First Look: Ellis Optics MK-7 Tactical 4-16x50 FFP riflescope

Folks,

With all the hub-bub about upcoming Front Focal Plane (FFP) riflescopes from Nightforce and Premier Reticles grabbing all the chat forum headlines, I think it's important for you to know that a viable option is available for purchase right now, for much less money than those other guys. Awhile back on this blog I mentioned the impending debut of the Ellis Optics MK-7 line of riflescopes (http://www.ellisoptics.com/). I am pleased to announce I had a chance to review the very first production MK-7, the 4-16x50 FFP illuminated riflescope. It is worth paying attention to.

Ellis Optics MK-7 Tactical FFP illuminated 4-16x50 riflescope.

Ocular of MK-7 Tactical. The magnification ring had a tight but smooth resistance, the fast focus eyepiece works exactly as it should.

Here's the specs on this "durable fire control optic":

• 16.5 inches long
  
• 39 ounces


• 4-16x50, side focus
  
• Fast focus eyepiece
  
• 1/4 MOA exposed tactical knobs


• Mildot/Milbar reticle, etched in glass
  
• Dual red-green illumination, 5 position rheostat


• FFP reticle
  
• Super thick 35mm alloy tube


• Hard mil-spec anodized finish


• Oversized erector lens assembly


• Three (that's "3") erector springs


• Generous eye relief for hard kicking firearms.

Upon handling this scope for the first time, the things I notice are its heft, fine machining and excellent finish. Ryan Burrowes, Director of Ellis Optics, spec'd a super thick tube that is at least 5mm thick at the turret housing. All elements of the scope (except the optics) are made in the USA and precision machined to +/- .002 inches. The components were assembled in Japan and the finished product was re-imported into the USA. The one-piece main tube houses an assortment of knobs and covers that give the scope a unique profile. Let's take a look.

Top view of turret housing of MK-7 Tactical. In front of the elevation knob is the rheostat for reticle illumination. On the left is the parallax adjustment knob, and tucked under it is the cover for the windage erector spring.

Bottom view of the MK-7 Tactical, showing the massive elevation erector spring cover (next to the website etching), and the "normal" 45 degree erector spring cover (a la IOR, Burris, Pentax and many others). Note the "muscular" profile of the seamless turret housing.

Another view of the turret housing, from the bottom left profile. Both the elevation and windage knobs, parallax knob, and three erector spring covers are visible in photo.

As you can see, the MK-7 is designed for hard use. The stout maintube is designed to resist flexing and torque and the three erector springs (the most I've ever seen in a scope) are designed to HOLD the erector TIGHTLY in place, no matter what you throw at it. The MK-7 prototypes were extensively tested on 50 cal, 14.7mm, and 20mm guns and the resulting data compelled Ellis Optics to engineer in the massive springs for extremely long life and rock-solid durability.

The exposed, resettable (more on that later) 1/4 MOA knobs are quite audible and have a feel reminiscent of the old Nikon Tactical riflescopes. The rheostat houses a CR2032 camera cell and has 5 position settings for both red and green illumination.

Close-up of the MK-7 Tactical elevation knob and rheostat knob. The 1/4 MOA knob features 15 MOA per turn (same as the Leupold M1 knob) and the rheostat has a removable cap that houses the CR2032 camera cell.

The reticle is a modified mildot (Ellis calls it a "mil-bar" reticle), which features bars located at the 1/2 mil locations in-between the mildots. I like this reticle style and feels it enhances ranging and holdover precision as opposed to a standard mildot.

View of MK-7 Tactical reticle at 16x. Feel free to download and expand to study detail.

Operator's view of the MK-7 reticle at 16x. The scope features a measured 3.5-4.0 inches of eye relief, plenty for most any rifle it could be used on.

Now that we have covered the "X's", it's time to discuss the "O's".

The MK-7 features Japanese optics with a Chinese etched reticle. This may not sound too appetizing at first, but unlike Nightforce, Ellis Optics over-sized the internal erector assembly to fill the 35mm tube (What I call the "IOR-principle" of optical design). While this does limit reticle travel (same as the IOR, use a canted base to help your .308 reach 1000 yards), in theory, the larger erector lens assemblies offers a less-restrictive path for light to travel before reaching the ocular lens, thus resulting in a brighter and clearer sight picture.

All theory aside, I took the MK-7 out on the farm and compared it to a Trijicon 3-9x40 mildot Accupoint and Leupold MR/T 2.5-8x36 for optical performance. Wait, I can hear you now, you're crying "You're comparing apples to oranges". Perhaps. But, I wanted to see how the MK-7 stacked up to commercial offerings so as to establish a baseline. I mean, if the MK-7 can't beat these scopes out, then it's "game over".

To make things as equal as possible, I set each scope at 9x (the Lupy's true max magnification is 8.7x, so close enough).

I'm going to end all suspense right now. The MK-7 had a shockingly good optical performance. On my infamous "Sign #2" at 800 yards, the 5-inch tall letters were very easy to read at 9x. This was day or night (sign illuminated). The MK-7's light management was superb and the parallax knob worked to utter perfection. It was amazing to see how the other two scopes appeared handicapped compared to the MK-7. The field of view was excellent and scanning a string of houses at 1200 yards at 16x was pure joy. The brightness, clarity, and (surprising) resolution of the optics were an eye-opener to me. Before I published this article, I talked to a few friends and told them the MK-7 was "just as good" as a Nightforce upon initial impression. Boy, did I shortchange the MK-7 with that statement. The MK-7 takes any Nightforce I've ever seen to the woodshed.

Before you start thinking that I'm "on the take", I will say I have a few criticisms of the MK-7 Tactical. Here goes.

• First and foremost, the knobs are the weak link in this current offering. The 1/4 MOA adjustments, while not a handicap, would be better set to 0.1 mil increments to appeal to a wider number of shooters who are looking for "matching" reticle subtension /turret increments. Also, while the knobs are technically resettable, the three hex screws that are used to secure the cap are too tiny and wimpy to withstand repeated rezeroing. I believe they are 1mm, and the metal they are made of is too soft. I stripped one screw on each turret without really trying. Ellis Optics is aware of this criticism and Ryan Burrowes agreed with my assessment.
• The green illumination is worthless. Even at the lowest setting, the illumination fills the entire field of view with green light and washes out any sight picture. The red illumination is much better, but is best used at low setting at 12-16x. At lower mags it too will wash out the FOV (much like an IOR).
• Under certain conditions, the sight picture is washed out by back reflection (internal flare). The conditions this occurred was after sunset, but before dark. Pointing the scope to the brightest part of the post-sunset sky and trying to get a sight picture was a futile endeavor. What happens is the light reflecting off your face hits the reticle and bounces back. While this is a phenomena that occurs with any etched reticle scope, the condition was particularly acute with the MK-7.

Overall, I am quite impressed with the MK-7 Tactical. The only hurdle left is seeing how it performs at the range! To this end, Vern Harrision, owner of Central Virginia Tactical http://www.centralvirginiatactical.com/ will be putting a MK-7 through its paces, and the scope featured here will be passed around among select members of Sniper's Hide http://www.snipershide.com/ and Long Range International http://www.longrangeinternational.com/ It won't take long for field data to start trickling in, so stay tuned and check back here!

Or, alternatively, you can buy your own and put yours to the test! The MK-7 features a lifetime warranty, and is available for purchase from Liberty Optics or Ellis Optics for $1299 delivered with rings or $1229 without rings. This would be a "market leading" price for the features, folks.

I am going to see how the MK-7 compares optically with the IOR 3-18x42 FFP, and I'll post my impressions here.

Any questions, contact Ryan Burrowes at 646-872-7014 or drop us a line.

As always, thanks for stopping by.

Scott

Super Shootout: Compact spotting scopes

Folks,

Here in the mountains, I have quickly learned how much size and weight of packable items really make a difference. While in the flatlands of Florida, any gear I carried while hunting or exploring about was limited only by my strength and stamina, as level traversing is the norm. But, once you factor in steep hills and loose rocky terrain, fatigue sets in quickly and every ounce truly does count while backpacking.

Accepting the general axiom that when it comes to spotting scopes, "bigger is better", I nevertheless wanted to know how much the "little" spotters perform and whether they were worth the time. For this test I present to you to two contenders: The Nikon ED50 13-30x Fieldscope and the Leupold Gold Ring HD 12-40x60.

I had already gotten a preview of the Nikon while I was testing the Kruger APR spotter and was impressed. Now, we pit it against the best the big "L" has to offer, the Gold Ring HD for about $300 more.

Home on the Range: Nikon ED50 Fieldscope (left) and Lupy Gold Ring HD compact spotters

First, the Tale of the Tape. The Nikon is 20 ounces "with eyepiece" (why on earth would Nikon state the weight of the body (16 ounces) alone? Is not the eyepiece needed for the darn thing to work?) and is about 8 inches long and 2.8 inches wide. For this test, I used the angled body version. The body is polycarbonate and made in China. The eyepiece is made in Japan. The eyepiece threads into the body via a serrated ring and you can adjust the location of the magnification indicators with little effort. The spotter comes disassembled with plastic insert caps in every orifice to keep out dust. A nifty little nylon case is included, and the tripod mount is integral with the body, and does not allow for eyepiece rotation (i.e., it is "fixed"). The eyepiece that came with the scope is 13-30x and other eyepieces are available. The objective lens exhibits a deep pinkish purple color and the focus knob is a rubber covered item that protrudes from the scope body as seen below.

Front view of Nikon ED50 spotter

Changing the magnification is accomplished by turning the raised/knurled portion of the eyepiece and the resulting magnification for the 50/65/82mm spotters is indicated. However, only the min or max magnification is clearly delineated, and the user is relegated to "guestimating" the true magnification of the spotter at any points in between.

Closeup of the eyepiece of the Fieldscope ED50. The finely serrated ring closest to the body is used to tighten the eyepiece to the body. The coarsely serrated ring right behind is is used to adjust the magnification. Not the most "glove friendly" arrangement, but it works.

The Leupold spotter is of the "folded path" design, where a mirror is employed to reflect and fold the light path from the objective to the ocular. This results in a bright image and a compact design. The Lupy weighs 37 ounces, is 12.4 inches long, and boasts 30mm of eye relief and a FOV of 168 feet at 1000 yards at 12x (I could not find the values of eye relief and FOV for the Nikon for comparison). The purportedly calcium fluoride objective lens elements sported a mild pink-purple color. The body is armored with brown rubber and and the scope comes with a nylon brown case, but no lens covers of any kind (FYI, the largest current production Butler Creek flip-up cap will not fit the objective of the Lupy).

Objective view of the Lupy Gold Ring 12-40x60 HD

Unlike the Nikon, the Lupy has a integral (stacked) magnification ring and focus ring at the rear of the scope body. This design reeks of ruggedness and overall the Lupy seemed like you could hurt somebody with it. The mag ring is clearly marked with the the correct magnification at certain increments. The focus ring seems to work like the diopter adjustment on a riflescope, in that the eyepiece protrudes or retracts when you turn it.

Closeup of the controls of the Lupy spotter. The smooth ring on the left changes the magnification, while the ridged rubber ring adjusts the focus by moving the ocular piece in and out (eyepiece fully extended in picture).

The real key to these spotters is how they work in minimizing chromatic aberration (CA). To quote Wikipedia:

In optics, chromatic aberration is caused by a lens having a different refractive index for different wavelengths of light (the dispersion of the lens). Longitudinal and lateral chromatic aberration of a lens is seen as "fringes" of color around the image, because each color in the optical spectrum cannot be focused at a single common point on the optical axis.

The ultimate result of "CA" for the shooter is that the edges of objects in the FOV are fuzzier than they need to be, which results in an unsatisfactory sharpness in contrasting images (bullet holes in paper, for example. Having a glass lens with extra low dispersion properties or in some cases the use of fluorite crystal allows CA to be reduced to a negligible amount, increasing the sharpness of images and making for a more satisfactory viewing experience. After looking through true ED (extra low dispersion) glass, I will say I'm not going back.

Field Tests

I compared these spotters in terms of resolution, eye relief, FOV, color rendition, low light brightness, and intangibles. I spent 15 hours with this pair over a period of three days. Here are my observations:

Resolution: I whipped out my trusty Vortex resolution chart and looked through both spotters at 50 yards in bright daylight and dusk. I backed up to 150 yards at dusk also. While the Lupy was brighter in low light, the Nikon had better resolution. The pic below illustrates what I could resolve with each spotter at 25x. Feel free to download for your inspection.

Illustration of the resolution performance of the Nikon ED50 (red lines) and Lupy 12-40x60 Gold Ring HD 9blue lines). Performance is for 50 yards in broad daylight for the smaller lines and 150 yards after sunset for the larger lines.


I'll also say the ability to read Sign #1 (400 yards) and Sign #2 (800 yards) was not difficult by any means.

While the Nikon fared better, I'm not sure whether the difference is due to better optics or better focus. The Nikon knob had excellent precision and feel, which allowed you to get that "just right" focus on the target. The Lupy's focus, on the other hand, was a pain in the butt. The knob felt smooth, then rough, then smooth. I kept fiddling with it over and over, and it's uneven feel was a source of frustration. While the design was solid, the execution created problems for acquiring the best image, IMO.

Eye Relief: The Lupy wins here, hands down. While the eye relief was a touch critical, the 30mm will work with glasses, goggles, you name it. The Nikon, while the value is unknown (estimated 15mm) is much less. I do not think the Nikon would fare well with eyeglass wearers.

Field of View: Again, the Lupy wins hands down. The FOV is truly amazing for a spotter. The Nikon simply pales in comparison. You could take in much more scene with the Lupy than the Nikon, and at 12x the Lupy acted like a wide angle monocular. The sight picture is clean and flat to the edges with both spotters. I did notice more of a tendency to "shadow" with the Lupy, but such was not bothersome.

Color Rendition: While I have yet to invest in a Gretag MacBeth chart for color rendition, I will say that the colors appear brightest with the Nikon. The red of Sign #1 and the greens of the John Deere tractor used in the adjacent hayfield just seemed more brilliant to me, especially during periods of bright light. The Nikon has great color rendition and clarity, IMO.

Low Light Brightness: No question in my mind the Lupy works better when the sun goes down. Whether the 60mm objective was key, or what, the difference in view at twilight was noticeable. Sign #1 was much easier to read with the Lupy vs. the Nikon about 15 minutes after sunset. Scanning for deer was easier and more productive. The 50mm objective on the Nikon and/or the coatings did not lend itself as well for low light applications.

Intangibles: The Lupy is a stout and rugged beast, that breeds confidence that it could be taken to heck and back and survive in one piece. Optically and mechanically it has a lot to offer, but the darn focus knob is the Achilles heel. Rough, imprecise, and unpredictable, I feel it detracts from the spotter's overall performance. However, FOV and eye relief are big pluses, and the overall fit and finish is excellent. This is a precision mechanical device that you can count on. However, it's pricey and heavy, compared to the Nikon. But it would seem to be ideal for hunters, especially in cold weather with its glove friendly controls.

When it came to light management (viewing bright point sources of light at night) I think both spotters did a good job. No light sabers or other distracting weirdness. Very sharp and clear images. the color fringing at night was absolutely negligible with both spotters, and only visible at the extremes of the FOV. I was able to watch TV through a neighbors window at about 550 yards with both spotters, but the Lupy's 60mm objective really gave it the advantage in "no light" situations.

While the Nikon would seem more delicate than the Lupy, and the focus knob sticking out looks like an accident waiting to happen, such is only perception. This spotter is very well built, light as a feather, and squeezes every last drop of performance from it's 50mm objective (if only riflescopes had this glass!). It's the ultimate packable high performance spotter.

I do like the protective case that comes with Lupy, but I don't like the fact that there is no solid cover available to protect the objective lens. I disagree with Lupy, the zippered nylon case does not preclude the need for a protective cover for hard field use. The Nikon has a hard plastic protective insert, but I'm sure a Butler Creek cap exists that fits to protect the objective and ocular lenses. In fact I'll find out what works and post here.

The Bullet Hole Test: While many customers would look to use these spotters for hunting and glassing the countryside, a good spotter should work at the range also. To test this, I took a black sharpie marker and painted a 0.25 inch black spot on the lower right portion of Sign #1 to simulate a 30 cal bullet hole, and backed up to 450 yards (the furthest I could do without trespassing) and waited until late afternoon on a sunny cool day to see if I could spot the "hole" with either spotter. There was a mild to moderate "wavy" mirage, but not the typical summer "boiling" you get, which renders nearly any spotter useless for precision work. Both spotters were worked in the 20-25x range to balance exit pupil with needed magnification. I am pleased to say I was able to make out the hole with the Nikon ED50! Much to my surprise, but I really feel you could spot hits out to 500 yards or more on a day with no mirage. The optics are that good. With the Lupy, I could see the "hole", but it was definitely a little fuzzier and more difficult to pick up. I attribute this to the focus issues with the spotter, but perhaps the optics on the Nikon are better too, given how they performed with the resolution chart. I would say the Lupy was adequate, but it's low light brightness, eye relief, and FOV make it more suitable for glassing critters than precision range work, IMO.

Bottom Line:

Both spotters are winners in my book, but I feel the Nikon offers the best value. I liked it's glass better. Put another way, I felt the Nikon did a better job at 30x than the Lupy did at 40x, except for near darkness, where the Lupy shined. The Nikon weighs next to nothing, and if the small FOV and short eye relief are not an issue, this spotter is good to go. Available in a straight eyepiece design and a handholding case for one handed viewing at 13x. The ED50 even comes in a pink color (which I only expect patrons of Optics Planet or the like to take advantage of....). The Leupold Gold Ring HD is a fantastically engineered optic that performs its mission well, but the focus knob keeps it from going "from good to great". It's rugged, and tough, and clever, but heavier and much more money.

If I have to pick one (and I do), the Nikon ED50 Fieldscope is the one for humping it "out there".

Thanks for looking.

Scott

Vortex Viper 8x42 vs Vortex Razor 8x42......Our Take

Folks,

As good as the Viper 8x42s have been, I decided to see how much better the Razor 8x42s were with their $250 higher pricetag, even though Vortex's own BPR (Binocular Performance Rating) has them listed as only about 3-4% better. I just couldn't imagine a big improvement on the Vipers, but I had to see for myself. So, let's get on with it.

The Razors are an open hinge design very similar to the Swarovski EL series. The 8x42 weighed just under 30 ounces, and are longer and wider than the Vipers. Eye relief is a published 18mm, and the Field of View is a whopping 7.8 degrees (410 feet at 1000 yards). To review, the Field of View of the 23 ounce Vipers is 6.6 degrees or 347 feet at 1000 yards, with 20mm of eye relief.

Vortex Razor 8x42 (left) and Viper 8x42

Taking the Razors out, I noticed the extra long twistout eyecups with index marks. On the Razors, I had to actually turn in the eyecups a couple of clicks to get the optimum sight picture. Keep this in mind if you purchase a set. The color was a darker green than it's Viper cousin.

A quick inspection looking into the front of the binos revealed a little speck in the left objective lens. While not uncommon, I was a bit bemused that the most expensive binos Vortex offers was the only optic of theirs I've ever sold with a noticeable visual defect in the glass.

The Razors feel good in the hand. They balance well for their extra weight and are easy to get comfortable with. The extra large focus knob has a rubber knurled cover and hides a diopter adjustment. Pull out to set the diopter, and push back in to lock. The knob turned effortlessly, and had a much lighter feel than the Viper.

Vortex Razor combination focus knob/diopter adjustment (shown with knob pulled out to adjust diopter)

In contrast, the Viper's focus knob and diopter adjustment were separate. The diopter adjustment is accomplished by pulling out a ring on the right ocular and then pushing it back down. The focus knob on the Viper had a much stiffer feel than the Razor. I'm going on record to say I like the diopter and focus separate. I'm sure the combo feature on the Razor is something some might like (and you pay for it) but I prefer the simple ruggedness of the Viper's setup.


Vortex Viper focus ring and diopter adjustment (knurled ring on top ocular).

Now it's time to look through the Razors. First up is the resolution chart. I set the chart at 50 feet and compared them side by side with the Vipers. The Razors had no astigmatism, pincushion or barrel distortion of note. Compared with the Vipers, I felt the lines on the chart appeared a tad thinner. Bottom line, the two binos were virtually tied in terms of resolution performance (which is a good thing). As seems to be the pattern, the clarity of the horizontal lines is a bit less than the vertical lines. The pic below shows how far down I could resolve with both binos (red ink). Feel free to download and magnify if you need a closer look.

Heading out to the field, and scanning at long range, the Razor's field of view is apparent. Looking at sign #1 at 400+ yards, I sincerely felt the Vipers exhibited a brighter red color than the Razors. In fact, the overall clarity of the Vipers seemed to be a tad better than the Razors, which seemed to exhibit just the slightest tinge of yellow in the sight picture. However, what really jumped out at me about the Razors was the spherical aberration present in the image. While the Vipers had moderate distortion at the extreme top and bottom edges of the field of view (curvature of field) the Razors has distortion at the top, bottom, and left edges of the FOV. What's worse, the distortion appeared rather quickly outside of the center "sweet spot" in the optics. I've seen this phenomena referred to as "doughnut vision" elsewhere and I don't much like it. Consulting with a Vortex staffer, I was told that this type of distortion is to be expected with the ultra-wide FOV of the optics. While the image is easily refocused on the edges, I must ask what's the advantage to the end user?

The infamous Sign #1, which we will refer to for many optics tests...

Up next was Sign #2, which had 5-inch tall black letters on a white background at 800 yards. BONUS: When I looked at the sign, the message had been changed without my knowledge, so the real challenge would be which bino could read the sign accurately, since I had no idea what it was changed too!

Sign #2, another "soon to be famous" optics testing medium

After steadying both binos and peering through for quite some time, I was actually able to decipher more of the text with the Vipers than with the Razors. This is not what I expected. To be fair, I was not able to read the entire (lengthy) message on the kiosk with either bino, but the Viper was able to pull in more details. Advantage: Viper

As dusk fell, and my customary deer herd came out to graze, I will say the Razors had superb contrast in low light. The different shades in the coat of the deer about 200 yards from me was quite apparent. Low light viewing is where the extra $$ seems to come into play with the binos I've tested (Minox HG, Lupy HD. and Razors). By definition though, such viewing is limited to about 2% of any given day, so is the extra cost worth it, when you can have better vision the other 98% for less? I know my thoughts on the subject.

After the sun fell, I looked at point sources of light with both binos. The Vipers showed their typical scatter/fuzziness around the light source, but the Razors had long "light sabers" emanating from them, like a giant "X" from the center. This may be meaningless, but I thought you might want to know anyway. I found the beams of light to be distracting and annoying when looking at illuminated objects with the Razors.

I'm already tipping my hand, so let's wrap this up.

Vortex Razor 8x42: While the Razors are very nice binos, I found the proportion of distortion in the FOV to be "too much". I also found while they did everything well, I sincerely believe the Vipers did it just a tad better. While the stylish open hinge design, integral focus knob and diopter adjustment, and "XT" optical design (with massive FOV) might warrant the significantly higher price, anyone who cares what I think will not pay it.

Vortex Viper 8x42: This is starting to get silly. Every once in awhile, a product comes along that has the "it" factor and has a quality/performance that exceeds the market price. The Viper is that bino. The optics, controls, design, size and weight, and overall package are "just right" in almost every phase of the game. There are almost no wrong notes here. I hate to be melodramatic in talking about a product but knowing what I know in the industry, I fear next year's models might have some tweaks or changes that mess with a really good thing. I'm tempted to buy many pairs of the current production model and stock every vehicle and family member with these little gems. Next up: the $1000+ Kowa 8.5x44 Genesis (generously donated by Kowa for testing, sitting here at the shop). Please, if your budget is up to $500 for your next bino purchase, buy the Vipers and be happy. I guarantee it.

Thanks for checking in.

Scott

What in the world is going on with Nikon?? Binos made in China??

Folks,

I had a chance to examine some Nikon Monarch ATB 8x42 binos recently, and I was not overly thrilled with looking through them. The binos looked and felt kind of "junky". The sight picture was average. In light of my recent tests, these were the bottom of the heap. Furthermore, upon further examination, the binos were boldly stamped "Made in China".

??

I thought the Monarchs were the best Nikon going?

When I looked at the bino offerings from Nikon, I discovered the ATBs were the "priciest"....but can still be had for under $300. The next "step" (leap) up is the new EDGs....for nearly $2K...

WTF?

It's safe to assume that if the Monarch ATBs are made in China, then ALL other Nikon binos (excepting the EDGs) are made in China too.

I accepted the ED50 Fieldscope body being made in China, but i thought this was the exception, not the norm...

What is going on with such a proud Japanese optics manufacturer?? Do they truly not care about the serious hunter/shooter to offer a homemade bino in the $500-$750 price point??

Someone in Nikon's marketing department needs to be taken to the woodshed, IMHO. First, they do the crawdad on the very fine Tactical riflescope...and now having nearly all their binos made in China...

If you boycott the ED Fieldscopes on political grounds...I'll understand...but they ARE a very fine product..

But keep your ear to the ground...

Scott

Vortex Viper 8x42 vs Leupold Gold Ring 8x42 HD.....and the winner by TKO is....

Friends,

Sorry I've been late with this post. We have been very busy at LO lately, which is exciting.

I took delivery of the Lupy 8x42 Gold Ring HD binos, with a street price of around $699, these are a big step up, pricewise, over the Vipers. I've talked about the specs of the Viper in previous posts and they have performed very well, so let's talk about Leupold's top of the line bino.

Featuring calcium flourite objective lenses (designed to minimize chromatic aberration like the Viper XD glass) the spec sheet on the HD 8x42s are impressive. Argon/Krypton purging, Index Matched Lens system, interpupilary distance lock, and, most signficiantly in my opinion, DiamondCoat lens coatings. I first looked at DiamondCoat coatings in the Lupy VX-L riflescopes, and I felt the clarity, contrast, and sharpness of the glass was superior to the MultiCoat 4 lenses featured in the Mark 4 scopes. As a bonus, the DiamondCoated lenses are supposed to offer durability and superior scratch resistance, worthy properties for any seriously fielded optic.

Leupold Gold Ring 8x42 HD (left) and Vortex Viper 8x42

The first thing I noticed about the Gold Rings were their heft. Weighing in at 33 ounces (9 more ounces than the Vipers), the Gold Rings were longer, wider and thicker than the Vipers. The retractable eye cups were bigger than the Vipers, and eye relief was 16.5mm. I've read elsewhere that these eyecups have given others problems with comfort, but I had no problems with my big ole eye sockets.

The focus knob is about twice as long as the Vipers, and has longitudinal ribbing much like the Minox BD BR series. The barrels are held together by a stout hinge and the overall feel of the binos are those designed for "he-men". I do not believe these binos would appeal to most birders or casual nature observers due to their size and bulk, and the earth brown color and stout design are tailored for the hunter.

The Gold Rings come with a brown nylon case, a regular carrying strap, and a load bearing, quick release harness similar to the slide and flex, except made of solid nylon.

Peering into the objectives revealed a purplish gray color that was similar to the Vipers, almost a neutral shade that I feel lets in the maximum amount of light by minimizingAfter adjusting the diopter via a slim gray band around the right ocular, I peered through the HDs for the first time. I was struck at the apparent quality of the optics, looking around both far and near, a big smile came across my face. This 8x42 HD has some good stuff! Clear, bright, and sharp, the focus knob worked smoothly, if a little bit lightly. I still prefer the knurled knob of the Viper, but the extra size of Lupy knob makes it easy to manipulate with gloves.

Optically, the only defects I could see in the field of view were spherical aberration at the top and bottom edges (easily refocused) and the just a trace of barrel and pincushion distortion at the left and right edges. The optics were well made, superb, crisp, and it was time to test them againt the Vipers! I tested both binos for hours, from afternoon to after dark, running the same course as the earlier comparison of the Vipers vs. Minox.

• On Sign #1 at 400 yards, both binos were able to resolve down to 1 MOA. I felt the colors (specifically, the red of the sign) were a tad brighter in the Vipers than the Gold Ring HD, and the "real" magnification was a bit higher in the Vipers both binos passed with ease.
  
• On Sign #2 at 700 yards, there is no question the Viper's "sweet spot" was clearer and sharper than the Lupy Gold Rings, and the black 6-inch tall letters were not as easily read in the Gold Rings, there was a fuzziness at the edges of the letters. I found this puzzling, as the optics seemed so darn sharp with everything else.
  
• For contrast, I tried something different. I laid a diet Pepsi can on it's side, and focused on the darker ink stamping on it againt the bright metal background at 30 feet, as the sun had set. The Vipers showed better contrast and resolution than the Gold Rings in this test, with the ink stamping barely readable in the GRs.
  
• As it got really dark, the Gold Rings really shined. No question, for my eyes, the Lupy's were brighter and I could differentiate varying shades of dark forest vegetation much easier than the Vipers. Something else I noticed, is that the Vipers seemed to exhibit more internal flare and stray light than the Gold Rings, which certainly affected the low light sight picture, IMO. I also found it easier to pick up the white-tailed deer coming out to graze at twilight (including two NICE bucks in velvet) with the Gold Rings. Advantage: Leupold
  
• After dark, I focused on point sources of light, and I'm pleased to report the chromatic aberration reduction was virtually identical between the two. The purple fringing was present, but minimal. Both optics systems delivered on the promise of low dispersion which enhances sharpness and resolution.

Overall, both optics performed well, but I was unsure why the Gold Rings struggled a bit with the black on white letters at 700 yards. To further explore this, I took out a Vortex resolution chart at 50 feet and compared the two side by side. I was able to resolve down to the "5" level of letters on the right side of the chart with both binos. On the horizontal and vertical bars, I circled in red how far I could get, with the Vipers seeing down to the lower set of bars in the circle and the Gold Rings resolving down to the set just above. Feel free to download the image below for better detail.

Vortex Optics resolution chart with smallest lines visible to the binos circled in red.

One thing I noticed was how the Gold Rings really struggled with the horizontal bars in the chart, especially since the vertical bars were so clearly defined. Playing with the focus knob, it finally hit me. The horizontal bars would come into focus, but then the vertical bars got fuzzy. And vice versa. I could not focus the horizontal and vertical bars in the same plane. Mystery solved! The Gold Rings suffered from an astigmatism! I tested the Vipers in this manner and while there was a hint of differential in the focus in the horizontal and vertical bars, it was minimal. Well, I learned something new.

Conclusion:

In a functional sense, both of these binos are excellent pieces. The overall optical presentation of the Viper was a tad better than the Leupold Gold Ring HDs, but for the last 15 minutes of light (civil twilight) the Lupy's were brighter, clearer, and better. In all fairness, the astigmatism present in this pair of Gold Ring HD might not be present in others, which would enhance the optical performance even more. The dispersion properties of the glass in both sets worked as advertised, so kudos to Vortex and Lupy.

While you would be quite pleased with either pair, the bottom line is that the Vipers did the job just as well in all phases except extreme low light, but did it in a package that weighs 9 ounces less, with superb ergonomics, and with a price tag of at least $250 less than the Lupy's. That's what I call a superior value. If the better performance of the Lupy's in the lowest light (important for hunting) is worth the extra coin to you, and the extra size and weight does not bother you, go for it. Otherwise, you'll be tickled to death with the Viper's performance for much less cash. In this bout, this tilts the decision to the Viper in a TKO.

When I told Paul Neess, my Vortex rep, about this planned test, to my surprise, he told me he would be "very comfortable" with this comparison. No kidding. I thought he was towing the company line and being a bit over-confident, but he knew. The folks at Vortex have done their homework, and know their stuff. And they know their market and their competition. One reason why they are such a great company.

Future plans? I picked up a set of the open hinge Vortex Razor 8x42. I couldn't resist. They are priced at $250 above the Vipers...could they be THAT much better?? I will test them head to head this week.

After that, we have a long anticipated bout between compact spotters, the Nikon 13-30x50 ED50 and the Lupy Gold Ring HD 12-40x60 (I was going to throw the Lupy Mark 4 TMR in the mix, but the word I'm getting is this scope is the standard Gold Ring with a reticle, and the optics on the HD model (calcium flouride lenses and Index Matched Lens system) are better than the Mark 4, so we'll duke it out between two "high def" compact spotters. I can't wait to check these two out head to head!

Thanks for stopping by!

Scott