they turn out not to fit your hands well.
So, which do I prefer? Leica or Swarovski?
Optically, they are both effectively perfect. That includes both the previous generation (the Trinovids and the SLC's) and the current generation (the Ultravids and the EL's). As I mentioned earlier, however, the view through a Swarovski and a Leica is not identical, however, with the Swarovski giving the impression of having the more razor-sharp image and the Leica giving the impression of a more 3-dimensional view. These are merely my impressions, however, and I believe they are due to differences in depth of field. I've never, ever, been using either brand to view a bird and thought to myself that I wished I had the other brand in my hands instead. Both deliver stunning views that will leave you breathless. I sometimes prefer the Leica view, but everyone's preferences differ. Keep in mind that while I sold my old Swarovski SLC's on eBay, I have kept my old Leica Trinovids, and don't expect to ever part with them willingly. Ergonomically, I think Swarovski has a pretty undeniable advantage with their open-barrel design, though in all honesty I think the Leicas have gotten to the point that they are sufficiently lightweight and comfortable in the hands that the ergonomics tend not even to enter into the viewer's conscious thought when using the instrument. And I still think Leica has the better focusing technology.
In short, I think anyone lucky enough to own either brand's newest crop of binoculars has absolutely nothing to complain about, and for those who can't afford the current models, the older models of either brand are excellent companions in the field as well. Count yourself lucky if you own any of these fine instruments.
Brand new, the current Leica and Swarovski offerings run between about $1400 and $1800. Older models can be found on eBay for $800 or so.
Choosing between 10-power and 8-power can be difficult as well if you can't afford to own one of each. While 10-power binoculars are good for watching birds at a distance (such as soaring raptors or birds on a lake) and can certainly give a stupendous view of stationary birds that are close, they can be difficult to use when watching small, fast-moving birds such as warblers. Too often I find that when trying to track foraging warblers with my 10-power binoculars I tend to lose the bird as it wanders out of my field of view. 8-power binoculars usually have a wider field of view, which makes it easier to track moving subjects at close range.
Some Cheaper Alternatives
Before I could afford to buy a pair of luxury binoculars like Swarovskis or Leicas, I made do with what I liked to call (at the time) the poor man's Zeiss. This was a pair of Celestron 10x50 Regals, which I think I paid about $375 for back in 1995. This exact same model was available under a plethora of other brand and model names, including the "Ranger" by Eagle Optics and the "Savannah" by Orion. I'm sure there are others brands that have sold these binoculars as their own.
Below is shown a 10x50 Eagle Optics "Ranger". This is the newest incarnation of this line. My pair (which I still have) were a much earlier version (but marked as Celestron's "Regal"), which had the older-style folding-rubber eyecups, which I hated. Eventually I learned to just fold the eyecup rubber pieces all the way back and to anchor the top of the eyepeices against my brow-ridge so they'd stay the right distance from my pupils. This took a little while to get used to, but in time I came to love these binoculars almost as much as I later loved my Leica Trinovids (I can still fondly remember the day I watched Peregrine Falcons hunting at Bombay Hook in Delaware through these --- what joy!). The focus knob was a smooth as the Leica's, and the hand-hold was as good as the Swarovski EL's. Although the Regals didn't have an open-barrel design like the new Swarovski EL's, the body was so narrow and the rubber body armor so soft that I found the hand-hold to be virtually perfect. If I you took away my Leicas and Swaros and planted me on a deserted island with nothing by my old Celestron Regals (and lots of birds), I think I could be quite happy.
Today's version of the Celestron/Orion/Eagle Optics Regal/Savannah/Ranger (...etc...) is undoubtedly improved over the version I bought many years ago, though I've never held one of the newer models in my hand. The newer models sport twist-up eyecups (which even Leica's venerable Trinovids didn't have just a few years ago) and improved optics with phase-corrected coatings and probably other optical improvements I'm not aware of. I believe they still go for about $375, which is enormously cheaper than the $1500 you're likely to spend for a new Leica or Swarovski ($800+ used).
Note that the 10x50 Ranger/Regal/Savannah has an extremely limited field of view (5 degrees), which does make it difficult to follow fast-moving birds such as warblers at close range.
The only other el cheapo binoculars I've bought in the last 10 years is the Minox 8x32, pictured below. These were probably $200 or so when I got them in 2004. They were my very first 8x32 binoculars, and were intended to be a cheap alternative to the 8x32 Trinovids which I wanted but couldn't justify spending the money on at the time.
The Minox 8x32's feel great in my hands, since they're small and are covered with a very nice, soft rubber coating. The focus knob feels good, and the binoculars can focus down to about 5 feet --- so close that I can actually focus on my toes. More importantly, these binoculars have such a close focus that I can use them to watch bumblebees or butterflies at very close range as they forage on flowers. I also sometimes use them to watch my canaries and finches which I keep as pets in my home. Unfortunately, the pair of Minox that I own do have some focusing issues. In particular, I find that the diopter adjustment (which corrects for optometric differences between your left and right eye) has to be set anew whenever I switch from focusing on something close to focusing on something more distant. This is definitely a defect, either in my particular pair or in the product's design, and is something you should check for if you are considering buying this model. By now they may have corrected this problem. If so, this may be a formidable competitor to the more expensive models offered by more prominent brand, at least in terms of the ergonomics and close-focusing for butterfly-watchers.
continue to
Part 2 : Spotting Scopes
Part 2 : Spotting Scopes