Vortex Razor HD review

Review:  Vortex Razor HD 8x42

 

I finally gathered up a bunch of optics I was no longer using and sold them.  Instead of doing something useful with the money, I used it on more binoculars.  I had about decided that I needed a bona fide alpha, if for no other reason that to serve as a reference standard against all of the binoculars I eventually wind up reviewing.

 

So this has been an effort of some scale for me and has involved a bunch of time, lots of binoculars, and a lot of head scratching.  There has been as much comparison with as many alpha glasses as I could arrange to get my hands on.  There are some pretty decent deals out there right now too.

 

So into the mix comes the introduction of the Vortex Razor HD, well not so much the introduction as the availability.  Doing as much research as I could do without actually having one made it seem like this new glass was at the least worth a close look.  As it happens, another glass I had been wondering about for some time also shows up ready for sale.  That is the Kruger Caldera, which I’ll do in a separate review.  So to start myself off, I now am the proud owner of one each of these binoculars in the 8x42 version.  I chose the 8x for no other reason than that (and 7x) is my personal favorite.  I was however able to get some fairly significant time with each in the 10x version before I bought.

 

The Vortex Razor HD

 

Vortex told me that they were confident this glass would compare very favorably to any of the alpha glass.  There has been some Internet skepticism about the new Razor HD’s price tag of almost $1,200.  I decided to see for myself.  Every indication I can see right now says that Vortex, amid all of the “HD” Market Hype, got the new Razor right.  It most definitely is not the old Razor.  There were few real flies on the original model as it was, but the new big brother has pretty well chased those off.   The housing on the new one is completely different.  I actually prefer the three finger gap of the original to the current two finger gap between the hinges.  Anybody who has had a ZEN ED or a Promaster ELX ED in hand has a pretty good idea of how the new Razor feels.  It is not quite the same, as the Razor is a little slimmer, and the ocular assembly is different too, and it is just a touch longer.  I am noting only apparent similarity here, nothing more.  I suppose another way to look at the housing is to say it resembles the new SLC-HD with a front hinge.  This apparently is a very well made binocular, but it does not have quite the “finishing school” finesse to the feel of some alphas.  But this will be largely a matter of personal preference.  Suffice it to say it looks and feels like a $1,200 binocular should.

 

The accessories are pretty typical Vortex.  There is a rather more substantial molded black nylon carrying case, standard Vortex neck strap, cleaning cloth, and carry strap for the case.

 

The focus is counterclockwise to infinity.  There is 1.5 total turns of the focus wheel.  The close focus distance is 7 feet.  One half (or 0 .75 turns) of the wheel goes from the close focus to 20 feet.  The second 0.75 turns goes from there to infinity. There is no focus past infinity.  The wheel movement is smooth and relatively easy and mine has no backlash.  The diopter adjustment is on the center focus knob, for the right eye, and works by pulling the knob back to adjust, forward to lock.  The focus wheel does not seem to get knocked out of focus and the diopter has not needed attention since I initially set the focus up.

 

With the eyecup fully extended there is 17.75 mm distance to the ocular lens.  Fully collapsed, the lens is 2.00 mm below the edge of the eye cup.  The eye cups have four click stop detents.  The detents seem perfectly able to stay where they are put too.

 

It is a lot brighter than the original, gone is the original quite warm color bias.  It is still a bit on the warm side of neutral, but I doubt anybody thinks this one is dim.  This one is definitely sharper than the old.  The new one retains the outstanding perceived depth of field of the original, a good thing from my viewpoint.  The field of view is about the same, as is the feel of the focus mechanism.  The image is  full of contrast, has a very decent sweet spot, and is pretty easy on the eyes.  There is some edge distortion present, some pincushion and a bit of field curvature, but the edge is as sharp as most, but maybe less than a few, notably the two new Swarovski’s.  The edge is sharper than the Zeiss FL.  In many ways this new Razor can be looked at as 8x and 10x versions of he Kiabab 15x.  The same sorts of alpha comparisons the Kiabab draws are probably usable here.

 

CA and color fringing are very well controlled.  I really could not see any even when trying.  However, this is not something that typically bothers me, but usually I can induce some under at least some conditions.  The glass controls glaree and stray light exceptionally well, neither being something I either noticed in routine use, nor in deliberately looking for either. 

So, the $64 question of “This is a Vortex, can it really be worth $1,200?”  I think so.  If the current alphas need to be purchased with amounts of $2k and above, this is certainly worth its price tag.  With the proliferation of deals on deals on alphas, either from used demo lists from a couple of dealers and some stuff on various forum boards where the recognized alpha can be had for the same to a little more money, is it worth it?  Dunno, that’s a tougher question.  A lot depends on how many “deals” are left.  I ultimately made my decision in favor of the $1,179 Vortex, instead of a Zeiss FL at around $1,400 or a non SV Swaro EL at about the same money.  Why did I do that?  There are a couple of reasons.  First is that this Razor is about as close to an American made top tier glass as is available.  It is a US design, developed and engineered by Vortex, not a modified off the shelf sort of thing.  It happens to be made in Japan, but will be serviced by the excellent warranty and service philosophy Vortex is known for.  The second is a “…the devil made me do it…” sort of a thing.   I never have been one to think I need to have one of the latest “whatever” everybody else thinks is some great sort of equipment. 

 

In comparing this Razor to the alphas I have been able to compare (some more than others), the Zeiss FL, Swarovski EL, Swarovision EL and SLC-HD, I conclude there is precious little difference.  Yes, the recognized alpha is a “better binocular”, very little, but some differences can be found by some serious side by side comparison.  I think dealers might be hard pressed to sell many new alphas when a new Razor HD is half the money.

 

I always felt that Zeiss concentrated the ability of their glass to promote center field sharpness.  This at some expense to sharpness at edge of field and with some lessened contrast due to their use of a bright, almost blue color bias.  Some of this is due to the use of the Abbe-Koening prism.  Swarovski seems to focus on a wide sweet spot, a warmer color hue, and better edges than the Zeiss.  The new SV and SLC-HD are a little brighter than the older EL and SLCneu, and the edges are sharper.  Leica has always concentrated on pretty neutral color balance and very definite, almost “enhanced” contrast, making the colors jump out at you.  The Razor HD seems to me more like the Swarovski EL/SLCneu than anything else.  The Razor does show some field curvature not as readily seen in the alpha glass and does have the feel of a very small degree of “not quite as bright”, particularly against the new Swarovski’s or the Zeiss FL.  In truth what work I could do with resolution on various charts and other targets pretty much told me that what could be resolved by one could be resolved by all.  Boosted tests may show the differences to a higher degree, but I am more interested in what my 1x eyesight tells me.

 

Forced to a decision, I’d give the alpha a 99 rating and the Razor HD a 98.  I do not want to push this as a definite degree of separation.  This merely illustrates that you need a steady hand, a discerning eye, and a damn sharp scalpel to separate out differences.  I’m keeping the Razor for now.   Time will tell the tale on how good this is.

Edited by Klamath - April/19/2011 at 12:17

Nice review! Thanks for taking the time, and putting in the effort.

Thanks for sharing Klamath and good on Vortex for providing another great product.

Thanks for the review Klamath.

Very nice, and thanks for your hard work.  Were you able to do the comparison with the alphas side by side or are you going from memory?  (just curious).  I am one of those skeptics Klamath mentions, but I want to clarify.  I'm not the least bit surprised that Vortex can create such high class glass.  My skepticism comes into play at that price point of $1200 since it does bring mint/demo alphas into play. You know how people are, there are preconceived biases when considering brands whether they're right or wrong.  There are other issues nowadays too IMO.  Lots of us who have personally seen the newer class of $500 "near alpha" competitors and  know how good they are.  Some here have seen more of them than I have, but I've seen enough of them to know that another question comes into play at that $1200 price point. "If I can pay $500 for glass that's 95% of the alphas, why should I spend another $700 for a 2-3% increase in performance ?"  Thanks again Steve, much appreciated and great work. 

Nice review, Steve!  We appreciate your efforts!

 Thanks Steve for the reveiw!

So how to you think it compares to the Meopta's?

supertool73 wrote: So how to you think it compares to the Meopta's?

Dangerous ground here, as this has to go from memory .  I would place the RazorHD  maybe a tick above the Meopta.  Keep in mind my sharp scalpel comment.  The biggest difference is probably going to be ergonomics.  I rteally think that when we reach what we see in the $500 or less category, such as the ZEN ED, Theron, and Kruger Caldera that the sweet spot for quality vs cost has been hit.  Glass like the Meopta, original Razor, Leupold GR, and maybe a couple of others are good enough differences may not be there for most users to detect in practical usage, although alpha advocates will never let that opinion pass.  SO if you have and like the Meopta, t here is probably no reason for a Razor HD (if that ever stopped anybody from buying anything I guess).

Thanks again Steve.  I hope Vortex sells a boat load of those Razor HD's.  

Great job Steve.  I am going to have to absorb this one for a while. 

So, there is enough pincushion to alleviate rolling ball on the Razor HD?

I have also had some time with the SLC HD  (only at the store, unfortunately) next to my SLC NEU.  Did you see some CA towards and at the edge in the SLC HD?

Your thoughts on resolution at this level of binoculars is spot on with my observations.  It seems impossible to discern resolution abilities between these models with the naked eye.

Thanks for the great read.

Bitterroot Bulls wrote: Great job Steve.  I am going to have to absorb this one for a while.  So, there is enough pincushion to alleviate rolling ball on the Razor HD? I have also had some time with the SLC HD  (only at the store, unfortunately) next to my SLC NEU.  Did you see some CA towards and at the edge in the SLC HD? Your thoughts on resolution at this level of binoculars is spot on with my observations.  It seems impossible to discern resolution abilities between these models with the naked eye. Thanks for the great read.

Rolling ball is not a problem (with the for me anyway qualifier).  I can't find any CA anywhere with either the SLC-HD or the Razor HD.  However, I'm not particularly sensitive to seeing it either.

I noticed a small amount of CA in the outer 30% or so of the FOV on the SLC HDs (10X42) I looked at, but I was looking hard.  Still, I was expecting a bit more, after seeing the top-notch CA control in the Swarovisions.  Keep in mind, I am unfortunately quite sensitive to CA.

I will say that the SLC HDs showed me little optical improvement over the SLC NEU, which was kind of disappointing.  I looked at them side by side for about 15 minutes in failing light, and did not notice a difference in apparent brightness.  This was surprising, because brightness seems to be a big talking point with the SLC HD.  The SLC HD sure felt good in the hand, though!  Perhaps I would notice more differences with a long field test.

Bitterroot Bulls wrote: I will say that the SLC HDs showed me little optical improvement over the SLC NEU, which was kind of disappointing.  I looked at them side by side for about 15 minutes in failing light, and did not notice a difference in apparent brightness.  This was surprising, because brightness seems to be a big talking point with the SLC HD.  The SLC HD sure felt good in the hand, though!  Perhaps I would notice more differences with a long field test.

At some juncture, which we may have reached, a point will come where we are talking in terms of "how many angels can dance on a pinhead?" in terms of A-B differences in optical discussions.  I think you are right, improvements are often pretty subtle, and may be either insignificant or not noticiable in typical, routine use.

Edited by Klamath - April/19/2011 at 23:12

I was just at a local family owned sporting goods store I frequent.  They are a Vortex dealer and they have a Razor HD and their price will be $979.  While I think it is worth it at $1,179 less than $1k should be good news.  How prevalent this will be among dealers I have no idea, but he was happy enough with what he will make..

It sounds like I should check out the Razor HDs.

I have had the Razor 8x42 for a few weeks and think they are a great bino.  I do not have the expertise you guys do to get to technical into a review or lots of different bino to compare to.  I compared them to my Geovids and liked think the Razor HD's where a much more neutral color, where brighter, and sharper.  Thats about as technical as I can give you.  

Well, I have had these for a while now, and events lead me to the need for posting an update I think.  I still think these are good binoculars, but I now think, especially after seeing the ZEN ED 3, and that these carry much a higher price tag, that the Razor has reached the end of the line with me.  I have showed both the Razor and the ED 3 to several people, and, sort of to my surprise I must admit, nobody thought the Razor was better.  I think it is, but only by the most narrow of margins.  Since the Razor costs $1,179 and the ED 3 will run $450, or the Vortex Talon HD for the same money, the Razor HD really has no use for me anymore.  I have even come to prefer the Kruger Caldera to the Razor.  So I sold mine and have used it to finance a new Zen Prime HD.

Very interesting. I'm anxious to check a pair of these out. I wasn't overly impressed by the original Razors. I'm definitely interested in comparing them with the Meostar HDs when they come out. Thanks for the update.

Appreciate the review.  It was good reading right up until your last post.   I guess the short update was more important than the whole review.  Is the Zen prime the same as the Zen HD 3 ?  I couldn't find the Zen prime at SWFA.

Thanks for the update, Steve.

Bitterroot Bulls wrote: Thanks for the update, Steve.   The Swaro SLC HD has the most pleasing overall image of any binocular I have used.  Still, they ofter little optical improvement over the Chinese ED bins you reference.

Klamath wrote: Bitterroot Bulls wrote: Thanks for the update, Steve.   The Swaro SLC HD has the most pleasing overall image of any binocular I have used.  Still, they ofter little optical improvement over the Chinese ED bins you reference.   If I ever I feel the need to part with cash in the neighborhood of $2k, then I too think the Swaro SLC-HD is the best glass out there.  I include the Swarovision EL as well.  I am not referencing my objection to the SV rolling ball effect either, I just like the side by side, non panning image of the SLC-HD better.  That might change with more use, but with the rolling ball. there is no way I'll part with SV cash.   I might have kept the Razor HD if the Zen Prime HD was not just over the horizon.  This is the first time in my life I've ever pre ordered something I've never seen before.

Whoops, I did an edit and hit quote

Edited by Klamath - October/09/2011 at 10:50

With the field flattener that the prime HD is supposedly going to have, would this likely cause for the rolling ball effect?

I know my Vipers have a field flatterer due to the limited distortion, and there is a bit of a rolling ball effect. I don't mind it too much as I can tell it is simply due to the flat field (not to mention I think I am slowly adjusting), and pincushion distortion probably annoys me more as you can see it even when not panning.

I agree with you guys comments on the SLC HD.  I have a pair of 10x ( I didn't pay anywhere near retail) and I agree they are the finest binocular I've ever looked through, bar none.  That being said, they are nowhere near $1000+ better than the Zen or Leupold GR HD.  I'm betting this Zen Prime HD will knock our socks off.  I also love the solid hinge idea.