Best 10x42 Binoculars?
 

Who makes the best quality 10x42's in terms of image quality (crisp & clear), brightness, eye relief (I wear glasses), and of course price?

These will mainly be used for hunting. From the whitetail tree stand, to turkey hunting, to elk and mule deer in Colorado, and other big game adventures I will use these.

If a $2,000 pair is really twice as good as a $1,000 pair I would consider it. I have friends who have Swarovski and Zeiss and they love them. Just checking to see what is new and worth the money.

Thanks Rob

depends on what is important to you. I have swarovski ,10x50.and will never go back to any other brand. have had them for 20 plus years and only issue I ever had was replaceing eyecups twice , which swarovski sent me , free of charge.my brother had an old pair that he sent to have refurbished and they sent him a new pair , no charge. when it comes to warranty , swarovski ,is awesome. they may cost more but they last.

I USED TO BUY CHEAP. 150-200 range bushnell tasco ,nikon all suck and not worth a dime. leopould are not bad and waranty is decent but they will not hold up like swarovskis. to summerize ,if you can afford the higher dollar ones I would highly recommend doing so, if money is tight ,try leopould.before you buy a pair look through them in first and last light conditions. you will be amazed at the amount of difference in low light . that is where you can distinguish the quality of glass.

In know Swarovski has great glass. I have two Swarovski rifle scopes and the low light image is incredible.

But there is a tipping point where cost doesn't justify quality. That is what I am trying to determine. My friends have the Zeiss Conquest HD binos. They are a $1k pair and are very nice. Is the Swaro ELs at $2,500 really 2.5 times better? I'm not sure, maybe maybe not?

It's called "the law of diminishing marginal returns".

If $2,000 come easy to you by all means buy them.

IMO $1,000 binos are better than 90% of successful hunters use.

Most people buy $600 (or less) binos and feel they are adequate for their use.

We all wish we used Swarovski optics !!!

I normally carry Swarovski binoculars but the newest HD models from some manufacturers come very, very close and can be had for one third of the cost. I am particularly favorably impressed by the Leupold McKinley which can be had for somewhere around $600. To my eyes they are at least the equal of the $1,000 Conquest HD or the similarly priced Vortex model.

If you don't mind a bit of extra weight the Meopta (as sold by Cabelas as their Euro HD) is built like a truck and has great glass. I like them a bit better than the other $1,000 models, but your eyes may see things differently. I think they are really close to the Swarovski.

If they were all free I would still choose the Swarovski above all others, but they are not twice as good.

I have a pair of Vortex Razor HD 8X42 Binocs. Like them VERY much!!!

Leica. Nothing else needs to be said.

Well Okay than ......................

just picked these up recently...2015 ZRS HD (SUMMIT) 10x42 Waterproof Binoculars
very pleased with them so far

While ill agree with you that Leica does make the very best binos there are there is something else to be said.

Warranty issues.

First you have to purchase yiur Leica from a authorized Leica dealer ..cross the ts and dot the is on the warranty card and send in a copy of the recepeipt and pray it gets recorded properly.

Secondly it is not transferable except to a offspring.

With that said Swarovski Optics are so darn close it takes a real discriminating eye to tell the difference between the two and Swarovski do not give two ****s who purchased the optics. The optics speak for themselves. Send them in owned third hand and your covered .

I do agree with what was said that at some point you stat reaching a point of diminishing returns. I think when it comes to big game hunting that some of the $600 to 1k ED Glass is more than a man will ever need. For a bird watcher??? maybe a argument could be npmade to spend the 2 to 3k they are asking for their optics. I just don't see myself ever justifying a expense like that ever again.