Visit the SWFA.com site to check out our current specials. |
Nikon Monarch 8 X 42 |
Post Reply |
Author | |
georgiabowhuntr
Optics GrassHopper Joined: July/02/2004 Status: Offline Points: 42 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Posted: July/28/2004 at 17:41 |
I'm considering purchasing a pair. I'd like to know what the forum folks know of them. My biggest concern is low light hunting situations. Thanks in advance!! |
|
ranburr
Optics Master Joined: May/16/2004 Status: Offline Points: 1082 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I would describe them as the bottom of the mid quality market. They are probably worth the price.
ranburr |
|
mwyates
Optics Master Joined: June/15/2004 Location: Texas Status: Offline Points: 1196 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I own a pair and like them a lot. They are one of the best values available. I compared them with several binoculars costing up to twice as much. They were better than most, and the difference was not significant on others. Low light performance is very good. You have to go to Nikon LX or spend over $1000 to get a lot better.
|
|
gremlin
Optics Apprentice Joined: February/16/2004 Location: left of center Status: Offline Points: 115 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
My experience has shown the Monarch's to be pretty good binoculars but not great binoculars. I'd put them in a class with the Bushnell Legends and the Leupold Cascades--serviceable, utilitarian, affordable, and reliable. If I was just going to own one pair of binoculars and didn't want to spend $300, they've got enough features and provide good enough color that I'd be happy with them. I don't think their image is as sharp or bright as a pair of $250 porros like the Swift Audubons or the Pentax PCF's, but their size, twist up cups, water proofing, and roof style all work in their favor if you're going to hunt more than you birdwatch. They wouldn't come to mind if we were listing 'brightest' or 'sharpest'. I'd probably take issue with having to "spend over $1000 to get a lot better." For $360 off of SWFA's sample list you could get tremendously better optical performance on a pair of Kahles 8x32's. Sharper image, 100' wider field of view, 3' short focus, and noticeably brighter optics for about a hundred dollars more than the Monarchs. The hundred bucks would be very, very well spent. Just my two cents... Take the long way home. |
|
mwyates
Optics Master Joined: June/15/2004 Location: Texas Status: Offline Points: 1196 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
$300 roof prisms will never be the equal of $300 porros (or even quite a bit less). It's a lot harder to make a roof prism clear and bright, as it is a lot harder to make a porro waterproof. I've got an old pair of Swift Audubon 8.5s that are amazing for clarity and brighness. They cost about $150. They're not very useful for hunting because they're not "anything" proof. I have not compared the Kahles 8X32 to the Monarch 8X42, but I compared the Kahles 8X42 closely. I was prepared to pay twice as much if there was a significant difference, but there just wasn't. I actually preffered the Nikon in most respects. I will admit that I am not a fan of Kahles. I spent a lot of time comparing their 1" rifle scopes to Leupold VX III and the Leupold was better in every respect. If you're thinking about spending more money, check out the Nikon LX. I've got a pair of 8X32 LX's that are amazing. For $700 I found them better than Swarovski, Leica, and Zeiss (others have found the same) except the Nikons are a bit heavy.
|
|
Post Reply | |
Tweet
|
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |