Jump to content

Banner.jpg.b89429c566825f6ab32bcafbada449c9.jpg

Vortex Raptor 6.5x32


Recommended Posts

Preamble

Those who peruse these binocular forums will have noted that there has recently been some "diversion" from the "received wisdom" of, all else being equal, a 10x50 being the best choice for a hand-held astronomical binocular. The afficionadi (i.e. mostly Olly :laugh: ) have been extolling the virtue of a decent 8x42, and there has even been mention of a 4x22 for its ultra-wide field. The rationale of the lower magnification is that any shake is less intrusive, so more becomes visible. I have a 10x42 that is my most-used hand-held glass, I cannot currently afford to buy an 8x42 of equivalent quality. I decided to opt for something with even less magnification that my grand-daughters (4 & 5 yrs old) would also be able to use. Enter the Vortex Raptor 6.5x32.

Specs

Aperture: 32mm (verified: no internal aperture reduction)

Magnification: 6.5 diameters

Coatings: Fully Multi-coated

Focus: ZCF plus right eyepiece dioptre adjustment. 4.6m close focus.

Eye Relief: 20mm

Field: 7.8 deg (true) /  50.7 deg (apparent)

Eyecups: Twist-up, 8mm travel, no click-stops

Prisms: Porro, 'Chinese' BAK4

Waterproof: Yes, dry nitrogen purged

Construction: Bausch & Lomb ('American') type body, rubber armoured, tethered objective caps, and rainguard.

Weight: 485g

Accessories: Good quality padded strap, slightly padded case (with additional pocket for cleaning cloth, adjustable shoulder strap, and belt-loop), microfibre cloth.

Warranty: Lifetime, includes accidental damage, transferrable

Initial Impressions

Got it from The Birders Store -- did write a "supplier review" but, at the time of writing, the mods haven't posted it. Even the cardboard box is made of sturdier cardboard than most. Decent little manual/booklet, which you can also get as a PDF. Rather a tight fit in the case, but the additional pocket is a nice touch. Getting the strap through the attachment lugs was fiddly. Quick peep at distant trees against an overcast sky was promising: no discernible false colour, slight pincushion distortion (sufficient to eliminate "rolling ball"), FoV felt comfortable. Felt good to hold; nice secure grip.Some field curvature noticeable in the outer 10%.Rainguard attaches to the right-side strap which, for me, is the "wrong" side. Rainguard and (captive) objective caps fit very well. Eyepiece bridge is very "rocky". Too much eye-relief for me when used without specs; need to hold them slightly away from my eyes (not a problem the way I hold binos); spot on with specs and the cups down. When I focus them, the eyepiece barrels "lag" and take a second or so to stop moving - this is a good thing: it shows that the waterproofing O-rings are doing their job!

Under the Stars

Orion & Taurus were suitably placed a couple of nights later just as I was about to go to bed, so I flipped off the lens covers and brought the binoculars up to my eyes to focus them on Bellatrix. Something very odd here; just looked wrong. Flipped up the right lens cap so I could focus the left hand side with the focus wheel (nice texture here, BTW) and I could see nothing/zilch/nada through the left tube! Hmm. Had a look at the binos, and the left objective cap was also up. A little experimentation revealed that, if I brought the binoculars, from hanging down, up to my eyes quite quickly (for pretty small values of "quite"), the captive objective cups automatically act so as to do their job and protect the lenses from any descending debris!

Mini-hiatus over, I got them focused (snaps to a nice focus). The unfocused periphery did not impinge on the "natural" bit of the field that I was concentrating on,  but looked slightly wider under the sterner test of the stars.  Still, the middle 75% or so of the FoV is nicely sharp. Pleiades looked good; I didn't count stars. M42 was brighter than I expected and, although small, showed some structure. I've never seen M35 or the Auriga clusters look so small before! - but they were definitely faint fuzzies. Couldn't see the "engagement ring" circlet by Polaris or the fainter stars of Kemble's Cascade, but I wasn't properly dark-adapted (it was cold, I was in shirtsleeves, and wasn't intending to hang around for 20 minutes; that can wait). Two Galilean satellites easily visible, and Jupiter was an obvious non-stellar disc.. Love the wide field: Bellatrix and Betelgeuse in the same field (but unfocused - it's not only field curvature, because stars on the periphery won't quite focus -- but I've seen worse in the middle of the field with one near-ubiquitous species of budget 15x70).

Second Outing

I had them (as well as my 100mm glasses!) last night at the Stargazing Live do in Portsmouth (I was touting for binocular astronomy at the stern of Warrior). Nothing visible in the sky, but I let a few very-youngsters try them out. One  6-yr old's dad had a real struggle to get her to reliquish them; she just wanted to keep looking at stuff. Certainly a hit with the kids -- so easy to hold steadily.

Conclusion

Pleasantly surprised. I still need to try them out when I'm properly dark-adapted, if we ever get a sufficiently long clear spell between the squalls! Easy to hold steadily, but feel robust and have enough mass to give a bit of shake-damping inertia. Can definitely see more with the 10x42, which is a couple of hundred grammes heavier, but it will certainly get more astro-outings, and may well become the binocular of choice for walks in the Forest. Definitely one to let the grand-kids use. Pretty good value for money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very nice report. Brings back memories of an afternoon in Portsmouth visiting HMS Victory and HMS Warrior.

Low mag definitely has its benefits. My youngest loves the mid-seventies, Yashica-built 7x50 bins I got for free (they were out of collimation, big deal). 7x is much easier to hold than 10x.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

Nice one Steve :) Sounds like a useful edition to the bino flock! is that very rocky eyepiece bridge a worry though? This might not be helping with the quality of the stars towards the edge maybe?

Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The rocky bridge isn't a problem the way I hold binoculars, as I don't press my eyes to the eye cups. The edge performance (or lack thereof) is just lousy edge performance, nothing to do with the rocky bridge. However, anyone who can't figure out how to move a slightly blurry image away from the edge to the centre of the field of view should probably consider another hobby.

On the batphone, so expect weird autocorrect

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The rocky bridge isn't a problem the way I hold binoculars, as I don't press my eyes to the eye cups. The edge performance (or lack thereof) is just lousy edge performance, nothing to do with the rocky bridge. However, anyone who can't figure out how to move a slightly blurry image away from the edge to the centre of the field of view should probably consider another hobby.

On the batphone, so expect weird autocorrect

:D Harsh but probably true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.