Celestron Granite ED 8x42
vs.
Vanguard Endeavor ED 8x42

detailed comparison review
photos on
reviewed by Firsh for Cloudy Nights

My uses and needs

When it comes to binoculars, I’m an everyday normal guy with average needs. I wanted an all-round pair, what the flashlight community calls „everyday carry”. It’s nothing special in terms of „just for astro” or „just for travel”. I needed something that covers most use cases, has good quality and will serve me for years. For me that begins with a not too heavy pair with reasonable magnification that is not shaky. I’d look at the stars of course, but I’m not (yet) such a fanatic who would take heavy equipment with me too far away. Portability mattered, though I didn’t like the small apertures of extra light „pocket” binoculars. I prefer a weight that does not bother me on hikes of 5-10km in length.

About me

I’m a twenty-something guy living in a major city under Bortle 7 skies. I’d need to travel more than a 1000km for a truly dark (Bortle 1) site, according to darksitefinder.com. I’m really picky about light pollution and can’t wait to see the skies from the bottom of the Bortle scale. The darkest I’ve seen was something like Bortle 3-4. But I’ll be traveling to a few truly dark sites eventually, and I figured it wouldn’t hurt to carry a pair of binoculars with me. I think I have good eyesight although it was not checked by a doctor recently so you need to take my word for it. At some times I needed to adjust the diopter ring slightly, so maybe there is some difference between my eyes - but then I reset it and everything was fine after that as well. I never wore glasses though. I tend to spot stars during twilight against the darkening blue sky earlier than others. I always use sunglasses outdoors and trying to protect my vision. I don’t have any astigmatism in my eyes. I can notice and appreciate good quality optics, though it certainly helps to compare them back to back. Although I must mention this is my first pair of binoculars, and my first review of this kind, choosing a pair was a long story for me and I gathered a lot of experience as I chose. I previously had an old Russian 10x50 FOV 6° monocular.

Body

Introduction

I learned that binoculars are like shoes, they are best tried before purchase. I almost went and ordered stuff without trying it but then I slowly realized it would be a bad idea. I decided to measure (digital scale and digital caliper) many aspects and not take the manufacturer’s word for it (as what they report is a bit random and weird). I was not able to measure height accurately. See my data in the comparison table at the end.

Grip and comfort

Both have a good grip, thanks to the open bridge design. The Vanguard has slightly more place for your fingers. 2 of my fingers fit just fine, 3 are a tough case for either pair. These are much more stable to hold than Nikon Monarch 5 8x42, which has a closed bridge design (just one, but big hinge between the 2 sides). There is a thumb rest at the bottom on both binos, but the Celestron has a better and more profound place for your thumbs. Vanguard’s thumb rest is barely noticeable and you really have to look hard to see it on the photos. Celestron just feels better, warmer and more welcoming, but this is very subjective.

Weight

Vanguard definitely feels heavier (and it is). Certain accessories differ in weight (see difference in my tables). It all depends on what you actually use and carry (I only use the case for storage) or if you replace the neck strap with aftermarket one... I have to mention that Celestron bundles a harness (backpack like strap) in the box (with its own little bag), in addition to the neck strap. It allows you to carry the binos on your chest, albeit it looks a bit geeky (it’s all right). That makes the lower weight even sweeter if you plan to carry this all day long - I don’t like neck straps against my skin anyway.

Size

Celestron is just more compact and smaller. It is immediately obvious if you put the two pairs next to each other. If you pack light, the 1+ cm in every dimension will likely matter to you. It mattered to me. You can see my measurements in the table later. They include “open” and “closed” variations - this is when adjusted for min and max IPD.

Eyecup width

Eyecup width is a sensitive subject for me because a few mm difference could make it or break it, regarding comfort. If you have close-sitting or deep-sitting eyes, you could have all the 55mm IPD in the world if you just cannot adjust the two eyecups that close because they pinch your nose! This is very important: face anatomy matters. As my eyes sit a bit deep, a Canon 10x42 L IS WP just didn’t fit my face for some reason. I don’t have that, only tested it: as far as I remember it had 44 mm eyecup width. For some of you this might not matter at all. But my nose gets pinched easily. Thankfully, the Celestron wins this by 1mm less diameter.

Eyecup twists

Celestron has 2 twist levels with a very definitive click stop (still easy to adjust of course). At both levels, I’m able to use the pair but the second level is my default. The Vanguard comes with 3 levels, non-audible stops. It’s nice but too smooth. The stops are not well defined and I had to double check that both are twisted by the same amount. I’m only able to use it at maximum protrusion (3 twists), else I’m getting blackouts even when staring at the center field (just slightly moving the eyecups resulted in blackness coming from any direction immediately). This effect is not as strong at the first stop of the Celestron although still present (it’s just physics vs. eye relief).

Diopter adjustment

Vanguard has a locking diopter adjustment. Now I’m not sure why that is a good thing (they are not easy to accidentally twist), but Celestron lacks that feature.

I wanted to add that I accidentally took most of my photos with unlocked ring, giving the impression that the green accent is asymmetric. It’s not, when the ring is unlocked the green design ring is invisible. In order to reveal it you have to lock it:

Lens covers

The front lens covers’ rubber hinges are attached to both binoculars pretty well. They can be removed for occasions when looking directly overhead, as they’d flip back and close due to gravity.

On the Celestron they have little arrowhead-shaped stems that normally reside in a small slot at the bottom. I wouldn’t make their removal a daily routine however, out of fear that they’d become loose over time. The slot holds them securely enough, so they can’t fall off on their own. It’s rather easy to open the front lens cover, although there is nothing to grab, no protruding handle by which you’d open them. It also means they are less likely to open on their own in a bag or when taking them out of the bag. They grab onto the edge of each tube from the inside.

In the case of Vanguard, they are held in place with a ring that goes around the whole diameter of each tube. It looks more secure and is less likely to lose. There is a handle on both lens covers making it easier to grab and open. I liked this addition but it could also make it more likely that some movement would accidentally open the covers, no matter how tight they are. However, partly because they grab the rim from the outside, they close more securely than on the Celestron.

Eyepiece covers

Eyepiece covers attach very securely to the equipments. They cannot be removed by accident. Both are connected in the middle with a flexible rubber bridge. I liked how the Celestron made the connection, it’s less flimsy than on the Vanguard. They are flexible enough to stay fine no matter the IPD adjustment. Both models have a slot on the eyepiece cover so you can attach it to the neck strap to avoid losing it, which I highly recommend. Definitely hook them to the strap. The Celestron’s eyepiece cover has an additional hook on the other side but it’s cut in the middle by design. I don’t know what is it for. Celestron vs. Vanguard:

Field of view

What is it?

My favorite and primary difference. For me, it is that wow factor. It was difficult for me at first to grasp what FOV and AFOV means. In layman terms, you see more. But it’s not so simple. Because you don’t see more inside the same size of O view. That would simply be lesser magnification. Given the same magnification, you can only see more if your view (the O) is larger. It fills more of your view. Look at this test chart, taken from the same distance:

What it feels like

My initial response when trying the Celestron for the first time - after the Nikon Monarch 5 8x42 (6.3°) - was that the view is „in my face”. Wow. What you want to see completely fills your view. You forgive any imperfections around the edge, just to see it all and take all that in. Celestron’s 8.1° FOV is so large that when you are looking at the center of the view (eyecups twisted twice), I can barely detect detect the sharp edge of the O (both in daylight and astro). I must stress this is not due to any vignetting. If I look directly at the edge it is sharp. When looking at the center, the edge just ventures to the mid-peripheral part of my vision (or my eyes are at the far edge of the eye relief, but my face is still touching the eyecup so I guess it’s ok). This also depends on how many times I twist the eyecup.

The 6.3° vs 7° vs 8.1° FOV is like how far you are sitting from the canvas in the cinema. Celestron is like sitting at the front. Nikon Monarch 5 8x42 is like sitting at the back row or looking through a tube (exaggerated). No matter how many times you turn the eyecups on the Vanguard (7°) or on the Nikon Monarch 5 (6.3°), the edge of the O is so immediate as the binocular effect in the movies.  It’s because the edges are still in the near peripheral region of vision (lower than 60° apparent FOV). With the Celestron I have the option to let the edge fade a bit (my preferred - 2 twists), or see it clear and sharp (with just one twist of the eyecup). Seeing the sharp edge in any pair, has a single negative aspect, see the following section.

Experience with near targets / near focus

What I liked about the fact that the edge of the O is so far out of my center view (on the Celestron), is how it behaves with near focus use. For whatever reason I can’t get any pair of binos to work with my eyes and nose configuration in a way that I’d see a single O and not OO or infinity symbol - this happens only when looking at very close targets (near the limit of 2m). Mid to far targets (from 3m) gradually appear better merged as distance grows, for some reason. Maybe it’s normal and it’s just physics. So, at minimum distances, the OO views are only merging halfway. I think because the object is not in the same position in each view:

This has something to do with how I cross my eyes to merge the 2 views of very close subjects. It’s like how you adjust the scope on a weapon, you can’t have it working fine for both 2m and 200m. These are collimated to work nicely at infinity. If the views were able to form a single O at 2m, it would mean the sides are not parallel but pointed at something 2m away, right? However, having the edge of the O as a bit blurry (twice twisted cups on the Celestron) allows me to have a better experience:

Because the view of the halfway merged OO just looks nicer if there is no sharp edge to black coming from either one. Kudos to Celestron! The Vanguard at such close distances also works fine, but the sharp edge I’m talking about is distracting:

These are illustrations only and not actual photos - I tried to simulate what I see.

Astronomy

I’ll add an update to the review later once I can test it from truly dark sites. I feel it’s better to have that as a “benchmark sky” than our random light-polluted city skies. However, I tried them in the backyard and I have two remarks. First light of the Celestron was including Saturn, accidentally. It appeared elongated. This only tells you something about the magnification. Then I looked at the Andromeda galaxy and it was an immediately obvious glow, even against city sky, in both binos. I always have a hard time seeing it with bare eyes, as I can only detect it if I’m not looking directly at it. I know these were not meant to be astronomy binoculars. But for me and for my needs, they are just fine! They shine at taking in a multitude of things at once.

The 8.1° vs 7° FOV

Regarding the FOV across the stars, the Celestron has the advantage of just seeing more. It’s especially useful if you are looking for satellites or the ISS or just about finding anything really. Everything comes to view faster and you may be able to fit come constellations into view.

Celestron can fit the bottom 2 stars (Phecda and Merak in the Big Dipper asterism of the Ursa Major constellation) in the view. They can’t be seen together in the Vanguard, since they have a 7° 54’ angular separation.

Vanguard can fit the first 2 stars of the handle (Alkaid and Mizar, at 6° 40’ angular separation):

Vanguard can show the 4 stars of the bowl of Little Dipper / Ursa Minor, but not the handle:

If you put Kappa Lyrae (right) aside, Lyra fits the view on the Celestron, but Vanguard falls short:

The images in this section are illustrations only, made with Starry Night Pro Plus 7 planetarium software. FOV indicators are added for precise comparison.

I wasn’t getting many blackouts at night. The edge of the view is not that defined in either pair (even in the Vanguard), the darkness of the sky blends with the edge.

Astronomy – Distortion

Chromatic aberration is not very noticeable on either pair when looking at the heavens. Not sure if they should be less noticeable, but it only bothers me during daylight. I would much rather mention the distortion at the edges.

I looked at Cassiopeia to test distortion. It has 2 little faint stars in the middle, called Upsilon1 and Upsilon2 Cassiopeiae (almost mag 5). Their neighbours are Gamma Cassiopeiae to the left and Schedar to the right (both are around mag 2). I adjusted my view so the 2 bright ones appeared at equal distance from the center and I was not able to see them both at the same time without distortion. What I call distortion is when they are noticeably not like in the center.

Then I lowered my expectations and I was able to fit the 2 faint ones and Schedar into the imaginary sharp zone, distortion free. This zone is about 3.5° wide and applies for both binos.

But this is very subjective, what I call distortion free might not be the same for you. I’m happy with this finding because when converted to AFOV, this value more or less coincides with the 30° FOV of near peripheral vision. Objects appearing at more than this distance, will start to distort. Even if the binoculars were perfect, my eyes will not see them as sharp outside this anyway. This is how I justify not spending thousands on a Swarovski, hah. If I really look at the very edge, stars are all elongated “sticks” parallel to the round edge of the view (particularly in the Celestron). The view is coma-free. Celestron has more distortion, but in the range that is not even present in the Vanguard. Still, Celestron wins this as it’s less restricted and the FOV makes it easier to find your way across the sky.

Technology

Chromatic aberration

Ultimately, the factor that helped me make my decision was the chromatic aberration in the Vanguard and the lack of it at center view in the Celestron. I’m familiar with the effect from photography, have been eliminating it with Lightroom many times. If you are shown what to look for, then you can’t help but notice it.

It’s slight but everywhere on the Vanguard even at the center. Purple-green lights on object edges. Depending on your tolerance, this could be a deal breaker or you might not even care. For me it was distracting and obvious. Even where I was not expecting the effect, I saw it.

On the Celestron this is much better in the center, but worse at the edges. I can easily forget it even exists when I’m not actively looking for it. I’m only able to see it near the edges of the view in real life scenarios. The Blue-Red/Orange is less problematic for me than the vivid green-purple fringing. For me this difference secured the deal!

Synthetic test shows that the Vanguard is better at the edges, however I suspect that my camera’s built-in lest profile targets the purple-green fringing as it’s not this subtle when I look at it with my own eyes. Vanguard left, Celestron right:

But my real life shot which is zoomed by my camera, shows that it’s stronger on the Vanguard (top), than on the Celestron (bottom). These are not meant to be sharpness comparison photos. I’m seeing this presence of the fringing all over the place with the Vanguard, sadly it’s hard to convey it through the photos. Vanguard top, Celestron bottom:

Vanguard left, Celestron right (this is as true to real life as I can get it):

See more about the complete / full resolution photos in the Pictures section.

Sharpness / focus

I liked the slower focusing speed of the Celestron. Vanguard is too quick. While at first that looks cool like fast focus pulling in movies, it gets old soon. Unless you really need that quick adjustment for birding or sports, I’d aim for something more precise. I rather have the fine adjustment capability that comes from the 2 full turns range on the Celestron. It still has that focus pulling movie effect if you have objects in the view placed after each other over a range (vegetation most likely). The focusing ring is sufficiently sized on both models, although the Vanguard offers a larger one (perhaps more accommodating to the faster focus).

I absolutely love the shallow depth of field like you’d get on a telephoto lens for a camera. Maybe my eyes aren’t so good but I don’t think I could get that much detail and sharpness if I just walked 8x closer to my target. I wanted to avoid hyping by saying nicer than reality, but in a way it seems so. Looking at my friend’s face from around 3m I could see all the stubble in so much detail like I was seeing through a magnifying glass. The absolute minimum I can get a sharp view is at 1.5 m in the Celestron and 1.8 m in the Vanguard. Celestron vs. Vanguard:

Pincushion distortion

When looking at the edges, it’s worth noting that the FOV difference is affecting things. It’s like the Vanguard has some of those areas masked that Celestron has distortion in. If I pick a horizontal straight line (top of a house) and move my view up and down I can see the straight line bend. The closer it is to the edge, the more it bends. It’s stronger in the Celestron simply because there is more distance for that straight line to travel so the pincushion distortion is more obvious. Similar to what happens in normal wide lenses for photography. I’m okay with this. It even looks cool, like the curved canvas at IMAX, or the curved TVs. Celestron vs Vanguard:

Edge blur

Celestron has more edge blur at the extremes, while the area that’s blurry in it is not even present in the Vanguard (due to the FOV difference) so it’s not that fair of a comparison. The CA in the Vanguard bothers me more than the blur in the Celestron. The edge in the Vanguard is closer to the center so any negative effect is more distracting. Vanguard has better sharpness at the edges, though those are not the same edges as in the Celestron. It’s not really much of an issue I hardly ever force my eyes to look at the very edges as I’d soon get blackouts. Most of the field that matters is nice and sharp. But yeah, both could use a field flattener but maybe that’s not happening at this price level. See how this distortion affects stars in the Astronomy section.

I noticed a flaw in the left view of the Vanguard (left side and top side), visible on some photos, like the ISO chart. It keeps coming back and always in the same location. I doubt it‘s due misalignment of my camera.

Collimation

Indoors with mirror

For the love of me, I can’t test this. When I look in the eyepiece at like 20 cm away what am I supposed to see in it? Just a tiny image of who knows what. Due to the 3D effect that is our eyes and the 2 sides of the binocular sit at a certain distance from each other, the image is not exactly the same in both sides with close targets, as I mentioned previously. What is in the dead center in one is a bit off in the other one, isn’t that normal, isn’t that part of how the 3D effect is created? This only caused an issue in the mirror test. Also, I don’t have a tripod adapter yet so I was like placing the binos on a box and some tissues trying to align and center the reflected image in the view.

Outdoors object at 5 km distance

In this test I picked a house on a hill in the distance. I looked through the eyepieces while increasing the distance from my eyes. The field of view narrowed greatly, but I still saw the house nicely in the small view with both of the binos. Is that ok? I don’t know if my eyes compensated for anything or if they could even do so? Would a bad collimation show a „different house from that hill”? Maybe there would be nothing that my eyes could compensate for. Is that the point of this test? I believe so. Now my eyes hurt from all the parallel vision experiments. Sorry I’m new to this. There is no eye strain when looking through these, if anything it’s a peaceful and interesting experience to observe all there is (on that hill, on anywhere really).

Flashlight test (inspired by GlennLeDrew)

Vanguard won this test with its full 42mm light. Celestron casted a 41mm light circle. Even if my measurement was ad-hoc at best, I marked the edges of the light circles and they were definitely not the same in size (Celestron vs. Vanguard). This seems to coincide with the manufacturer data of Twilight Factor and Relative Brightness being very slightly larger for the Vanguard. I was not able to take any appreciable photos, but here is a random shot:

I attempted the reverse (shining a flashlight into the front lens at a distance), just out of curiosity and I was able to see a clear well-defined light ring that corresponds with the exit pupil size. I was not able to gather any information doing this; it just looked interesting to see it at the distance that corresponds to the eye relief. I imagined my eye there, being the medium this light is cast on. This didn’t result in any kind of measurement so it was only an observation.

Coatings

When looking into the front lens (with a light source behind me), all I see is green and purple reflections in the Celestron. It’s beautiful, ethereal, northern lights colors. Same goes when I look into the eyepieces from a distance, green layers of reflection throughout.

The Vanguard’s front lens reflections include a layer that is not green, but white or very close to the true color. Does that indicate an uncoated element, maybe? It’s definitely different from the other layers.

From the eyepiece of both models, I can see into the insides and there is something that cannot be the reflection (maybe the prism). That, however is not tinted (which is a good thing, since the coating should not cause any tint when looking through it).

Flaring

One thing I’d like to mention, maybe it has nothing to do with coatings but not sure what could lessen it. I see a flare if there is a light source on the side. It appears in both pairt but it’s about 2x as strong / noticeable in the Celestron. Like I look at a dark corner of the room but the light from the window is creating a white crescent moon like halo at the side of the view. It’s mostly only in one side, or if in both, they look different and angled different. My eyes don’t like differences between the views. I can block the light with my hand then this effect goes away. If this was a camera lens, I’d use a lens hood. It’s that sort of thing happening here. It’s something I can live with, no problem. If these were equipped with a filter thread I’d add a good UV filter (as protection) and a lens hood. I could have done that with Canon 10x42 L IS WP.

In low light, looking directly at a street lamp I noticed in the Vanguard’v view that the lamp casts lines in 4 directions, similar to what happens when you squint. Celestron didn’t have this “effect”.

Waterproofing and fog proofing

While I haven’t tested these, it’s good to know they can take some weather. I didn’t require my binoculars to be waterproof because I plan on swimming with them. If it’s waterproof it also means dust can’t get in. I’ve learned it the hard way that sand is the nr1 enemy of anything related to glass, and no amount of waterproofing will prevent sand scratching. I’d also avoid salty mist. The fogproof property is supposed to prevent internal fogging when subjected to sudden temperature differences. It’s achieved by filling the insides with nitrogen and thus they presumably have no water vapor inside.

Worth noting that the Vanguard has a lint / dust speckle maybe in the inside that I can’t seem to identify when looking for it from the outside. It only appears looking through, and sits on the edge. I’m not sure how it got there. If it’s internal then that says something about the QA.

Comparison table

Linear FOV table

This is just a simple set of calculations to give you an idea about the field. Values are in meters.

Accessories

Both binoculars are mountable to a tripod, but if you have a camera tripod you need an L adapter. Both manufacturers sell their own versions.

• Celestron Binocular Tripod Adapter 93524
• Vanguard Binocular Tripod Adapter BA-185

Pricing / warranty

I don’t primarily make a purchase decision based on warranty. The warranty conditions are different in USA / Canada than other parts of the world and I’m from Europe. So what sounds good as a no fault lifetime warranty, might be just 2 years money-back or replacement in a local shop you buy it from (in EU).

The prices are checked on “Amazon Global Product Price Check” and are valid for 2017 summer.  The Vanguard goes between US $269-436. The Celestron has a price tag between US $340-593. The large variance is due to different prices among countries (US is usually cheapest). I got special prices on both, Vanguard for $300 and Celestron for $235.

Links

Here you can find manufacturer links to every binocular mentioned in this review, even briefly.

• Celestron GRANITE ED 8X42 71370
• Vanguard ENDEAVOR ED 8420
• Nikon Monarch 5 8x42
• Canon 10x42 L IS WP

Pictures

I found it very challenging to take photos that accurately represent the qualities of these binos. What I like to do is to zoom in with the camera so the edges are invisible. If I were to use the binos as a telephoto lens, this is how I’d do it. But this essentially picks out an area around the center view and magnifies it (and effects like CA) even more. I quite liked the results and got lost in the moment. Therefore I made some shots like this, please disregard the inconsistency.

There are so many things at play.

• My Canon PowerShot S120 has small enough form to be almost compatible with the eyepieces.
• I tried my phone – the small camera is at an advantage (smaller than the exit pupil) but I just dislike phone photography in general.
• I also found it hard to take a photo with the same depth of field that my eyes see. The camera can focus on things that my eyes can’t and is less reliant on having the binos focused to the desired target. It matters a lot what aperture I’m at... So, when there was bokeh, I couldn’t be sure whether the camera lens caused that or the binos.
• When there was CA, was that the camera or the binos? Did the camera correct it with lest profile? The camera lens profile seemed to correct a lot of the Vanguard’s CA as it’s similar in color what the camera creates.

I think this we are nearing the situation where the camera lens quality and the binos’ lens quality are comparable.

I got fed up with the random targets (changing sun angle and intensity, wind blowing the trees and whatnot), I decided to make some synthetic tests. It seems impossible to get a clear view of what the view’s edge is like, because the camera adds something like vignetting. It’s not like that at all. I did edit the photos shot through the binoculars, that would be deceptive. So take all photos with a grain of salt, even the test charts are not perfect, but I tried to do my best.

Testing method

• Constant artificial lighting 5x500w halogen
• Custom evaluated white balance
• Aperture: f8, Shutter speed: 1/60s, ISO 80, Canon PowerShot S120
• Lens was not zoomed in - 24mm equivalent. If I zoom in the view through the binos completely fills the frame. In some cases that’s good, but not for the test charts - you want to see as much of the view as possible, including the edges.
• Test charts were printed on A2 paper and placed on a flat wooden surface and held in place by a stand with no tilt (confirmed by water level ruler).

• ISO 12233 chart
• 7mm Dots
• Crosses every 4cm
• 1 line per inch grid

• Binos were placed one by one on a stand, 2.5m from the target

• Vertically centered - placed at a height equal to the center of the target, less half of the tube diameter.
• Horizontally centered - shots taken through the left tube and that is placed in front of the center of the target.

View the album on

Conclusion

For me, the Celestron is the winner. I liked it better overall. It’s more compact (smaller and lighter), has wider FOV for that wow effect, more precise/slower focus, less noticeable central CA, no unusual flaws in the view. I was able to get a very good price on it and it ended up being 15% cheaper than the Vanguard. Based on the design and the preliminary product photos I thought I’d like the Vanguard better, as that sexy green accent and the overall design looked fancy. I originally thought the 7° FOV would be wide enough. But then, the Celestron has convinced me otherwise. In the end, both are good, I would be equally happy to receive either as a gift and I’d never look back. I bought both just for this experience and then I decided to share my findings through a review. I’ll stick with the Celestron and return the Vanguard.

Thank you for reading

Especially if you’ve read it all :) If you have any questions, feel free to ask in the Cloudy Nights topic. More images taken through the Celestron can be expected later on + I still owe you a field report from a dark site.