PSA - New Sig Sauer Zulu6 HDX Pro's Are Trash

[Chingon]

Cross-posting here for awareness. I love my Gen 2 HDX 16's and jumped at the chance to give Sig more of my money on the 18 pro's. They are objectively worse at clarity, size, weight, batteries, stabilization... Sig only stands behind their "low light performance improvement".

This new gen is great way to lose money and gain frustration. If you do buy them just make sure to never look through the better and cheaper Gen 2's.

Zulu6 Pro 50 vs Kite APC 50

Has anyone had a chance to do any side by side comparisons with the new Sig Zulu6 hdx Pro 50mm OIS? Perhaps compared with the Kite APC 50 or even the previous model Zulu6 HDX 16x42, or Canon 15x50? I currently have a Zulu6 HDX 10x30 and 16x42. I had a chance to pit them against my Meopta...

rokslide.com

New Sig Zulu

You may want to hang on to those 10x. I absolutely love mine. The 20's are OK. In a more perfect world I think I would have the 10's on my chest and the new Sawro 14's for tripod use but I am OK with where I am at. Yeah I really want to try some ranging binos instead of the 10s but it’s...

rokslide.com

 

[Edwin]

I think you could make the argument that for the $ they aren't worth the extra $500 over the 42s but to say they are trash is wild. I had a chance to hunt behind the 16 pros for a week and the omniscan was incredible. Better light transmission and improved color with the 50mm objective and new coatings. I never reached for my swaros or my spotter the entire week. Eye of the beholder I guess.

 

[Chingon]

I think you could make the argument that for the $ they aren't worth the extra $500 over the 42s but to say they are trash is wild. I had a chance to hunt behind the 16 pros for a week and the omniscan was incredible. Better light transmission and improved color with the 50mm objective and new coatings. I never reached for my swaros or my spotter the entire week. Eye of the beholder I guess.

Thanks for the input, but did you actually run the Pro's side by side with 42's? I'm guessing you didn't. If so, please post up some pictures of the images to show an improvement.

For someone that hasn't used the 42's, or isn't looking through them side by side, they might seem pretty great. However, the idea of paying $500 extra for bigger, heavier, more battery hungry, LESS CLEAR glass is straight trash. Sorry, but that simply doesn't compute. Once Sig sends my 18's back I'll do a low light test off tripods to show that comparison. But to pay all that money and carry all that extra bulk for marginal performance improvement for only 5 min of the day? Epic fail.

 

[Edwin]

I sold my 42s to make room for the 50s. We did have them side by side. Both 16s. I'm used to the omniscan now so it would be hard to go back to the 42s. Battery life was just fine I've been playing with them since launch week and they are still on the original batteries. Maybe the 18s are less forgiving?? Anyone have a chance to use the 14 pros yet?

 

[LuketheDog]

They are objectively worse at clarity, size, weight, batteries, stabilization...

If it's only your opinion without data, it would be "subjectively worse"...

 

[Chingon]

If it's only your opinion without data, it would be "subjectively worse"...

Gen 2 16x42's:


Gen 3 18x50's

 

[Chingon]

Sorry - my data is buried in my cross post. Key points:

• I've had my 16x42's for about a year and love them, ranted and raved. Excited about the improved glass advertised by Sig. Pre-ordered the 18 Pro's.
• Received them and took them out, along with 16's, to do some glassing. Huh, not blown away despite the extra heft and supposedly improved glass.
• Glass up some elk at about 2,000 yds. That's odd - I can count the points on the bull with my 16's but not my 18's. Must be because I haven't dialed in diopters or something? I was very steady off my tailgate as well.
• Head to the range with my tripod. Dial in diopter for 18's, take the above photos getting each as focused as possible. 16's are clearly superior. What the heck?
• Called Sig and they wanted proof that 18's were not better for an RMA - sent them these images and they sent a label (apparently that convinced them something wasn't right).
• They call back and say, "These meet spec, go pound sand, thanks for your cash you moron." (paraphrasing)

Another guy on Rokslide did a similar comparison with the 16's side by side and is reporting similar decrease in performance, though no pics.

Sig advertising:

The ZULU6-HDX PRO Image Stabilized Binoculars set a new standard in optical clarity and stabilization with reengineered lens coatings, prescriptions, and settings that are built to impress even the most discerning optics aficionados.

To me, that's a slap in face to consumers. Stand behind your ads and your products.

 

[perma]

Gen 2 16x42's:
View attachment 345014

Gen 3 18x50's
View attachment 345015

Interesting, I see a field of view difference but the magnification difference seems nonexistent. How strange.

 

[Chingon]

Interesting, I see a field of view difference but the magnification difference seems nonexistent. How strange.

Nothing about them were as expected. The rep from Sig told me that with larger objectives, one should expect less clarity. WTF

 

[perma]

The rep from Sig told me that with larger objectives, one should expect less clarity. WTF

That's an interesting comment too. I can maybe see how too much light coming in can distort the image but I have a pair of 12x50 Razor UHD's that are pretty damn clear. Just seems like they're out of focus, like a focus wheel or diopter adjustment.

I was thinking about getting a pair of these too....