Vortex Razor 10x42
The binoculars are put into a solid housing with a high quality rubber armour which makes them dustproof and shockproof. The instruments are argon-filled and waterproof.
Magnification | Lens diameter | Angular field of view | Prisms | Eye relief | Weight | Price |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
10 | 42 | 109/1000(6.2o) | BaK-4/roof | 16 mm | 845 g | 2419 PLN |
Summary
Pros:
- very solid and stylish casing,
- good transmission,
- negligible astigmatism,
- low coma,
- slight light fall-off at the edge,
- good whiteness rendition,
- excellent inner tubes blackening,
- high quality of coatings and prisms,
- lifetime warranty.
Cons:
- field of view narrower than in the specifications,
- slightly truncated pupils,
- high distortion,
- distinct chromatic aberration at the edge of the field,
- bad place for a tripod exit.
The product is undoubtedly well-made but there’s still room for improvement – the binoculars could have fared better. Instead, they lost some points due to slip-ups which are not fully understood by us. Their weight is significant so it would be possible to put inside prisms sufficiently big not to truncate the pupils. The Busnhell Elite 10x43, although almost 200 grams lighter, managed to do it correctly so there is no reason why the Razor cannot. It is also strange why the company risks the criticism of customers and testers by overstating the field of view in the specifications. Say what you like, the producer should know the parameters of their products very precisely. What’s more, when you boast of using low-dispersion glass you shouldn’t have such a significant chromatic aberration in your device…
These slight faults shouldn’t cloud the overall assessment of this instrument which has to be good. If a set of binoculars gets a score of over 130 points in our test, you can’t be unhappy. You can consider another option, though, because if a slightly cheaper Vortex Viper has the result of several small points higher is there really any sense in paying more?