New Zeiss APO Binoculars

[william j clive]

Just got this off a USA astronomy Optics Forum. Zeiss are to introduce Victory bins with APO glass. So the goalposts have been shifted again. EL's or Ultravids anyone. I will be happy to take yours for £10 more than the optics shops offer you for your Leica's and Swaro's in part exchange for the new Zeiss!

Clive

[Sleeper]

Clive are you trying to keep in line with your own admission in your biography? LOL

[william j clive]

Clive are you trying to keep in line with your own admission in your biography? LOL


I must be more than a little dense. What biography? :h?:

[Sleeper]

Oh dear!!! Check your own profile for the Bird Forum.

[william j clive]

Oh dear!!! Check your own profile for the Bird Forum.

Oi, cut that out, you impertinent young whipper snapper, or you'll feel the weight of my pension book. :bounce:

Clive

[Andy Bright]

Just got this off a USA astronomy Optics Forum. Zeiss are to introduce Victory bins with APO glass.
Clive
Sounds extremely unlikely to me....maybe some crossed wires from stories about the impending release of the Conquest series in N. America.

[Leif]

Sounds extremely unlikely to me....maybe some crossed wires from stories about the impending release of the Conquest series in N. America.

I thought the main source of chromatic aberration in binoculars was the prisms, rather than the objectives?

[Sleeper]

Sorry Clive could not resist.....I said RESIST!

It does stir up some interest when new optics are rumoured to be around.

I wonder why we we are (in general) so intrigued. Surely the optics are up to such a standard now that we will all be happy with what we have got. or rather is it more to do with the ergonomics of a new optic rather that the optical performance?

I could only see a step forward in design and "personal" suitability being the biggest quandry...maybe!

[Tim Allwood]

I was more than happy with my zeiss 7 x 42 till i dropped em. Been many places over the last 13 years, including two years in the humidity of Indonesia and not a single problem...I for one won't be trading in my bins for the new untested models. (my mates Swaros have fogged three times in Peru)

[Leif]

Sorry Clive could not resist.....I said RESIST!

It does stir up some interest when new optics are rumoured to be around.

I wonder why we we are (in general) so intrigued. Surely the optics are up to such a standard now that we will all be happy with what we have got. or rather is it more to do with the ergonomics of a new optic rather that the optical performance?

I could only see a step forward in design and "personal" suitability being the biggest quandry...maybe!

Well the latest Bird Watching survey concluded that the new Leica Ultravids were a step up from anything else. So it must be true. However, I have heard the opinions of several people who own both Swaro ELs and Ultravids - and who know a thing or two about testing optics - and they consider them roughly on a par. (Basically the Ultravid brings Leica up to the level of Swaro.) I won't summarise as it's too tedious. I reckon a lot of it is snobbery and the thrill of the new

[Tim Allwood]

yeah, loads of (misplaced) snobbery involved Leif.

I've heard stories of the focussing mechanism developing problems on the Els.......

[CJW]

And still no-one is mentioning the Zeiss Victory 2s....they blow the Leicas out of the water!

[Tim Allwood]

never heard of em Chris.... not another new model?

[CJW]

Not a new model at all Tim. I've had mine for at least 6 months.

http://betterviewdesired.com/zeiss/Victory.html

[Jonathan B.]

And still no-one is mentioning the Zeiss Victory 2s....they blow the Leicas out of the water!

In what way do you think? I bought the Ultravid 7x42 a couple of months ago after testing virtually everything on the market over a period of three years. It is the only binocular I have found that matches the optical performance of the Nikon SE 8x32 (which I have owned for several years) or the Swarovski EL (which I have been able to use for extended periods of time). I decided against the latter because of the focusing mechanism. I eliminated the Nikon VLX/HG 8x42 from consideration long ago, because I see considerable chromatic aberration in it, though in every other way it is superb.

I initially rejected the Zeiss Victory because I simply was unimpressed with it. Just last week I had the opportunity to compare the Zeiss Victory II side-by-side with the Ultravid. The Victory II is an excellent performer with fine ergonomics (the ergonomics are probably more like the Ultravid than any other binocular), and it may be the best porro-prism binocular in its price range. The modification of the binocular strap-mount is a vast improvement, and contrary to Stephen Ingraham (BVD), I did not find that the armor smelled like automobile tires.

However in my comparison, the Victory II did not exhibit nearly the resolution or contrast of the Ultravid. I would be curious to know if anybody else has compared these binoculars carefully.

Incidentally, I am not trying to convince myself that I made the right decision. I am looking for a pair of porro-prism binoculars for my wife, and am keeping an open mind. For instance, at the same time I compared the Victory II and the Ultravid, I was able to handle the Nikon VLX/HG 8x32 for an extended period for the first time. I am impressed with its optical performance (it equals the Victory II), but like its big brother, the VLX/HG 8x42, it shows too much chromatic aberration, and I dislike the focusing mechanism for the opposite reason that I dislike the Swarovski EL--the little Nikon focuses so fast that fine focus is difficult, though it has excellent depth of focus.

[Leif]

yeah, loads of (misplaced) snobbery involved Leif.

I've heard stories of the focussing mechanism developing problems on the Els.......

Hi Tim: I presume your reply was intended as sarcasm though I'm not sure why. My post was not intended to be rude. I simply think that magazines tend to go overboard when reviewing certain instruments. It is as if they are the flavour of the month. The Swaro 8x42 EL was one such example when it first appeared. They seem to lose all sense of objectivity.

I simply cannot understand why there is such a big difference in opinion between UK magazines, and my own experiences. I have seen quite a few optics reviews by amateur astronomers and amateur birders and they seem to agree with my own conclusions more than they do with the UK press. As an example some people hate the Swaro 8.5x42 EL due to the slow focus. A BW magazine review made no mention of this very important aspect. (For some people it is a fatal flaw.) The Leica 8x32 BN has small eye relief and lots of chromatic aberration. A recent BW magazine review mentioned neither aspect.

I tend to agree with an earlier poster that the top brands all produce excellent optics, and that as the differences in the optics are small, it is really a case of try them for yourself and see what you like best. The Leica 8x42 BN feels too big for my hands, despite excellent optics. Many many people disagree! It's a case of horses for courses.

Anyway, in my obviously completely objective and unbiased opinion, if most people really cared about optical quality then they would spend less money and buy the Nikon 8x32 SEs! :bounce:

[Leif]

I am looking for a pair of porro-prism binoculars for my wife, and am keeping an open mind. For instance, at the same time I compared the Victory II and the Ultravid, I was able to handle the Nikon VLX/HG 8x32 for an extended period for the first time.

Hi Jonathon. I have used the Nikon 8x32 HG in the field and I do agree with you that there is a lot of chromatic aberration. The Swaro 8x30 SLC is better corrected, but it is not as bright, does not focus so close, and the focus wheel is in an odd position. Maybe someone who owns one can give you a more informed opinion that I can.

BTW I think you mean 'roof-prism', not 'porro-prism'?

[normjackson]

Wouldn't worry Leif, who'd dare accuse someone who admits to liking a cheap, leaky pair of bins with bad spherical aberration of the eyepieces of snobbery? 3:-) 3:-) 3:-) Seriously glad to see you've reached your nirvana there.

Re. modest power roof prisms boasting their ED glass, Minox have been doing that for a wee while :
http://www.brayimaging.co.uk/Astro/binoculars.html
Looks like a bit of a snipe at birders in the Leica section.

"Eider knot Bill Oddie snipe!"

[Leif]

Wouldn't worry Leif, who'd dare accuse someone who admits to liking a cheap, leaky pair of bins with bad spherical aberration of the eyepieces of snobbery? 3:-) 3:-) 3:-) Seriously glad to see you've reached your nirvana there.
"Eider knot Bill Oddie snipe!"

They do say that love is blind. You forgot to mention the rotten eye tubes and tacky soft case.

[scampo]

I find it hard to believe that Nikon HGs have any worse aberration than other top-end binoculars. They have always excelled in reviews - the weight of the 8x42HG an occasional negative comment.

On the other hand, I remain convinced that in certain condition all binoculars can produce an image that has noticeable colour fringing. It certainly surprised me when I first saw it with my own Swarovski ELs - and yet I cannot at all easily replicate this effect - it just seems to occur in certain unusual lighting or viewing conditions.

I have looked through a pair of Nikon 8x42HGs fairly regularly and their 8x32HG just a few times and have yet to see anything but an amazingly bright, sharp and clear view - not once have I seen any colour fringing at all (and it is a very noticeable thing when it occurs). I would happily use the Nikon 8x32s instead of my Swaros.

Out of interest, a respected local birdwatcher now uses Nikon 8x42s having recently changed from Leica. He even visited the head offices of a couple of binocular manufacturers to discuss the optics before buying them - such was his concern and interest. It does seem very odd that, after this level of concern and testing, cost not being an issue at all, he ended up rejecting 'the best' in favour of a pair that suffer from bad correction and aberrations! It simply cannot be so - he doesn't subscribe to BF but he would surely have something to say in reply to some of the comments here.

[CJW]

In what way do you think?

I was comparing the V2s to the Trinovids, Jonathan, not the ridiculously overpriced, equivalent mag. Ultravids.
They focus closer, are lighter (boy, are the Trinovids heavy!), the contrast and resolution is better and they generally 'feel' better.
But at the end of the day it's a personal choice. My choice was the V2s.
At £700-ish they represent a damn good buy compared to the extra £100 for the Trinovids and a whopping £300+ for the Ultravids.

Chris

[gorank]

the Zeiss homepage states:
"New four-element Superachromat lenses to prevent color fringes caused by secondary spectrum and to achieve a short overall length"

What is Superachromat vs APO ??

A norwegian review states that the victory 8x56's ”chromatic aberration is larger than the competition”, but still it is rated as one of the best binos in low light conditions.

Or perhaps someone mixed up the Zeiss AOS (advanced optics system) abbrevation with APO....??

BTW. is it correct that the Victory body is made of some kind of plastic/composite material??

it's a pitty that it's so difficult to do blind-testing of binoculars...until then; your own eyes and opinion rules...=)

[Leif]

it's a pitty that it's so difficult to do blind-testing of binoculars...until then; your own eyes and opinion rules...=)

Sometimes I think I would be better off wearing a blindfold while using binoculars. Some of my ids would be more reliable that way.

[Jonathan B.]

Hi Jonathon. I have used the Nikon 8x32 HG in the field and I do agree with you that there is a lot of chromatic aberration. The Swaro 8x30 SLC is better corrected, but it is not as bright, does not focus so close, and the focus wheel is in an odd position. Maybe someone who owns one can give you a more informed opinion that I can.

BTW I think you mean 'roof-prism', not 'porro-prism'?

Leif:

Oops. Yes, I mean roof-prism. Don't know what I was thinking when I wrote. I agree with you about the Swarovski 8x30, though the position of the focusing wheel does not work for me. It is a great little glass, with some limitations.

CJW:

The Victory II indeed blows the Leica Trinovid out of the water. I'm not sure that the Ultravid is any more ridiculously overpriced than other binoculars, including the Victory II. The Ultravid's performance is far beyond that of the Trinovid, and it easily matches the Swarovski EL, which is even more expensive. I do think the Victory II represents good value. But in the U.S., the difference in price between the Victory II and the Ultravid is not as great at in the U.K. ($300, as opposed to £300+)

As for chromatic aberration, I see as little in the Ultravid as in the Nikon SE. I see considerably more chromatic aberration in the Nikon VLX/HG.

[pduxon]

At £700-ish they represent a damn good buy compared to the extra £100 for the Trinovids and a whopping £300+ for the Ultravids.

Chris

You what ? More like £170 - although I agree that is still alot of dosh!

[Andy Bright]

[QUOTE=gorank]

BTW. is it correct that the Victory body is made of some kind of plastic/composite material??
QUOTE]

fibre re-inforced polymer is the official line, ...bit of a discussion on a newsgroup about that a while ago.

[Tim Allwood]

[QUOTE=Leif]Hi Tim: I presume your reply was intended as sarcasm though I'm not sure why. My post was not intended to be rude. I simply think that magazines tend to go overboard when reviewing certain instruments. It is as if they are the flavour of the month. The Swaro 8x42 EL was one such example when it first appeared. They seem to lose all sense of objectivity.

Hiya Leif.....I think you misunderstood me a little. There was no sarcasm at all intended in my reply and I didn't think you were rude either. Something got lost in the translation I think!

[simontucker]

Wow - super anorak zone. All I know is that my Zeiss 10 x 40 have lasted for 17 years - despite having been bounced across the M4 on one occcasion - give great clarity of view and superb resolution without fogging and the only thing that has ever been a problem was that I had to replace the rubber eye-cups last year. They should do me for another 15 years now.

[scampo]

As for chromatic aberration, I see as little in the Ultravid as in the Nikon SE. I see considerably more chromatic aberration in the Nikon VLX/HG.
Is there confusion here, I wonder? In the UK, the SE is a mid-priced porroprism design, whereas the HG are top-range roof prisms - and these latter have received uniformly favourable reviews on the web and in magazines. Versus the Swaro, I would say the Nikon HGs are pretty near optical equals except the Swaro offers a bit more FOV and quite different ergonomics; also they are somewhat heavier than the equivalent Swarovskis.

[Andy Bright]

Wow - super anorak zone. All I know is that my Zeiss 10 x 40 have lasted for 17 years - despite having been bounced across the M4 on one occcasion - give great clarity of view and superb resolution without fogging and the only thing that has ever been a problem was that I had to replace the rubber eye-cups last year. They should do me for another 15 years now.
Sounds like a typical pair of Zeiss binos....If only some of these old Zeiss binos could talk ;)
Reminds me of the pair that were recently retrieved from a scuttled WWII German sub, still working fine with a bit of a clean-up....that's what I call rugged!

[scampo]

Now look, Andy, If you had the Fuehrer to answer to, wouldn't you make sure the da*n things would last!

(-:

[Leif]

Is there confusion here, I wonder? In the UK, the SE is a mid-priced porroprism design, whereas the HG are top-range roof prisms - and these latter have received uniformly favourable reviews on the web and in magazines. Versus the Swaro, I would say the Nikon HGs are pretty near optical equals except the Swaro offers a bit more FOV and quite different ergonomics; also they are somewhat heavier than the equivalent Swarovskis.

Steve: In the opinion of many people the Nikon 8x32 SE is the best 8xN binocular available where N < 50mm. When I compare it with my Swaro 8.5x42 EL, the little Nikon gives - in my opinion - the better image, especially in tricky lighting. It is a little gem. Don't get me wrong: the Swaros are lovely. It's just that the Nikons are that little bit better. Very sad people (hohum) could found a religion around the Nikon 8x32 SE. It's a pity that I don't live near you (or more likely it's your good fortune) as I could have let you try the Nikons.

In general roof prisms cost more to make than porro prisms due to:

1) Greater manufacturing tolerances are required: the roof angles are critical.
2) Phase (P) coatings must be applied. (Invented by Zeiss in ~1990!. I think Zeiss also invented multi-coating. 'Four sprung duck technique' as they say.)
3) On Pechan roof prisms a reflective layer must be applied to each surface where light is to reflect, as the angles are too steep for total internal reflection (TIR) to occur. The coatings are usually either silver, or dielectric (whatever that is). Note that Zeiss sell some instruments with Abbe Koenig roof prisms: these use TIR rather than coatings.

In addition, roof prism bins are usually waterproof and gas filled, which further adds to the manufacturing cost.

That's why the Nikon 8x30 EII (~£270) can match the optics of the Leica 8x32 BN (~£600) despite being cheaper. Of course it is not as rugged or compact.

Mind you, the clever Japanese are continually reducing the cost of roof prism bins due to clever Japanese manufacturing magic (errmm, or whatever).

Apologies for the hard core anorak content, assuming anyone is still awake ... ermm hello ... is anyone there ... damn ... they've run off again ...

[scampo]

Ah well, at least the anorak keeps us warm, eh?

My son will be looking for a new pair of binos soon and he has no probs with roof prisms (he has an aging pair of Optolyths at present with a somewhat damaged coating) so I think I am going to be investigating those Nikon glasses - no way I could buy him Swaros, even though he has their 65ED scope.

Aren't they the ones the owner of Ace Optics swears by, too?

[Leif]

Aren't they the ones the owner of Ace Optics swears by, too?

Yes. Used examples can often be found at low prices: porros are seriously untrendy.

[scampo]

He likes to be different - those Optolyths are seriously good binos, too!

PS I'm intrigued by your name, Leif - it sounds very Anglo-Saxon (in language terms, I mean - I have to teach language change to my A-level students).

[Leif]

He likes to be different - those Optolyths are seriously good binos, too!

PS I'm intrigued by your name, Leif - it sounds very Anglo-Saxon (in language terms, I mean - I have to teach language change to my A-level students).

It's Norwegian and very common, in Norway. I'm not sure if there is an English derivative.

Aren't we all going to speak 'estuary-English' in 100 years time?

[scampo]

Your surname (Godwin - or have I got it wrong?) is also Norse, then?

I sound my t's - hate Estuary!

[Leif]

Your surname (Godwin - or have I got it wrong?) is also Norse, then?

I sound my t's - hate Estuary!

It is Goodwin, is related to Godwin, and means God's friend, according to the internet. It must be true then.

[Sleeper]

Leif

I for one enjoy reading tech bits. I am sure more would not mind the ins and outs of glasses. As for me i do not have much experience of porros except a pair of old opticron handed down. If i had to make a comment about porros it would be to say that they have a more natural position in the hand.

More tech maestro!

[Art Thorn]

It may be hard to swallow, but the seemingly high cost of the top binocs is not very high when compared to true APO scopes. The scopes have only one objective, and often no eyepieces (or cheap eyepieces as standard). So why the fuss about the cost of binocs? In fact, if they were true APOs, they would have to cost a lot more! So is that the answer? Maybe the chromatic aberration is because they cannot afford to put true APO objectives into two tubes...

[pduxon]

It is Goodwin, is related to Godwin, and means God's friend, according to the internet. It must be true then.

As in Harold Godwin's Son ie Harold who died at Hastings.

Interstingly mine comes from Dokeson or Duke's Son!!

[iporali]

It may be hard to swallow, but the seemingly high cost of the top binocs is not very high when compared to true APO scopes. The scopes have only one objective, and often no eyepieces (or cheap eyepieces as standard). So why the fuss about the cost of binocs? In fact, if they were true APOs, they would have to cost a lot more! So is that the answer? Maybe the chromatic aberration is because they cannot afford to put true APO objectives into two tubes...

I agree! APO design is not that difficult using modern computer aided systems - the problems come from variables which are very difficult to control during manufacturing. A perfectly polished lens from expensive glass (ED-type) may turn out to have a non-homogenous refractive index, which easily destroys the advantages of APO design. This kind of control makes it impossible to produce bulk, which would otherwise reduce costs.

I saw an article about lens design (in the internet...hmmm) saying that in the manufacturing it is easier to use a unit specific compensating lens (to correct unhomogeneity) than to reach the tolerances required for a good (=functioning) APO design. I guess this may be the (4-lens) principle used in Zeiss "superachromats".

Ilkka

[dogfish]

Going back to porro design for a moment, do all porros give an image that appears smaller than roof prisms of the same magnification? I've noticed this with my Nikon 8x32 SEs

[Leif]

Going back to porro design for a moment, do all porros give an image that appears smaller than roof prisms of the same magnification? I've noticed this with my Nikon 8x32 SEs

I've noticed the same with several porros. I heard it was an optical illusion though I have no idea why.

[Art Thorn]

This may be totally off base, but I believe that magnification can be calculated by dividing objective focal length by eyepiece focal length. When an object is closer, we focus by moving the eyepiece further away from the objective lens. Does that then increase the magnification (because the effective focal length of the objective is increased)? And do all manufacturers specify magnification when focussed at infinity? Like I say, maybe I'm totally off base. I should dig out an elementary physics book.

[iporali]

This may be totally off base, but I believe that magnification can be calculated by dividing objective focal length by eyepiece focal length. When an object is closer, we focus by moving the eyepiece further away from the objective lens. Does that then increase the magnification (because the effective focal length of the objective is increased)? And do all manufacturers specify magnification when focussed at infinity? Like I say, maybe I'm totally off base. I should dig out an elementary physics book.

I agree about the calculation principle, but don't the two focal lengths just stay constant during focusing - as well as their ratio. The objective produces the image inside the tube and the eyepiece acts like a magnifying glass to watch the image. This has to be at the same distance from the image.

Ilkka

[Art Thorn]

I just spent a half hour looking at some thin tree branches against a bright mornig sky. Not enough light yet to see the details on the branches - just silouettes. I tried three different Nikon glasses: 8x32 SEs, 10x42 SEs and 10x32 HGs. I also tried my Televue 85 Scope (APO, air spaced doublet objective lens) with a 14mm Radian eyepiece. I was looking for two things, chromatic aberration and size of image. The results surprised me a bit. First of all I could see no difference in chromatic aberration amoung the glasses. When I thought I did, I picked up another pair and changed my mind. Back and forth many times and, in the end, no difference. The chromatic aberration was there in every case, not in the centre of the field of view, but definitely near the edges. When I pointed the Televue at the same branches chromatic aberration was non existant. So a 'true' APO objective does make a difference. The second thing I was looking for was size of image between the porro 10x glasses and the roof 10x glasses. They have slightly different fields of view at 6 degrees and 6.5 degrees, respectively. I didn't know what to expect but found what others have mentioned - the porro's magnification did seem less, even though they have a narrower field of view! Odd, and I can't think of any explanation except that the manufacturers might be rounding off to the nearest half power. Maybe they get to a point where they have everything just so, and have 9.8 power or 10.2 power and just leave it at that. I don't know. What other explanation is there???

[Blincodave]

As a matter of interest Art, just how good are the Nikon 10x42 SEs?

[Art Thorn]

They are the glasses I pick up first almost always. I take the 8x32 when I am going into dense bush where having the widest field of view is critical in finding the fast moving warblers, for example. But for average viewing the 10x42 are as light as the 8x32 HG and are brighter at dawn and dusk. I also like the grip- my fingers don't run into each other. The focus is slower than the HGs and that is a matter of individual taste. My wife likes the faster focus; I find advantages in both. But in terms of the view - contrast, resolution, aberration - I'd say the 10x42 SEs are the best of the three. And I prefer the 10 power, not finding shake an issue.

[william j clive]

Last Saturday spent a fruitless day on Anglesey trying to see a Little Bunting that refused to show all day, then reappeared on Sunday and is still showing today. Lets hope it is still around next Saturday.

After several hours of searching got bored, and compared my 8x32 SE with a Leica 8x42 roof. The image of a bird was significantly smaller in the Nikon compared to my friend's Leica. However, this phenomenon was known to me, the big surprise came when I got out my Swaro 8.5x42 EL. Both my friend and I, after careful and prolonged comparison felt that if the Leica was a true 8x, then the Swaro was 9x or more.

At the next opportunity I would like to compare the 8.5x Swaro with a 10x roof and if the findings are in any way significant I will post the result on this board.


Clive (Super Anorak Man) ;)

[scampo]

Leif

Can you tell me who sells the Nikon 8x32SE at £270? They're over £450 wherever I look - but that's a Nikon 8x30SE. I'm confused but interested for my son.

[Leif]

Leif

Can you tell me who sells the Nikon 8x32SE at £270? They're over £450 wherever I look - but that's a Nikon 8x30SE. I'm confused but interested for my son.

Steve: It is the Nikon 8x30 EII that costs ~£280 at Ace Optics. The Nikon 8x32 SE costs ~£440. See the BVD web site for a review. The owner of Ace Optics - at least I think he is the owner - uses the 8x30 EII so read into that what you will. I bought my 8x32 SE used but as new in a private sale. Hard to find, but often well priced.

[gorank]

wouldnt that have something to do with the actual size/diameter of the eye piece?? Larger eye piece = larger apparent picture?? in combination with the exit pupil perhaps..

[Art Thorn]

Last Saturday spent a fruitless day on Anglesey trying to see a Little Bunting that refused to show all day, then reappeared on Sunday and is still showing today. Lets hope it is still around next Saturday.

After several hours of searching got bored, and compared my 8x32 SE with a Leica 8x42 roof. The image of a bird was significantly smaller in the Nikon compared to my friend's Leica. However, this phenomenon was known to me, the big surprise came when I got out my Swaro 8.5x42 EL. Both my friend and I, after careful and prolonged comparison felt that if the Leica was a true 8x, then the Swaro was 9x or more.

At the next opportunity I would like to compare the 8.5x Swaro with a 10x roof and if the findings are in any way significant I will post the result on this board.


Clive (Super Anorak Man) ;)
Hello Clive. I will be very interested in what you find. I have no access to other glasses at this time of year. No one is out there bird watching (too @#$ cold) and the local shops do not carry high end binocs at all. As I noted, my Nikon roofs certainly have a larger image than my Nikon porros, but I don't know about other roofs.

[Art Thorn]

wouldnt that have something to do with the actual size/diameter of the eye piece?? Larger eye piece = larger apparent picture?? in combination with the exit pupil perhaps..

I have only seen one calculation, in scopes, that uses field stop diameter (inside the eyepiece) and that is used for field of view. i.e. the bigger the diameter, the wider the field of view. The BVD site describes the effect.

[Art Thorn]

I have only seen one calculation, in scopes, that uses field stop diameter (inside the eyepiece) and that is used for field of view. i.e. the bigger the diameter, the wider the field of view. The BVD site describes the effect.
Let me correct that last sentence. It is the Televue web site that describes the effect.

[marcus]

Oh, you guys make me feel so low!
But I'll admit it, I really love this thread. Keep it going!

[Art Thorn]

Oh, you guys make me feel so low!
But I'll admit it, I really love this thread. Keep it going!
I'm not sure what you mean by 'low' Marcus, but I find this thread interesting too. This optics design can't be downright simple or there would be more than a half dozen top flight maufacturers out there - everyone would be producing great glasses and scopes. What I found MOST interesting in all of the reading I have done is that Al Nagler, from TeleVue, said he can only produce limited quantities of his biggest scopes because he can't get good, uniform, exotic glass to make his large objectives. Someone else in one of these threads said essentially the same thing - lack of uniform dispersion of the added components in glass is the limiting factor in producing great optics. Very interesting!! :h?:

[scampo]

It is interesting - I had to return a medium priced scope because it had micro-bubbles in the field of view (probably eyepiece) - then I found all of the shop's remaining stock of that scope (three more) had similar or other marks on their inner surfaces.

This makes me wonder if the pricing of these top scopes from Kowa, Nikon, Swaro, Zeiss and Leica, etc. isn't high merely because of profitability but - just maybe - because the particular ED or APO type glass they use is genuinely difficult, and therefore expensive, to produce. It would be interesting to know the answer, as we generally feel that we are being somewhat taken for a ride at the prices we have to pay.

[Art Thorn]

Sure opens up a whole world of questions, doesn't it? Every manufacturing process operates within tolerances. For a manufacturer to maintain a good reputation, he (they) can't afford to have wide variability in their product. So maybe high cost is also partly due to high rejection of off-tolerance product. And maybe one can find a good scope at a lower price by having a large number to sift through - finding the one that came through the line with no flaws. But, as Steve points out with the four scopes he looked at, you have to have a large number to sift through. Makes you think twice about mail-order.

[scampo]

10/10 for your grammatically correct (and increasingly unusual) use of the gender neutral personal pronoun "he" there - but you hedge your bets with the "politically correct" yet grammatically incorrect plural "they"...

Hope you don't mind me commenting - it's rare to see it used these days and I'm an English teacher as well as a birder! ;)

I think your point concerning mail order is a good one, indeed!

[Art Thorn]

10/10 for your grammatically correct (and increasingly unusual) use of the gender neutral personal pronoun "he" there - but you hedge your bets with the "politically correct" yet grammatically incorrect plural "they"...

Hope you don't mind me commenting - it's rare to see it used these days and I'm an English teacher as well as a birder! ;)

I think your point concerning mail order is a good one, indeed!
Uh, oh! An english teacher. I'll have to watch myself from now on. Should have been 'his product' instead of 'their product' also.

In addition to avoiding mail order, we should avoid basing judgement of product after looking at one sample (I'm as guilty as anyone else).

[scampo]

Well - I would be thoroughly disappointed if a Swarovski, Nikon, Leica or Zeiss product differed between samples; in fact, I'm fairly certain they won't.

I have been told that Kowa are more variable, and my own experience tells me that Opticron (a UK brand) are definitely variable. Interestingly, that variability represents a descending order of price, too (although at the moment, for some reason, Nikon binos are a steal in the UK).

So... just maybe it is genuinely expensive to produce top quality binos and scopes that are consistently of the highest quality? There is no question that is why professional photographers have always preferred a very few makes such as Nikon.

[marcus]

Art, I said 'low' because all of you can afford the highest priced binoculars and scopes. I can just imagine how good they are by reading most of the comments that you guys give. I really like it! Please continue.
Scampo, how do you judge my grammar?

[scampo]

Generally speaking, American writers have - in my experience - a better grasp of grammar when compared to their English counterparts. Your teachers must spend longer teaching the basics or do it better!

[Swissboy]

Sounds extremely unlikely to me....maybe some crossed wires from stories about the impending release of the Conquest series in N. America.

Andy, I hope you noticed the new thread on Zeiss Victory FL's. There is a saying "Where there is smoke, there is fire", so I guess those rumors were correct, after all.

[Andy Bright]

Andy, I hope you noticed the new thread on Zeiss Victory FL's. There is a saying "Where there is smoke, there is fire", so I guess those rumors were correct, after all.
Egg on my face, I think. I'll endeavour to not look an idiot in the future.
Did have a look at new thread, obviously my source of info isn't as up to date as some others...but as 'APO' isn't used by Zeiss, that threw me to some extent. I don't believe the new binos are 'APO' nor marketed using that name.

[Leif]

Well - I would be thoroughly disappointed if a Swarovski, Nikon, Leica or Zeiss product differed between samples; in fact, I'm fairly certain they won't.

So... just maybe it is genuinely expensive to produce top quality binos and scopes that are consistently of the highest quality? There is no question that is why professional photographers have always preferred a very few makes such as Nikon.

Steve: Almost 30 years ago one of my father's friends was a semi-pro sports photographer. When he wanted a new lens, he would go to a small camera shop - in Loughborough I think - and walk off with 5 samples of a lens. He then tested them all, and kept the best one. There is often quite a bit of variation in 35mm lenses, especially zooms. Misalignment is not uncommon. One well known photographer in Norway recounts receiving several mis-aligned versions of a lens from Nikon before a good one arrived. I think primes are less variable (less elements, less moving parts).

Like you I do not expect many 'dud' - e.g. slightly mis-aligned - spotting scopes from Leica et al.

I think you are right about the mechanical quality of Nikon lenses and cameras.

[scampo]

My word - it's just likely that the small camera shop your father used was the one I still use regularly - Paul Moffat's Cameras. The owner died several years ago, but his wife still runs it. The only other small camera shop we had was called Camera Thorpe - but they were not really an enthusiast's shop.

My first camera, when I was thirteen or so, was a s/h Ilford Sportsman; it was a bit unreliable so I quickly moved on from that to a Kodak Retinette - and what a lovely camera that was.

I think years ago that was the case, but I am sure that makers such as Nikon and Zeiss test to much tighter tolerances these days. That said, theey cannot know what happens in transit, I suppose.

[Swissboy]

.but as 'APO' isn't used by Zeiss, that threw me to some extent. I don't believe the new binos are 'APO' nor marketed using that name.

Sure, but APO, ED, FL ,or whatever, it's all meant to do the same thing. That is, to create a clearer picture for us to enjoy.

[Andy Bright]

Sure, but APO, ED, FL ,or whatever, it's all meant to do the same thing. That is, to create a clearer picture for us to enjoy.
What do you want mate, blood? I cocked up after recieving iffy info, that person will be castigated, or something sounding very similar to that (which involves a sharp metal shear-like instrument)

[Swissboy]

Steve: ).

Like you I do not expect many 'dud' - e.g. slightly mis-aligned - spotting scopes from Leica et al.

I think you are right about the mechanical quality of Nikon lenses and cameras.

I am afraid this topic is still an issue. Just remember those reports in the alula tests

http://www.alula.fi/GB/

Here is a small portion quoted from one of those reports: "Among the scopes tested here and in ALULA 1/2002, four units exhibited optical defects that noticeably compromised their performance at high magnifications. I later obtained other units for testing, and their performance also varied to the extent that the relative ranking, with respect to resolution and contrast of the models, depended on the particular units tested. Since I found such variations in all of the manufacturer’s scopes, I have reluctantly decided to leave open the question that is perhaps the most interesting for the reader, namely which of the tested scopes has the best optics."

It should be noted that Leica was among those suspected to have provided a dud. (unintentionally, of course)

[Leif]

I am afraid this topic is still an issue. Just remember those reports in the alula tests

http://www.alula.fi/GB/

Here is a small portion quoted from one of those reports: "Among the scopes tested here and in ALULA 1/2002, four units exhibited optical defects that noticeably compromised their performance at high magnifications. I later obtained other units for testing, and their performance also varied to the extent that the relative ranking, with respect to resolution and contrast of the models, depended on the particular units tested. Since I found such variations in all of the manufacturer’s scopes, I have reluctantly decided to leave open the question that is perhaps the most interesting for the reader, namely which of the tested scopes has the best optics."

It should be noted that Leica was among those suspected to have provided a dud. (unintentionally, of course)

Fair point. That Alula article is rather shocking. I wonder how many birders have a mis-aligned scope without knowing it?

Given that the Alula tests were with a zoom eyepiece, I wonder if the problem in each case was with the scope or the eyepiece, and whether the problem occurred between the factory and the Alula testers?

[scampo]

There you are, Leif - and you bought a Leica Apo Televid, and all. O-o-o-h, I do hope it's one of the better ones they churn out from their Oporto factory.

Rumour has it that unlike Nikon's, Leica's Eco-glass is uniquely crafted from the base of recycled Port bottles. Might not be true, though.

;)

BTW - now you are a bona-fide, died-in-the-wool member of the red-spot brigade, you might find this web page interesting:

http://www.kbcamera.com/timelineliecahistory.htm

[Leif]

LOL

I'm not sure us Leica snobs stoop so low as to talk to mere Nikon users ... 8-P

Eco-glass eh? If anyone calls me Swampy I'll clobber 'em.

[scampo]

"I'll clobber 'em..."

But not with that weighty object, I trust!

(-:

[pduxon]

LOL

I'm not sure us Leica snobs stoop so low as to talk to mere Nikon users ... 8-P

Eco-glass eh? If anyone calls me Swampy I'll clobber 'em.

I'm not sure us roof snobs should stoop to talking to you porro users ;)