Telescope Reviews: Opinions - Vortex Viper vs. Razor

Thanks to everyone who shared bits of advice and opinions on the Vortex Razor vs. Viper thread.

I ended up getting a used set of 8x42 Razors. The price point was about 25% more than the Vipers, so I took a leap of faith…

I am by no means anything but a beginner when it comes to comparing binoculars. And I know that people say that you can’t compare different units with different magnifications and different objective sizes. But I’ll give the impressions that I can from what I saw on my first use yesterday evening.

To start with, all the things that you’ve heard about the Razor are true – and one of those things you heard isn’t.

The Razor is well made, solidly built, waterproof and fogproof, and performs up to the expectations set by the advertising. The image quality is easily better than my old Celestron Outland LX 10x50 porros. It provides sharper images across the field with better color and a significantly better depth of field. They are also easier to hand hold being about the same weight as the 10x50 but having less magnification.

I also have a Canon 12x36 IS. The Razor outperformed it optically in terms of brightness (not unexpected given the larger objective and smaller magnification), contrast, and depth of field and sharpness of image. However, image stabilization on the Canon is a thing of beauty. It is the _only_ thing about the Cannon that is superior.

Eye relief was plenty for me – and I wear glasses. In fact, I used the very nice feature of the Razor’s multiple level twist up click stops for the eye cups; extended them by 6 clicks and I can place them directly against my glasses for perfect eye relief. Cool.

The real test for me was under the night sky. Seeing was terrible – only very small sucker holes every once in a while so all I got to look at were a few of the brighter stars and some shots of Saturn.

The sky in the Razor wasn’t as black as either the Celestron or the Canon. Once again, this was expected because of the lower magnification. But the stars resolved to pin points across the entire field. I _think_ I saw some elongation in Saturn – a nice indicator of the resolution power of this unit. Saturn shows the same through the Canons when image stabilized, but I’d need some outside verification that this isn’t just wishful thinking on my part. Both of those units show it distinctly as a planet, though. The Celestron just shows Saturn as a very bright, non-twinkling star.

Image stabilization is still extremely helpful when looking at the sky and where the Canon shines the most. However the view through the Vipers was so nice that I was able to tolerate the shaking for those few moments when my body cooperated and things settled out.

Finally, the large angular field of view is a thing of beauty at 7.8 degrees. Getting a lot of the sky in the field of view at once is one of the major reasons I use binoculars for astronomy. Nothing else I’ve used comes close to that.

I didn’t get a chance to hunt for DSOs. That will have to wait for a clearer night. But the Razors are definitely a “keeper” and will be the glasses I take to the field.

Oh, and the thing you’ve heard that _isn’t_ true… The central focus worked smoothly and easily. I can’t imagine anybody having a problem with it.

Thanks again for your advice and support,

Chris

--------------------
Televue TV85 APO
Vortex Razor 8x42