Ethical Binoculars & Sport Optics

Binoculars, spotting scopes, and monoculars can all be considered sport optics. Although they are used by many people for watching wildlife and in conservation work, they are also essential pieces of equipment for hunters and soldiers.

Many binoculars companies market their sport optics to wildlife watchers as well as hunters and the military. Some of them also sell rifle scopes, optical rangefinders, and red dot sights to mark hunting prey, or are part of company groups that make rifles.

And for some, their marketing activity goes beyond just trying to sell their products to hunters or the military. They promote hunting itself by sponsoring hunting influencers and fund pro-hunting and gun rights lobby groups.

We rated 32 brands from 27 companies. With total scores ranging from 1 to 59 (out of 100), it's clear that some brands are more ethical than others. 

Binoculars for ethical wildlife watching

Disappointingly, 21 of the 27 companies we rated sold sport hunting accessories or marketed products to hunters. Of these, 11 companies marketed to hunters of ‘big game’, ‘trophy’ animals and driven hunts (see definitions below).

This included big brands like Leica and Swarovski, which also sponsor conservation events such as Global Birdfair.

But if you are looking for binoculars or other sport optics for wildlife watching, and want to avoid companies associated with shooting, the good news is that there are several recommended and best buy brands in this guide.

With this guide and our recent guide to outdoor clothing, you’ll be fully equipped for all your ethical wildlife watching activities.

Which binocular and sport optics brands are in this guide?

In this guide, we rated 27 sport optics companies selling 32 different brands. We’ve included the top selling binocular brands, checked market reports and recommendations from birding forums, and looked at bird optics websites and product reviews to select the brands to review.

The companies represented in this guide range from small sport optics specialists such as Carson, Hawke, and Opticron, to large industrial conglomerates like Kowa Company. 

There are several companies that produce sport optics as part of a general optical equipment offering, such as Canon, Fujinon, Leica, and Nikon. 

We've also included a number of sport optics brands which are owned by companies that are primarily known for their firearms, such as Burris and Steiner (both owned by Beretta) and Minox (owned by Blaser Group, which produces Mauser, Rigby, and J.P Sauer & Sohn rifles, shotguns, and ammunition).

Rating optic companies for hunting

Our hunting rating considered the links companies have to hunting by looking at the products they sell, the way in which their products are marketed, and whether they have any other links to the hunting world.

How do binocular brands rate for links with hunting?

Five companies lost no marks in the hunting category as they had no links to hunting. They are:

• Canon
• Olympus
• Opticron
• Viking
• Visionary 

The following brands scored zero marks in the hunting category. These are:

• Alpen
• Bresser
• Burris
• Bushnell
• Hawke
• Kahles
• Leica
• Leupold
• Minox
• Steiner
• Swarovski
• Tasco
• Vortex
• Zeiss

All of the brands with hunting links sold riflescopes and marketed their products to sports hunters. 

For example, the Bushnell 2023 Hunt Catalogue contained several images of dead elk being held or carried by a hunter and one image showed a dead elk placed alongside a rifle bearing a Bushnell rifle scope (see below).

Many optic companies make products for hunting 

Many companies that sell binoculars also sell rifle scopes and other hunting accessories, such as rifle cases. Companies that did so got the lowest marks for their product ranges.

Binoculars can be used for birding and conservation work, but they can also be used for hunting. The same is true of equipment such as spotting scopes and night vision cameras. Companies that marketed these multi-use products for hunting also lost marks for their product ranges.

Companies got top marks in this section if they didn’t sell any hunting products or accessories and did not market any of their products for hunting.

Marketing to hunters

We looked at how companies marketed their products. This included wording and imagery in their catalogues, on their own websites, and on their social media pages.

Companies that explicitly marketed their products for trophy, driven, or big-game hunting scored no marks for their marketing. Companies also lost marks if they marketed their products for non-sports hunting or used images that suggested hunting such as images of animals and people wearing hunting gear.

Companies got top marks in this section if their marketing in no way referenced hunting.

Other links to hunting

Some companies have links to hunting that go beyond their products and marketing, such as organising hunting events, belonging to organisations that promote hunting, and sponsoring individual hunters. Companies that were involved in any of these activities scored 0 overall in the hunting rating category.

Optics companies use of social media

Many of the companies in this guide who scored zero marks in the hunting rating had social media accounts and it was mostly here, rather than on their websites, that they most actively promoted their products for sports and trophy hunting. 

For example, Burris’ Instagram page contained frequent images of hunters posing with dead animals. One post from July 2024 contained a photo of a staff member with a dead bear. The staff member was quoted as describing what he loved about Burris optics.

TV hunting programmes 

All of the zero-scoring optics companies had other links to hunting such as sponsoring hunters and hunting TV programmes. 

For example, Alpen Optics sponsored ‘Just Kill’n Time TV’. The ‘Just Kill’n Time TV’ Instagram page described it as “Home grown Virginia Boys showing the world real hunting weekly on Pursuit Channel”. It also contained images of dead animals alongside Alpen equipment. One Just Kill'n Tim post, from March 2024, showed a dead turkey with a pair of Alpen binoculars and the caption: “It’s about time to break out the Alpen/Bresser binos and scout out these rascals for spring!”

Lobbying and promotion by optics companies for hunting

Several companies had connections with pro-hunting organisations.

Swarovski Optik sponsors the Washington D.C.- based Safari Club International, which describes itself as “the leader in defending the freedom to hunt and promoting wildlife conservation worldwide”. It spent half a million dollars on government lobbying in 2024 and amongst its lobbying priorities were opposing bans on trophy hunting and on the use of lead ammunition on public land. 

Bushnell, Vista, and Vortex were listed as “partners and sponsors” of the First Hunt Foundation which provides mentoring to new hunters. In 2022, the Foundation received a donation of $120,000 from the NRA (National Rifle Association) to develop online training which its mentors could use to recruit, train, and retain hunters.

One company, Blaser, owner of Minox, organised trophy-hunting holidays.

Other companies which scored below 50 in this category also had relatively strong links to hunting but did not lose marks in all three sections. For example, Barska, which scored 20 for the hunting rating, sold rifle scopes and marketed its products for sports hunters but did not have links to hunting organisations.

The ethics of hunting

Ethical debates about hunting are complex and can quickly become heated and polarised. Arguments on both sides invoke emotive issues such as tradition, lives, and livelihoods. Hunting animals for sport or recreation, however, is increasingly opposed in the UK (particularly amongst urban dwellers), and especially when it is considered ‘unnecessary’ or cruel.

Hunting from an animal rights perspective

Animal rights groups oppose hunting in all forms as they uphold the 'right to life' concept. Killing animals in any instance – whether for sport or food – is considered unacceptable as the animal's life is not ours to take.

Hunting from an animal welfare perspective 

From an animal welfare perspective, the degree of suffering caused by an action, including during hunting, can determine whether an action is deemed cruel and socially acceptable or not. 

Research suggests that a high level of skill can reduce the suffering experienced when an animal is hunted. For example, red deer appear to suffer more when wounded and not killed cleanly (in a single shot), or when forced to flee in a chase compared to deer instantly killed by a quiet and skilled deer stalker. The type of weapon used, the number of shots taken to kill an animal, the time from impact until death, and how hunters deal with dependent young are all factors that can impact on perceived suffering.

For many people, whether it is deemed socially acceptable to kill an animal also appears to be dependent on the species in question and whether an animal can feel, or is perceived to feel, pain. Different societies tend to have 'favourite species', with a slight preference shown towards mammals, and less concern being shown towards the killing of ‘pests’ and 'vermin' such as wasps for example.

There has been much criticism of the idea of using species’ experience of pain to determine whether it is acceptable to kill them. It’s a complex discussion that is beyond the scope of this guide but interested readers could start with reading 'A Moral Defense of Trophy Hunting and Why It Fails'.

Can hunting be ethical?

Some make the case that hunting can be ethical, for example when humane methods are used or where there is a 'fair chase'; when the final product is used (e.g. for meat); when hunting serves a wider purpose (such as preventing a people/wildlife conflict or supporting wildlife conservation); and when hunters respect laws and regulations.

There has been a slow shift among Western hunters over the past few decades towards greater concern for animal welfare and environmental management.

Academic research on the impact and role hunting can play in supporting conservation efforts is complex and is discussed in detail in Ethical Consumer’s 2020 Shooting Wildlife? report. 

Hunting impacts, both positive and negative, appear to be affected by the context in which hunting occurs.

Motivations for hunting, the financial transactions involved, the species and animals targeted, the social and ecological awareness of the hunter, and the type of weapon used can all affect the impacts of hunting. In addition, when theoretical models are used to predict the impacts of hunting, they do not always match field observations.

Binocular brand links to the arms industry and military

Optics equipment is often used by the military in both combat and non-combat situations and some optics companies sell arms. We therefore rated companies on their involvement in the arms industry and military supply.

Companies lost marks if they sold ammunition or marketed optical products for military use; sold products to the military; or had links to the gun rights movement, such as supporting the US National Rifle Association (NRA).

Burris and Steiner (both owned by UPIFRA SA), Bushnell and Tasco (both owned by Vista Outdoor Inc), and Leupold all scored 0 in this category.

These five companies all marketed their optics products for military use, for example Leupold sold a spotting scope which it described as “trusted by countless military sniper teams".

These five companies also sold arms and optics products to the military. For example, Steiner was one of four companies making up Beretta Defense Technologies which provides arms, ammunition and optics to the military and law enforcement around the world.

Leupold, Tasco, and Bushnell products were all available for sale on the website of North East Technologies Ltd which is a “registered supplier and approved vendor to the Israeli Ministry of Defense, the IDF, the Israeli Police, the Israeli Prison Authority and the emergency services of the Israeli Homeland Security Office”.

These five companies were all, either directly or via another brand in the company group, ‘Industry Allies’ of the NRA gun rights movement. The NRA described the Industry Ally programme as one “that provides exclusive NRA recognition and membership discounts to businesses that assist and support the NRA in membership sales. A strong membership base is our mission and the reason why we have had considerable progress in the defense of our Second Amendment rights.”

Vortex (owned by Sheltered Wings), supplies weapon-fire control optics to the US Army, while Meopta supplies optics for soldiers, armoured vehicles and air and navy forces.

Which brands scored better in the military rating?

No brand scored 100 in this category, but some scored 90.

They didn’t score 100 as they didn’t have a policy stating that they would not supply the military, but they didn’t market their products for military use or appear to sell their products to the military.

These brand are:

• Alpen
• Barr & Stroud
• Bresser
• Carson
• Kahles
• Leica
• Olympus
• Swarovski
• Vanguard
• Viking
• Visionary 
• Zeiss

The only company to have any policy on arms was Nikon which stated that it verified that its export goods wouldn’t be used for the development of weapons. However, it only scored 60 in this category as it had contracts to supply the US Department of Defense with optical and other equipment.
 

Environmental impact of sport optic brands

We looked at what sport optic companies were doing to reduce their environmental impact.

Companies could score points for reducing their impact during their sourcing of raw materials, during production, and at the end of life of their products. 

Nearly two thirds of companies scored 0 points (out of 100) in this category, because they were taking no meaningful action. 

Only Nikon was taking action in all three areas (sourcing, production, end of life).

Canon, Fujifilm, and Ricoh (Pentax) were taking some action on production and product end-of-life. 

All four of the big Japanese electronics companies had taken some steps towards circularity, for example Canon and Pentax operated closed-loop recycling of office equipment such as toner cartridges and copiers. 

The only small company to take action in more than one area was Opticron which had a policy to minimise pollution and promote efficient and sustainable use of resources in its production. It had also taken steps to reduce the impact of its packaging. For a small company these were considered meaningful steps.

Climate rating for optic brands

The majority of companies scored poorly in the climate category with two thirds having no or inadequate discussion of how they were reducing their climate impacts, no or inadequate reporting of their emissions, and no or inadequate targets.

Two companies scored 0 (out of 100) as they were involved in fossil fuels. 

The Carlyle Group, owner of Meopta, is an investor in Colombian oil and gas explorer and producer SierraCol Energy. Kowa sold carrier ships for the transportation of coal to thermal power plants.

Of the big companies, only Canon, Fujifilm, Nikon and Ricoh (Pentax)  had adequate discussions of their efforts to reduce their emissions and either reporting of emissions in their own operations and supply chairs, or reduction targets in line with international agreements.

Workers’ rights in the optics industry

The sector scored very poorly overall on workers’ rights with only six companies in this guide scoring above 0. 

Eight companies had no policy at all to protect the rights of workers in their supply chains.

The highest scorer was Vanguard, followed by Opticron and Pentax.

Tax Conduct

The optics industry appears to not be very good for fair tax. 

Ten companies scored 0 (out of 100) for tax conduct: 

• Canon
• Export Dragon Ltd (owner of Vanguard), 
• Fujifilm
• Inspecs (owner of Eschenbach)
• Kowa
• Carlyle Group (owner of Meopta)
• Nikon
• UPIFRA SA (owner of Burris and Steiner)
• Ricoh (owner of Pentax)
• Zeiss

The majority of these companies owned subsidiaries based in tax havens. 

For example, Dorset-based company Vanguard World is owned by Export Dragon Ltd, which according to Vanguard’s 2022 annual report, is registered in the British Virgin Islands.

Price comparison of binoculars and sports optics

We compared the prices of a variety of products from binocular and sport optics companies. 

Due to the number of different products, we have indicated a price range from a brand’s cheapest to most expensive model that we could find. Where a brand did not have its own UK website with its products for sale, we looked at prices from sports and outdoor retailers. 

The prices listed are for guidance and may not include all of the products made by the brands. Prices for binocular telescopes weren’t included.

As the table shows, prices range from around £25 to over £1000. The good news is that our best buys have reasonably priced products, so you don't have to pay more for a more ethical brand of binoculars.

*Price on its UK website was originally listed in Euros, as €229 – €1,299. 

All prices were viewed in August 2024, and discounted items from sales weren’t included. 

Additional research by Anna Clayton, Louisa Gould, and Marlous Veldt.