Vanguard Endeavor ED II 10x42 Review

[spike95609]

I've been threatening for several years to purchase a quality pair of small binoculars, largely for general use but also for casual astronomy on those occasions when I'd prefer to just slip something in my pocket rather than carry 5kg of 15x70mm binocular and tripod around with me. There are plenty of very good options at the budget end, but I always try to find that point where you spend just a little bit more to get something that's approaching top quality performance without having to pay for it. Having read an awful lot of binocular reviews, this did not seem easy because many of your famous brands like Nikon, Leica, Minox, Pentax and Zeiss charge more than I'd like to pay for their top models. The level of quality I was looking for seemed to be in the £700 to £1,000 area, but quite frankly if I'm going to pay that much for something that's excellent, I may as well go all in and buy some Swarovski ELs for £1,800, and KNOW that I have the best.

There are, however, a number of lesser known manufacturers who are turning out some seriously impressive gear in the £2-500 bracket. Looking at the reviews, and learning all sorts of stuff about coatings, ED glass, softening and aberrations along the way, I found myself looking at the Eagle Optics Ranger, Celestron Granite, Vortex Diamondback, Vortex Viper, Vanguard Spirit and Vanguard Endeavor ranges. Of these, the Vanguard Endeavor ED II and Vortex Viper stood out as two optics which universally impressed everyone for the immense quality they delivered for a relatively low price. On the www.allbinos.com website, where they assess each aspect of a binocular to within an inch of its life, these ranked 6th and 12th respectively out of some 70-odd runners, and were placed well in amongst and in some cases above the top tier models which were double if not quadruple their price.

Picking between the Endeavor and Viper was extremely hard as they're so closely matched in almost every respect with just a couple of differences to separate them. The Endeavor was reckoned to be sharp across almost the whole field, a bit wider and handles coma better, but wasn't as colour neutral and lacked the immense brightness of the Viper. To my mind the small advantages of one were negated by those of the other. What settled the debate for me was the simple geographical fact that I live in the UK and not the US. If I was an American, both of these would cost pretty much the same at my local binocular shop. In the UK, the Endeavor's are currently being offered at the very fair price of £330 but it's hard to find anyone who'll sell the Viper for a penny less than £480. I couldn't justify the additional expense for what were apparently marginal gains, so I ordered myself a pair of Vanguard Endeavor ED II 10x42s from Sherwoods Photo, who were offering them at the quite ridiculous price of £280 including shipping.

As the name suggests, the Vanguard Endeavor ED II has a predecessor, and other than some minor styling alterations it is pretty much identical in appearance. The real changes are on the inside, with what were regarded as already impressive optics being considerably improved in every area, largely thanks to the use of Japanese Hoya glass.

42mm is not an aperture which you'll see mentioned every day on astronomy forums, 10x50 is much more the preferred model. I did seriously consider going along that route, but reminded myself that I wanted general use binoculars first and foremost, and the 42s are perfect for daytime observation, as well as being lighter and more convenient. As an aside, the Endeavor line doesn't include a 50mm, the Vortex Vipers do but whether those match the quality of the 42mm I can't say. Anyway for astronomical use I'm not expecting to miss out too much with the Endeavor's, because when you pay this kind of price you get into the realms of true aperture (most budget 50mm's measure a good deal less than that), quality glass, and superior lens coatings, all of which help to pull back much of what is lost on paper to a lower quality 50mm.

Now surely a binocular that boasts a superb image but costs so little must have been made on the cheap? Not so, because they look and feel like a robust, premium quality product. The open bridge chassis has been made from magnesium, a trait of top tier brands, and is covered with a thick layer of textured rubber, which gives a fair amount of grip and feels very comfortable. They are very compact at 154mm long and 130mm wide at their maximum, and weigh 770g, which is a little on the chunky side as far as 42mm apertures go, but they're hardly overpowering and feel nicely balanced. The oculars have a generous 18mm eye relief with twist-up eyecups made from a comfortable soft rubber. The dioptre ring is easy to move about, can be locked in place, and includes a useful graduated scale. On top is a large metal focus wheel with a gripped rubber inlay, and this is the subject of much discussion in every review of any Vanguard product, as their signature across their entire range is fast-focus, moving from 6 feet to infinity is just ¾ of a turn, as opposed to the usual 1½ or 2 turns of most other brands. In theory this should make it difficult to achieve a precise focus, but I've honestly had no problems with it at all. The wheel is slightly larger than most, fairly stiff but not awkwardly so, and perhaps this coupled with a good depth of field allows accurate control to be maintained. It's not a feature which is to everyone's taste, indeed it made me repeatedly hesitate during my research, but I've found that it works very well for me, and I doubt that anyone who is used to fine focusing a telescope will even register it as an issue. Close focus is officially put at 2m, but I'd say that's a very conservative estimate and 5.5 feet is closer to the mark, which is very impressive for 10x.

As to the image, they have a rather wide 65° apparent field of view, 6.5° actual, and are beautifully sharp in the centre and, quite remarkably, maintain this with very little loss in clarity almost to the edge of the view. The field is also exceptionally flat with no curvature being noticeable until you come very close to the edge. The brightness level doesn't appear to take any dip across the field during daylight observation, although I noticed at night that there is a slight loss in intensity once a star is about 80% towards the edge, but it's not really anything you'd notice unless you went looking for it. There is some astigmatism in the outer reaches of the view but I could only notice it when looking for it with bright stars. Chromatic Aberration is well controlled; you can see a very little off-centre if you really push it, and this increases near the edge, but again it's very slight and wouldn't be noticed unless you were trying to find it. Looking at the Moon, I found everything to be crisp in the centre, and I had to position it about 60% of the way across the field before I could start to make out a very thin purple crescent, again not at all obvious unless you're trying to see it, and even with the Moon right at the edge I couldn't really spot any significant increase.

I managed to have a couple of sessions with the Endeavor's either side of a new moon. Conditions on both occasions were not ideal as there was plenty of cloud with a lot of faint high altitude stuff drifting around, but even so the gaps in between revealed okay seeing on the first night and excellent on the second. The first session was spent looking at a few of the more obvious features in the sky just to get a sense of what the binoculars could do. M42 was bright and distinct, as was the Beehive Cluster which fits quite well into this wide field. Betelgeuse was a pin-sharp brilliant orange, possibly about as colourful as I've seen it. I then went looking for star clusters; M67 in Cancer and M36-38 in Auriga were all clearly seen, along with the M3, M13 and M92 globular clusters, all of which were easy spots with direct vision and appeared as faint, very slightly granular patches. M35 in Gemini was very bright, and the Double Cluster lit up the sky like a Christmas tree as usual. Looking directly overhead, in a highly uncomfortable position for my neck, I could see a blur around the area of M81 but couldn't separate it from M82. This turned out to be light pollution from my neighbour; once he switched his lights off and went to bed I could see both with beautiful clarity, the cigar shape of M82 being entirely obvious. I was pleased to note at this point that the objective lens caps, which are attached to but can be removed from the binocular, didn't fall back over the lenses whilst observing at the zenith, as I've seen happen on other models. Finally I had a look at Jupiter, which appeared as a clear disc. I could make out just three moons at first, but a quick glance in the scope showed me that two were almost on top of each other, so I propped myself against something solid to stop myself wobbling around so much, and yep there was number four.

For the second session I had intended to use a tripod so that I could demonstrate the true power of the optics rather than just the limitations of my arms. Slight problem here - the Endeavor's have a perfectly adequate thread for an L-adapter, but the type I own took up so much space between the objectives that I had to open the hinge to well beyond my interpupillary distance. I resorted to hand control instead, and thanks to Steve's superb object search facility on www.binocularsky.com, I singled out a few targets which I thought might demonstrate the power or otherwise of the Endeavor's. I found Kemble's Cascade easily enough, but couldn't claim M1, possibly because it's so small at 10x that I couldn't be sure whether I was seeing it or just a star. I reckoned galaxies would provide the toughest test, and here I was pleasantly surprised. I had a look for the Leo Triplet, and couldn't find M65 but M66 was clearly visible. Looking higher in the sky at objects ideally placed for observation at the moment, in Canes Venatici M63 was definitely just about there and I'm tempted to say I got M94 too - something seemed to be right where I'd expect it to be but it really was on the absolute edge of visibility. The biggest success though was finding M101. I had a look for it on the first night and couldn't see anything, but it was definitely there on the second session, admittedly fading in and out and needing averted vision. As I've only managed to see this on exceptional nights with my 15x70s, and even then as nothing more than a very faint patch, albeit a steadier one but still needing averted vision, I was very impressed to be able to pick it up with 10x42s.

There is just one test left; a head to head confrontation against my friend's Swarovski EL 10x42s; a binocular which I once described as the only thing I'd ever looked through which made my own eyes feel obsolete. People have their own preferences with optics, but I think everyone is agreed that the EL range is, if not the absolute best, then so close to it as to make no odds. They currently retail at about £1,800, although that is the new model EL which is understand is somewhat better than the older version, which is the one my friend purchased about 8 years ago for £900. I was expecting the Endeavor's to lose convincingly to the Swarovski's, the price difference alone suggests this should be the outcome, and on balance they did so yet I was surprised at how close they came.

In twilight, despite the reportedly average light transmission levels of the Endeavor, I was pleased to find that they were matched in terms of brightness and were able to pick up every dim feature the Swarovski's found for them. I did a little comparison under the stars, despite appalling conditions dominated by an almost full moon and a thin blanket of cloud. Nevertheless I could see Jupiter and three moons, with no obvious difference in brightness or sharpness between either binocular, and with both showing about as much astigmatism towards the edge. What little of the Double Cluster I could see also produced an identical image. The Moon was interesting, because everything looked very sharp in both, but for some reason I thought that maybe the Swarovski's were a tad better in the centre, but I compared the images many times and could not come up with an explanation.

In daylight, looking in the general direction of the early morning Sun to try and emphasise any defects, I started off with a heavily silhouetted tree about 150 yards away, and both binoculars impressed me by revealing identically sharp patches of lichen at the edges of the silhouette, and in terms of brightness, colour reproduction and sharpness I could not find a scrap of difference to separate the two. I then did a few tests, such as getting objects in centre focus at different distances and then moving these towards the edge to see how long it took for the image to start blurring, and here the Swarovski's were better but not to a degree that you'd notice any deficiency in the Endeavor without deliberately looking for it. In terms of sharpness, I again had the idea that maybe the Swarovski's had the most subtle of leads in the centre, and this time I found out why. It was hard to spot, and I had to go to the extent of spending 10 minutes carefully examining the fine detail amongst the cracks of a sawn-off tree branch, and counting tiny clumps of sawdust left behind by burrowing insects on a long-dead tree, both at about 15 yards distance. In the end I concluded that while both were sharp, the Swarovski's had a higher resolution and were able to draw out just that little bit more detail; they truly are a marvellous instrument. One area which did come out heavily in favour of the Endeavor's was chromatic aberration towards the edge of the field; both revealed slight traces of purple fringing in extreme conditions, and moving this out towards the edge it didn't noticeably deteriorate in the Endeavor, but in the Swarovski I could see ugly thick bands of yellow and blue emerging. I'll repeat though that this is the old Swarovski EL, and I understand the new model has made considerable strides in this and other areas.

In summary, I am extremely impressed with how much binocular the Vanguard Endeavor ED II delivers for just £280. If you're prepared to spend three or four times that much, you will probably encounter something which can better it, but only in terms of very subtle improvements, almost all of which will be on the fringes of the field of view. I doubt there is anything on the market which can blow the Endeavor's clean out the water, and certainly not when the price tag is taken into account. On a cost to performance ratio, these binoculars are simply outstanding.

[Star Struck]

I have the version 1s and they are not too shabby either.

I use them mostly for daytime use and have found them excellent value for the price.

I have used them for astronomy with pleasing results although I do have other binoculars I use for that.

[spike95609]

I believe the Endeavor 1's are still very well thought of, especially for the price they're currently being offered at. The improvements in the version 2 are largely subtle I gather, and it's just down to personal preference as to whether these are worth the extra cash.

[F15Rules]

That's a really interesting, well written review, just what you would want when researching a new pair of bins.

A great read. Thanks for taking the trouble!

Dave

[laudropb]

Very thorough and interesting report. Thanks for you time and effort.

[jlaubza]

The best user review I have read, much effort taken to make comparative observations, which are accurate, in my own experience of these bins. Interestingly, in daytime viewing there is a slight yellow cast due to the silver coatings, which might affect observed colour at night, making red and orange hues more evident.

 

I can't comment though on the circularity of the images of planets as I have not had a steady enough platform to rule out micro-vibrations.

I also notice a small amount of CA in the centerfield on small objects in daylight but not noticeable at night.

They are essentially flatfield with a sweetspot that exceeds 80% - an outstanding performance for the price. IMO, the only reason why anyone would want to buy anything else after trying these is the fit and feel in ones hands and perhaps the mass, which is on the heavy side for some.

Everytime I use these, I smile with delight and the lifetime guarantee gives peace of mind.

Incidentally, I have compared to Zeiss Terra and these are better around the edge of the field. Compared to Nikon Monarch 5's they are visibly clearer with a better sweet spot and are matched by the Monarch 7s except for FoV and close focusing which are better in the Vanguards.

Based on experience, I think one has to spend twice as much to get something equivalent in the better advertised brands.

[spike95609]

Glad you liked it! I read as many reviews of the Vanguard's as I could find, and a couple talked about a slightly yellow tint to the view, others reported the colours as neutral. I tried hard to look for it but couldn't see anything that was obvious to my eyes. Maybe I just got one that happened to be a little more balanced than most.

I think for the cost of these, CA is very well controlled. I also did a brief comparison with some Steiner Skyhawks, and there was little to pick between them other than the CA which was much more pronounced in the Steiner. It is there in the Vanguard but it's difficult to see it without going looking for it. Anyway I've been using them for four months regularly and I'm still impressed at the level of detail they manage to pick out. Enormous value for money.

[DirkSteele]

Outstanding review.  Well considered and presented.  Certainly given me something to think about as I consider a new pair of binoculars.