Vortex Razor UHD Binos - Is it Worth the Upgrade?

[@mikecurtis1111]

I cannot speak for the Razor HD versus UHD, but I can speak for the Viper HD versus the Razor UHD as I have both in 8x42. I primarily use mine for birding. Is there a difference between the Viper HD and the Razor UHD? Yeah. To a trained eye, and when comparing them both side by side. Using a resolution chart, I am able to resolve a little more finer detail with the Razor. Can I tell a difference under normal use? No. Is the difference worth the $1200 premium ($469 versus $1649)? Nope. While I love my Razor UHD, I can't recommend them to friends looking to upgrade from their current binos.

[@RickySandoval86]

Thank you for the straightforward response, I have Viper HDs right now and was curious to upgrade.

[@mikecurtis1111]

@mitchellsands7617 if you have the Vipers, you'll probably feel a bit underwhelmed after spending around $1600 for the Razor UHD. That being said, every time I reach for a pair as I'm walking out the door, I'm reaching for my Razor UHD. They do feel better and fit my eyes better, even if it's just me being biased due to price. I can say I can look through my Razor for long spans of time, and not feel any eye strain at all when I remove them from my face. When I spend a lot of time looking through my Viper, my eyes feel like they need to adjust when I look away from the binos.

[@TechieTard]

Dude, thanks for that!

[@paulyp9853]

I have to disagree with you. I have both a Viper HD12x and a UHD 12x, and difference is fairly significant and although I have looked through many scopes and optics over some time I will not called mine a trained eye. In my opinion a novice can pick them both up and tell which is which. Its clearer, and brighter as the two most obvious. When you dig deeper you can talk about the edge to edge clarity comparison and the chromatic aberration. Is it worth the extra money? That is up to the consumer. I bought a UHD so I believe it is. To some it may not be worth and that is understandable as well.

[@pendragonshall]

Less eye strain and sharper detail. That's just a fact. Now try looking at something in heavy shadow or in very low light. You will see a difference and it's significant. If there wasn't that big of a jump they wouldn't sell. Period. If for what YOU are using them for isn't necessary I understand. A viper looking at a bird at 75 yards in excellent lighting. Looking at him for two or three minutes. No you're fine with vipers. If the bird is further away if it's a little low light like early morning which is really the best time to be out. If he's in the shadow of grass weeds hill or a tree which is very common. You WILL get far greater detail for identification etc. But I'm very glad you're happy with the vipers. I know people that are happy with diamondbacks. For what they use them for that is. But yeah if you can afford razors absolutely. And if you can get the UHD again absolutely.

[@khristineher2204]

In my experience I found binoculars with image stabilization to be more useful. I have a Leica Trinovod 8x42 which is very clear, I'm sure the Razer UHD could be slightly better but give or take they're probably in the same ball park. I also have a Canon IS 18x50 and when viewing both binoculars the Canon just fulfill my needs more due to stabilizing the image. The jittery of the none stabilizing binocular make it to difficult to view through them. I find the power to stabilize the image overpower a more slightly clear jittery image. That's just my opinion.

[@HikeHuntHaul]

Looking to move upto uds but more importantly move from 10x42 to possibly 12x50 or 10x50…??? Thoughts?? Thanks 😃👍🏻 these would be for Colorado and western elk hunting/glassing where big country packing is tough to bring a spotter for a single person. Thanks again.

[@nathanfilkins4496]

15x50 vulture for elk. They are a big animal 15s allow you to see them at a mile and tell its a bull!

[@BlackOvis]

If you are wanting to eliminate the spotter and are in big country, we would probably recommend the 12s. They typically have a small enough footprint to be comfortable on a chest pack, but give you just a little extra magnification.

[@deanmachine8271]

How did you know I was in the market for binos?

[@BaronSaturday66]

KZbin knows all. Isn't that nice?

[@BlackOvis]

We had a feeling haha

[@tonesmith909]

UHDs are great in low light.

[@howiem3883]

As an amateur astronomer, to all of you apparently rich hunters out there, WHAT THE HECK ARE YOU GUYS SMOKING?? I know you all are prone to say wonderful things when you just dumped $1500 on a binocular (which is a little bitty telescope), but COME ON!! Optics have gotten to the point where any improvements are incremental at best and are accompanied by large increases in price. The law of diminishing returns.

[@jscism1972]

Well Mr. Astronomer, go hunting and grab a pair of these binoculars and you can see the difference, especially at low light!

[@howiem3883]

@@jscism1972 Uh huh. You can call me Sir. It's shorter. I hunt too. Have three pair of Nikons. I do bino astronomy with the 10x50 pair so I know what works in the dark. If you just spent all that extra money for that extra 2% performance (maybe), go straight to detox and give more money to charity when you get out.

[@paulyp9853]

@@howiem3883 What do you care what anyone buys? So there are diminishing returns maybe to some people the extra 10-15% is worth the extra money.....................to them.................not you. Its not 2%. That is spoken by someone that wants to feel good about you spending less money. I see it all the time in the field I am in. I have a razor and a uhd and its more than 2%, but if you want to feel good about your expertise who am I to stop you?

[@howiem3883]

@@paulyp9853 Well, you can't do math. Optics have been in the 95% light transmission range for a while now, and you say there is now suddenly a 15% improvement? So we now have a light transmission of 110%. Huh. How about that. In my world we call that FM. FU#$%&* MAGIC. It's a miracle. I don't give a hoot what you spend your money on. I DO care when you try to blow smoke up everybody else's tail pipe about it.

[@paulyp9853]

@@howiem3883 Thanks for the math lesson. I wasnt just talking about light transmission with my % number. I was talking about clarity as well. You of course already knew that but that who are I guess. What I did fail to mention is that the Razor and UHD have different magnification levels, and the objective lens diameter is larger on the UHD. So looking through them is a different experience. Light transmission obviously favors the UHD, but the clarity is also better. Now what %? I dont know. I know the overall experience is better out of the UHD. With that said I also looked through a Razor and a UHD of the same mag level and lense diameter and the UHD still edged out the Razor by my eye. Again by what %? I dont know,. Nor do I care. If someone asked me what the better bino was I would have told them the UHD. Anything you buy there are diminishing returns as you go higher in price. A $2000 rifle scope is not 2x better than a $1000 rifle scope but its better. Question is do you want to pay that premium for an increase in performance and quality. That is up to the consumer. Not some "genius" on KZbin that comes off like a horses ass. Now unlike you I dont claim to know everything, but I do know what my experience is and where I want to spend my money.

[@jamesdutton5439]

Just don't buy either and get some NL pures.

[@BaronSaturday66]

Far out. If you send me a check for just $3,100.00 right now, I will go buy some NL Pures in 10X42 TODAY. You have my word.

[@jamesdutton5439]

@@BaronSaturday66 I've owned uhds and always wanted the swarovski. So don't make the mistake like I did and save the 1500 and get the nl pures.

[@BaronSaturday66]

@jamesdutton5439 If you send me the UHD OR the Razor HD I will forgive you.

[@BlackOvis]

Both are great options!

[@tonesmith909]

12x50 UHD >> than NL pure 12x42s in low light. Im keeping the NLs but I wish they made them in 12x50 tbqfh…