Nikon 8x32SE, 8x32EDG, Zeiss 8x42FL and Zen-Ray 7x36 ED2 at the OK Corral

[Fireform]

Here is my 4-way binocular shootout. I'm posting it here rather than in the Other forum because it involves two new bins that would be individually covered in different fora. I did not look at resolution charts or read the Miami Herald through these bins, but I did spend a good long time looking at birds and other natural objects through them. I also did not mount them on tripods, because I don't use binoculars like these on tripods in real life. I have long familiarity with the 8x42 Fls and the Nikon 8x32 SEs so I didn’t learn much new by reauditioning them. I had the Nikon 8x32 EDGs for about 3 weeks and have spent most of the past day and a half with the Zen-Ray ED2s in conditions ranging from twilight, nighttime, and dawn to mixed illumination to strong sunlight over water. The task this evening is to fit the ED2s in among the others where they belong:

Color and visible chromatic aberration:
I’m talking naked-eye performance here, no booster involved.
1) Zen-Ray 7x36 ED2—no visible CA in the inner 75% of the field of view, and only moderate amounts in the outer fringe. The combination of low magnification and ED glass pays off. Slight reddish bias, reminiscent of the SE, that might contribute to their high apparent contrast.
1) Zeiss 8x42 FL—no visible CA in the centerfield, but slight amounts become apparent off axis. Neutral color presentation, maybe a hint of yellow.
3) Nikon EDG 8x32—no visible CA in the central 2/3 of the field, but distinct chartreuse and violet fringes apparent in the outer third in high contrast situations. Very similar color presentation to the SE, but with less CA toward the center field.
4) Nikon SE 8x32—very slight CA visible even in the center field if the eye is not well centered. CA becomes gradually more pronounced toward the edges. Not enough to bother me anywhere, though. Faint reddish bias.

Glare/control of stray light:
This was observed mainly by looking at the near vicinity of the moon and other bright sources at night. I’m not a fan of looking near the sun with binoculars.
1) Nikon EDG 8x32—superb. Objectives are set in pretty deep and are further shrouded by the ends of the flip-up lenscaps, and the internal baffling must be very good.
1-) Zeiss 8x42 FL—very nearly as good as the EDGs.
3) Nikon 8x32 SE—I could induce distinct lunar glare much further from the moon than either of the above two.
4) Zen-Ray 7x36 ED2—presence of distinct glare in edges of the field of view noted in other ED2 models appears in these as well, in level viewing under overcast skies. Shading the objectives greatly reduces but curiously does not eliminate the grey crescent—viewing a variably illuminated scene from deep shade several feet inside my roofed, screened patio it was strongly present, and even encroached toward the center field at times. Further shading the objectives with my hand somehow greatly reduced the crescent but did not eliminate it—this required putting my hand out much further than a Bushwhacker or Butler Creek rim would reach. Evidently strong illumination, such as reflected light from concrete or water in the foreground near or within the field of view can produce this kind of glare. Maybe not a fatal handicap, but it is very distracting. In A-B-C comparisons I could induce this crescent only very faintly and with effort in the Fls and not at all in the SE’s. The ED2s also show glare induced by point sources and minor internal reflections more readily than the top bins.

Resolution:
All four of these binoculars have very fine center field resolution in normal lighting conditions. These are listed in order of my naked-eye evaluation of their center field performance—edge sharpness would follow a different order.
1) Nikon 8x32 SE—Very sharp and broad sweet spot with decent sharpness to the edge, low astigmatism. Right barrel focuses stars to tiny dots, left not quite as good. Slightly better contrast than the Zeiss brings out fine detail. Resolution remains useful to the edge of the field in daytime viewing. If I want to distinguish the black eye in the cardinal’s black mask at 40 yards, this is still my choice.
1-) Zeiss 8x42 FL—Super resolution in the center field and a good sweet spot. Image degrades sharply in the outer 10% of the field. A tiny amount of coma in the left barrel. A smidge less contrast than the SE.
3) Zen-Ray 7x36 ED2—Amazing center field resolution and contrast for a 7x bin, to the naked eye. Backyard birds and waterbirds beautifully rendered when centered. Stars and a broadly illuminated planet Venus resolved well with very slight astigmatism. Off-axis performance not quite as good as the Nikons--sweet spot is proportionally the narrowest mainly due to field curvature, with sharpness starting to degrade halfway to the edge of field, and resolution degrades badly in the outer 10-15% of the field (the worst edge performance in the group by a definite margin—the super wide field spec might be better reduced with a slightly narrower field stop). In daylight it is still possible to get pretty good resolution near the edges by refocusing.
4) Nikon 8x32 EDG—Very good center field resolution and broad sweet spot. Even sharper at the edge than the SE. Some coma in left barrel center field. On stars, neither barrel was quite as sharp as the left SE barrel. In a very high quality group and by a very narrow margin, these came out worst in center field resolution and best on the edges.

Brightness:
Apples to oranges here due to differences in designs and exit pupils, but comparisons in evening/dusk viewing pan out like this:
1) Zeiss 8x42 FL—the combination of larger exit pupil and Abbe-Koenig prisms is tops. Useful in twilight for several minutes after either of the 32mm bins and retrieved detail in deep shadows the best of all.
2) Zen-Ray 7x36ED2—Neck and neck with the Zeisses for resolving shadow detail. Just visibly less bright than the Zeisses in dim conditions, perhaps due to difference in prism design, but a close second place.
3) Nikon 8x32 SE—These are a notch below the Zeisses and Zen-Rays due to smaller exit pupil, but are still the brightest 8x32s I’ve ever looked through. Distinctly brighter in low light than any 8x32 roof.
4) Nikon 8x32 EDG—A notch dimmer than the SEs, and so equivalent to other alpha 8x32 roofs like the Zeiss 8x32 Fls and 8x32 Ultravids. Along with dimmer overall view, the ability to resolve detail in deep shadows also is definitely reduced compared with larger aperture binoculars. This is my dilemma with the 8x32 roof format. Birders are not so concerned with low-light performance and in any decent light conditions these are very fine binoculars. But hunters love the dim witching hours and none of the 8x32 alpha roofs I’ve tried quite deliver the goods.

Tactile/build quality:
1) Nikon EDG 8x32—solid, grippy armor, smooth operating, quick focusing (6’ to infinity in 1 turn) that made viewing birds in flight relatively easy, plenty of eye relief, these feel so good they make your fingers tingle. It’s possible to dislodge the hinged, flip-up objective cap from its base if you bump it sharply when it’s open (it goes right back on). Interesting, quick-adjust neck strap, and the click-on IPD-adjustable ocular rainguard I like very much. Plenty of eye relief for anyone. Center focus knob slides up to uncover the diopter adjustment—it still slides up a little too easily but there is a detent now and I no longer think it’s as big a deal as it was on the 7x42.
2) Zeiss 8x42 FL—Plasticky feel has been much remarked on, but light and quick focusing, and in use they’ve proven to be tough and ergonomic. Good neckstrap and ocular rainguard supplied, and excellent tethered objective covers, made of thick, high-quality rubber so they won’t fall off and get lost. Plenty of eye relief for most eyeglass wearers. Diopter adjustment in the center focus knob.
3) Zen-Ray 7x36 ED2—Good, no-nonsense finish without the earlier zowie-inducing red and white graphics, lightweight, and felt good in my hands. Smooth focus with good resistance but still a trifle slow (1-1/4 turns from close focus (about 4’) to infinity, and slow travel in the near field). Shallow (i.e., good) thumb indents. Neck strap still inexplicably too long, but now not unusable. Objective covers still garbage, though upgraded covers are allegedly on the way. Ample eye relief for my bifocals. Diopter adjusts by a ring on the right barrel—simple, set and forget.
4) Nikon SE 8x32—Old school construction, fold-down eyecups, not immersion proof, and slowish focus by modern standards, but these are light, compact, smooth operating and rugged, and the beveled porro shape feels great in the hand. Accessories are of decent quality but are dated. Plenty of eye relief, too much for some people considering the fold-down eyecup design. Diopter adjusts by turning the right ocular and requires resetting from time to time.

Overall:
I’m not going to produce an overall ranking, because the above factors matter to different degrees to different users, and the subjects vary in price by a factor of 5 even including maximum discounts. In my subjective case the newcomers did not unseat my existing go-to bins, the Zeiss Fls and the Nikon SEs. The EDGs have gone back to the retailer—a very fine binocular but the bottom line is that they are heavier than the ED2s and the SEs and less bright than either.
The jury is out on the Zens. Their strengths (center field sharpness and contrast, brightness, color rendition) are in areas that are very important to me. Their weaknesses (edge sharpness, stray light control and slowish focus) are in areas that don’t usually fuss me very much. They are substantially brighter than any 8x32 roof I’ve ever owned or auditioned, they have enough magnification to provide excellent center field resolution, and they weigh the same as the SEs and 2 oz less than the EDGs. However, the stray light problem is a serious demerit and I will have to use them for a couple of weeks before I decide whether it’s a deal-breaker. I know the argument has been advanced that this only appears when the bins are tilted up at the sky or the eye is not centered. Tilting them upward from the horizontal does aggravate the problem, but in my 35 years or so of using binoculars I’ve found that birds not uncommonly appear above the horizontal, what with being able to fly and all. The argument that a particular bin is perfect but that I’m holding it wrong or looking at the wrong things with it is not persuasive. They either do the job for me or they don’t.
I’ll make up my mind on these pretty soon, because I’m quite tired of looking through binoculars to find their optical flaws. It’s time for the fall migration!

[FrankD]

Thank you for posting the comparative review fireform. Much appreciated. I received a great deal of enjoyment sitting here reading it this evening. I am surprised, after 40-odd views, that nobody else has responded. I liked the format and the fact that you did not draw any "ranking conclusions" at the end. Leave it up to the individual to determine what they find and don't find important in your observations.

The results don't surprise me that much. I think it depends on what your expectations are and what you value in a binocular. I am happy to see the SE still hold its own and actually excel compared to some of the "latest and greatest" roofs. I am also happy to see an up and comer stand with the big boys and fair reasonably well also.

[denco@comcast.n]

Here is my 4-way binocular shootout. I'm posting it here rather than in the Other forum because it involves two new bins that would be individually covered in different fora. I did not look at resolution charts or read the Miami Herald through these bins, but I did spend a good long time looking at birds and other natural objects through them. I also did not mount them on tripods, because I don't use binoculars like these on tripods in real life. I have long familiarity with the 8x42 Fls and the Nikon 8x32 SEs so I didn’t learn much new by reauditioning them. I had the Nikon 8x32 EDGs for about 3 weeks and have spent most of the past day and a half with the Zen-Ray ED2s in conditions ranging from twilight, nighttime, and dawn to mixed illumination to strong sunlight over water. The task this evening is to fit the ED2s in among the others where they belong:

Color and visible chromatic aberration:
I’m talking naked-eye performance here, no booster involved.
1) Zen-Ray 7x36 ED2—no visible CA in the inner 75% of the field of view, and only moderate amounts in the outer fringe. The combination of low magnification and ED glass pays off. Slight reddish bias, reminiscent of the SE, that might contribute to their high apparent contrast.
1) Zeiss 8x42 FL—no visible CA in the centerfield, but slight amounts become apparent off axis. Neutral color presentation, maybe a hint of yellow.
3) Nikon EDG 8x32—no visible CA in the central 2/3 of the field, but distinct chartreuse and violet fringes apparent in the outer third in high contrast situations. Very similar color presentation to the SE, but with less CA toward the center field.
4) Nikon SE 8x32—very slight CA visible even in the center field if the eye is not well centered. CA becomes gradually more pronounced toward the edges. Not enough to bother me anywhere, though. Faint reddish bias.

Glare/control of stray light:
This was observed mainly by looking at the near vicinity of the moon and other bright sources at night. I’m not a fan of looking near the sun with binoculars.
1) Nikon EDG 8x32—superb. Objectives are set in pretty deep and are further shrouded by the ends of the flip-up lenscaps, and the internal baffling must be very good.
1-) Zeiss 8x42 FL—very nearly as good as the EDGs.
3) Nikon 8x32 SE—I could induce distinct lunar glare much further from the moon than either of the above two.
4) Zen-Ray 7x36 ED2—presence of distinct glare in edges of the field of view noted in other ED2 models appears in these as well, in level viewing under overcast skies. Shading the objectives greatly reduces but curiously does not eliminate the grey crescent—viewing a variably illuminated scene from deep shade several feet inside my roofed, screened patio it was strongly present, and even encroached toward the center field at times. Further shading the objectives with my hand somehow greatly reduced the crescent but did not eliminate it—this required putting my hand out much further than a Bushwhacker or Butler Creek rim would reach. Evidently strong illumination, such as reflected light from concrete or water in the foreground near or within the field of view can produce this kind of glare. Maybe not a fatal handicap, but it is very distracting. In A-B-C comparisons I could induce this crescent only very faintly and with effort in the Fls and not at all in the SE’s. The ED2s also show glare induced by point sources and minor internal reflections more readily than the top bins.

Resolution:
All four of these binoculars have very fine center field resolution in normal lighting conditions. These are listed in order of my naked-eye evaluation of their center field performance—edge sharpness would follow a different order.
1) Nikon 8x32 SE—Very sharp and broad sweet spot with decent sharpness to the edge, low astigmatism. Right barrel focuses stars to tiny dots, left not quite as good. Slightly better contrast than the Zeiss brings out fine detail. Resolution remains useful to the edge of the field in daytime viewing. If I want to distinguish the black eye in the cardinal’s black mask at 40 yards, this is still my choice.
1-) Zeiss 8x42 FL—Super resolution in the center field and a good sweet spot. Image degrades sharply in the outer 10% of the field. A tiny amount of coma in the left barrel. A smidge less contrast than the SE.
3) Zen-Ray 7x36 ED2—Amazing center field resolution and contrast for a 7x bin, to the naked eye. Backyard birds and waterbirds beautifully rendered when centered. Stars and a broadly illuminated planet Venus resolved well with very slight astigmatism. Off-axis performance is another story--sweet spot is proportionally the narrowest, with sharpness starting to degrade halfway to the edge of field, and resolution degrades badly in the outer 10-15% of the field (the worst edge performance in the group by a definite margin—the super wide field spec might be better reduced with a slightly narrower field stop).
4) Nikon 8x32 EDG—Very good center field resolution and broad sweet spot. Even sharper at the edge than the SE. Some coma in left barrel center field. On stars, neither barrel was quite as sharp as the left SE barrel. In a very high quality group and by a very narrow margin, these came out worst in center field resolution and best on the edges.

Brightness:
Apples to oranges here due to differences in designs and exit pupils, but comparisons in evening/dusk viewing pan out like this:
1) Zeiss 8x42 FL—the combination of larger exit pupil and Abbe-Koenig prisms is tops. Useful in twilight for several minutes after either of the 32mm bins and retrieved detail in deep shadows the best of all.
2) Zen-Ray 7x36ED2—Neck and neck with the Zeisses for resolving shadow detail. Just visibly less bright than the Zeisses in dim conditions, perhaps due to difference in prism design, but a close second place.
3) Nikon 8x32 SE—These are a notch below the Zeisses and Zen-Rays due to smaller exit pupil, but are still the brightest 8x32s I’ve ever looked through. Distinctly brighter in low light than any 8x32 roof.
4) Nikon 8x32 EDG—A notch dimmer than the SEs, and so equivalent to other alpha 8x32 roofs like the Zeiss 8x32 Fls and 8x32 Ultravids. Along with dimmer overall view, the ability to resolve detail in deep shadows also is definitely reduced compared with larger aperture binoculars. This is my dilemma with the 8x32 roof format. Birders are not so concerned with low-light performance and in any decent light conditions these are very fine binoculars. But hunters love the dim witching hours and none of the 8x32 alpha roofs I’ve tried quite deliver the goods.

Tactile/build quality:
1) Nikon EDG 8x32—solid, grippy armor, smooth operating, quick focusing (6’ to infinity in 1 turn) that made viewing birds in flight relatively easy, plenty of eye relief, these feel so good they make your fingers tingle. It’s possible to dislodge the hinged, flip-up objective cap from its base if you bump it sharply when it’s open (it goes right back on). Interesting, quick-adjust neck strap, and the click-on IPD-adjustable ocular rainguard I like very much. Plenty of eye relief for anyone. Center focus knob slides up to uncover the diopter adjustment—it still slides up a little too easily but there is a detent now and I no longer think it’s as big a deal as it was on the 7x42.
2) Zeiss 8x42 FL—Plasticky feel has been much remarked on, but light and quick focusing, and in use they’ve proven to be tough and ergonomic. Good neckstrap and ocular rainguard supplied, and excellent tethered objective covers, made of thick, high-quality rubber so they won’t fall off and get lost. Plenty of eye relief for most eyeglass wearers. Diopter adjustment in the center focus knob.
3) Zen-Ray 7x36 ED2—Good, no-nonsense finish without the earlier zowie-inducing red and white graphics, lightweight, and felt good in my hands. Smooth focus with good resistance but still a trifle slow (1-1/4 turns from close focus (about 4’) to infinity, and slow travel in the near field). Shallow (i.e., good) thumb indents. Neck strap still inexplicably too long, but now not unusable. Objective covers still garbage, though upgraded covers are allegedly on the way. Ample eye relief for my bifocals. Diopter adjusts by a ring on the right barrel—simple, set and forget.
4) Nikon SE 8x32—Old school construction, fold-down eyecups, not immersion proof, and slowish focus by modern standards, but these are light, compact, smooth operating and rugged, and the beveled porro shape feels great in the hand. Accessories are of decent quality but are dated. Plenty of eye relief, too much for some people considering the fold-down eyecup design. Diopter adjusts by turning the right ocular and requires resetting from time to time.

Overall:
I’m not going to produce an overall ranking, because the above factors matter to different degrees to different users, and the subjects vary in price by a factor of 5 even including maximum discounts. In my subjective case the newcomers did not unseat my existing go-to bins, the Zeiss Fls and the Nikon SEs. The EDGs have gone back to the retailer—a very fine binocular but the bottom line is that they are heavier than the ED2s and the SEs and less bright than either.
The jury is out on the Zens. Their strengths (center field sharpness and contrast, brightness, color rendition) are in areas that are very important to me. Their weaknesses (edge sharpness, stray light control and slowish focus) are in areas that don’t usually fuss me very much. They are substantially brighter than any 8x32 roof I’ve ever owned or auditioned, they have enough magnification to provide excellent center field resolution, and they weigh the same as the SEs and 2 oz less than the EDGs. However, the stray light problem is a serious demerit and I will have to use them for a couple of weeks before I decide whether it’s a deal-breaker. I know the argument has been advanced that this only appears when the bins are tilted up at the sky or the eye is not centered. Tilting them upward from the horizontal does aggravate the problem, but in my 35 years or so of using binoculars I’ve found that birds not uncommonly appear above the horizontal, what with being able to fly and all. The argument that a particular bin is perfect but that I’m holding it wrong or looking at the wrong things with it is not persuasive. They either do the job for me or they don’t.
I’ll make up my mind on these pretty soon, because I’m quite tired of looking through binoculars to find their optical flaws. It’s time for the fall migration!

Nice review and comparison Fireform! One of the best I have ever seen on Bird Forum. Let us know if the Zen Ray's are keepers for you. Too me this kind of review is much more meaningful because as you say you don't use binoculars on a tripod when you are birding. I haven't tried the Nikon EDG but I have tried the other three and I agree with everything you say. The resolution and brightness on those Nikon 8x32 SE's are amazing for a 32mm aren't they. Sorry to hear the strap is still too long on the Zens and it sounds like they are sending you improved objective covers. When did you get your Zen Rays 7x36ED2? I still haven't received mine yet.

Dennis

[fugl]

Zen-Ray 7x36 ED2—presence of distinct glare in edges of the field of view noted in other ED2 models appears in these as well, in level viewing under overcast skies. Shading the objectives greatly reduces but curiously does not eliminate the grey crescent—viewing a variably illuminated scene from deep shade several feet inside my roofed, screened patio it was strongly present, and even encroached toward the center field at times. Further shading the objectives with my hand somehow greatly reduced the crescent but did not eliminate it—this required putting my hand out much further than a Bushwhacker or Butler Creek rim would reach. Evidently strong illumination, such as reflected light from concrete or water in the foreground near or within the field of view can produce this kind of glare. Maybe not a fatal handicap, but it is very distracting.

Thanks for your useful comments on the Zen 7 x 36. I’ve long wanted a high quality glass of that specification & was hoping that the Zen might meet the bill, but the glare you describe could be a deal breaker (I’ve had binoculars with excessive glare before & really don’t like it). So, I guess I’ll have to get my hands on a specimen & “try before I buy”.

[falcondude]

A post like this is what makes Birdforum my go-to place to gather binoculars information. Thank you. It is one excellent write-up to illustrate that there is no one-size-to-fit-all solution when it comes to binoculars. I am bit surprised that Nikon EDG didn't come up to the top for CA control since it also uses ED glasses. Maybe a sample variation? The fact that an up and comer is holding its own among top dogs is definitely a good news. When is 9x36 coming?

[kristoffer]

Great post. Good work! I really enjoyed reading it. Glad to hear that two $500 bins can compete vs the expensive ones.
It seems that Steve C was not this bothered by the stray light, different opinions or sample variations?

[Sancho]

...............birds not uncommonly appear above the horizontal, what with being able to fly and all.

LOL!!!
Superb "hands on, straight from the hip" comparison/review. Many thanks.

[FrankD]

It seems that Steve C was not this bothered by the stray light, different opinions or sample variations?


It is funny actually. I had my 7x36 and 8x43 ED 2s up at the hawkwatch yesterday for a good 4 hours. I, and another birdforum regular, used both repeatedly (and in my case exclusively) during that time. I totally forgot about the halo/ghosting/crescent discussion and in actual practice in that particular application never noticed it. I am going to have to go out and see if I can reproduce it.

[Fireform]

Thanks to everyone who plowed through such a long post and for the kind words. It is quite a luxury to be able to compare four such fine optics, and it is to be remembered that the ordering where CA and resolution are concerned is based on very fine differences among very high performing bins. None of the ED bins showed me any naked eye CA in the center field, and the resolution differences are tiny. Someone else might have declared a four-way tie for first, and I don't expect my choices over these four to be everyone else's choices.

The glare/stray light issue with the ED2s may well be subject to sample to sample variation, and I can easily imagine that some examples may be much better than mine, and that some versions of the ED2 might be better than others. I wasn't troubled with it with my 8x43 ED1s, for instance. However, my 7x36s do have it and it's strong enough to be disconcerting at times, especially when you're looking critically at a bin's performance. When you're out counting warblers and thinking about the birds you may well forget about it or not notice it. That's why I'm going to give the Zens some extended trial time.

[henry link]

Excellent review, fireform!

To get a handle on what's causing the glare issue it would be useful to examine the interior of the binocular with a magnifier under the conditions that induce it. Severity might be dependent on the position of the focuser. Sometimes the moving focusing lens covers a glare causing reflection at the edge of the objective at some focusing distances, but allows the reflection to be uncovered at other distances. Sometimes the edge of focusing lens is itself the problem, but the reflection is covered by the first prism aperture except at certain focusing distances. Sometimes the edge of the first prism aperture is the problem.

If you have a digital camera with manual focus and exposure settings you could try photographing the glare causing reflection by pointing the camera through the eyepiece and focusing on the exit pupil).

Henry

[Fireform]

Thanks, Henry!

I did some birding this morning with the Zens, and had great views of yellow-throated warblers and a pair of cardinals. Off axis sharpness in daylight is still pretty good and the glare was not distracting at all.

The glare issue is perplexing. Sometimes viewing into a high-glare situation--near the sun and over a wet, reflecting parking lot this morning, for instance--there was little glare apparent through the Zens. In other, seemingly less challenging circumstances looking away from the sun the grey crescent appears with a vengeance. I'll try to get a good photo of the situation if my camera skills are up to the job.

[kristoffer]

Reviews and opinions on other forums seem to indicate that the ed2 is very sharp, bright and in most respects (other then lenscups) a very good bin. That seem to contradict edz review where I had to struggle to find anything, was there anything?, positive about the ed2.

[Steve C]

Great post. Good work! I really enjoyed reading it. Glad to hear that two $500 bins can compete vs the expensive ones.
It seems that Steve C was not this bothered by the stray light, different opinions or sample variations?

No Steve C is not affected by the glare issue. I do wonder what in the world is going on too. I have a question for those who see the glare. Do you wear glasses with binoculars? I do not. Fireform indicates he does, I am pretty sure Kevin Purcell, who has posted ED 1 glare comments wears glasses. I don't think Frank D wears glasses either. I don't think anybody is reporting anything other than just what is was they saw, so something seems to me to be up. I will note that if I put on my reading glasses, then the flare is more of an issue, but mine are pretty cheap glasses with no particular anti reflection coatings.

Fireform, thanks for that review. What you saw is not really unexpected. While I have always said the ZEN ED is good glass, I have never been one to tout it as the alpha equal. The only differences I see from my ZEN compared to Fireform's comments are 1- I have to work to get the glare to express itself. If I don't go looking, it seems absent. 2- I see a lot less edge distortion than what Fireform describes. Yes there is some edge distortion/field curvature, but the 7x36 sweet spot is wider than the whole 8x43 ED 2 fov. The 8x43 ED 2 is sharper to the edge than the 7x36. To really see the distortion on the 7x36, I have to stop and literally squint sideways through the binocular. That examination of the field edge for imperfections seems to me to be an un-natural act (I can accept the fact that it bothers some people and do not expect everyone to see what everyone else does). I think I would pretty well notice a sweet spot that was so narrow as to begin at 50% out from center in the fov. But with the 9* or so of the 7x36, I do not even notice the edge under typical viewing. I suppose I should note that when I go looking for glare, it is easier to find in the 7x36, which leads me to wonder if the desire to maximize fov at some point becomes counterproductive. In other words, we get some glare and edge faults.

So, right now my take on the flare issue is "So what if there is some glare induced if you have to go looking toward light sources to find it". This is a $400 binocular, not a $4,000 binocular. Frankly if there was glare like that for me in normal use, I would have just sent the original ZEN ED back to Charles with a thank you note and would not have posted a single syllable about them. A binocular is a collection of compromises, and we can either live with the collection, or get another collection until we find a collection we can get along with.

I am in total agreement with Fireform in that I am getting sick and tired of looking for flaws in binoculars. I doubt I quit doing it because, among other things it is an educational journey. So I suppose the glare issue is going to be a personal thing. I can see glare with anything alpha it I look up at an angle through foliage in the general direction of the sun against a back lit sky.

I will also note that I tend to see a binocular at first view as a glass half full. If there is nothing that immediately pokes me in the eye, I concentrate on what I like, with dislikes being secondary in my examination. I am not particularly susceptible to (or at least bothered by) a lot of flaws a lot of people see either.

Anyway, I have no intention of taking the position of Ike Clanton to Fireforms' Wyatt Earp there at the OK corral. Besides, Ike got the short end of the stick in that one.

[Kevin Conville]

Nice objective review Fireform, thanks!

As I read-
"I know the argument has been advanced that this only appears when the bins are tilted up at the sky or the eye is not centered. Tilting them upward from the horizontal does aggravate the problem, but in my 35 years or so of using binoculars I’ve found that birds not uncommonly appear above the horizontal, what with being able to fly and all."

I smiled |:d|

[Bob A (SD)]

Fireform,

Outstanding. Thank you.

And SteveC, as always I appreciate your sage comments :)

[edz]

To get a handle on what's causing the glare issue it would be useful to examine the interior of the binocular with a magnifier under the conditions that induce it. Severity might be dependent on the position of the focuser. Sometimes the moving focusing lens covers a glare causing reflection at the edge of the objective at some focusing distances, but allows the reflection to be uncovered at other distances. Sometimes the edge of focusing lens is itself the problem, but the reflection is covered by the first prism aperture except at certain focusing distances. Sometimes the edge of the first prism aperture is the problem.

Henry

and quote
"I know the argument has been advanced that this only appears when the bins are tilted up at the sky or the eye is not centered. Tilting them upward from the horizontal does aggravate the problem, but in my 35 years or so of using binoculars I’ve found that birds not uncommonly appear above the horizontal, what with being able to fly and all."

Could very well be that argument was incorrectly advanced, as it is incomplete and not representative of the conditions under which the issue is present. For instance, here's the essential paragraph out of my review of the issue:

[ I set up several binoculars, all tripod mounted, with all the binoculars viewing level. I pointed them at a dark woods scene in the trees about 120 feet across my yard. My trees are fairly tall, about 80 feet high. Very bright overcast skylight was pouring in over the tops of the trees. I would say sky was up at an angle about 30° to 40° above my view.

With the binoculars level and with my eyes positioned perfectly behind them, the glare is quite apparent. The glare shows across the bottom of the field of view. So this proved to me, it wasn't a result of my head angle, since in this test, I'm standing straight behind the mounted binoculars, at ease, and looking level, straight on into the exit pupil which is elevated to my eye level. ]

In this test, binoculars were level, not pointing up at an angle; sky was overcast, not viewing towards the sun; eye position was straight on and centered. Not representative of the specific condition advanced in several posts.

I've now had opportunity to test a second sample ED2 8x43. The glare issue is identical to the 1st sample.


Henry is correct. And he has pointed out (for the second time) what some of the points of interest may be in finding the source. I used a loupe to observe the exit pupils of several binoculars in which the glare issue was present. Particularly in the Zen, but also in several others, you can see the glare surface move as you focus the binocular. It seems possible it may be the internal focusing mechanism. It did not get smaller as I moved the focuser all the way forward, so it's not covering up something as it moves. That leaves the question is it a metal surface or is it a lens edge? Could it be an unblackened lens edge in the movable focusing lens? Not sure, but using a loupe to look at the exit pupil, you can for certain see the glare move as you turn thru focus.

edz

[ronh]

Fireform,
This kind of review is still my favorite. Objective optical measurements are interesting and useful, but often don't relate very well to, or at least don't nearly cover all the issues encountered in, real life use. Impressions will vary among individuals, but this review is outstanding.
Ron

[falcondude]

Reviews and opinions on other forums seem to indicate that the ed2 is very sharp, bright and in most respects (other then lenscups) a very good bin. That seem to contradict edz review where I had to struggle to find anything, was there anything?, positive about the ed2.

Just saw Surveyor's technical review on 7x36.

http://birdforum.net/showthread.php?p=1560294#post1560294

[Fireform]

Here are pictures of the Zen-Ray 7x36 oculars, first at infinite focus and second at minimum focus:

Infinite focus (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v281/Fireform/DSC_0025.jpg)

Minimum focus (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v281/Fireform/DSC_0024.jpg)

The glare crescent typically manifests itself in the lower left, opposite the bright arc in the infinite focus photo.

[henry link]

Well done, Fireform.

The "minimum focus" image shows the very sort of bright reflection ring at the edge of the exit pupil that causes the veiling glare you've described.

The Infinite focus image is harder to read. Either the exit pupil in that photo is so overexposed that no detail can be seen in it, or the focusing lens has moved close enough to the prism aperture to disappear from view. If it's the former we just can't tell anything from the photo. If it's the latter, then the culprit is the edge of the focusing lens (as Edz suggested earlier) and the severity of the problem will vary with distance. At very long distances there may be little or no glare when the focusing lens edge is masked by the prism aperture, but as the focusing lens moves forward at shorter distances it's shiny edge will become visible at the edge of the exit pupil and cause veiling glare under the right lighting conditions.

BTW, the bright arc to the upper right of the exit pupil would not be a problem. It could be masked by the eyepiece fieldstop, but even if it isn't it is so far outside the exit pupil that it could never enter the eye.

[Fireform]

It's too dark out now to take another whack at the infinite focus picture, but maybe I can take a look at it tomorrow morning. I had not thought about it varying with distance, but that might be part of it. I was watching my dog through them this evening under a bright sky at about 15 yards and the glare about drove me batty. I could make it go away but only by moving my eye way off axis.

[Fireform]

I looked at the exit pupil with a loupe tonight, and although the light conditions in the house are not conducive for photographing it I think I am beginning to dimly perceive what's going on. The edge of the exit pupil, what I suppose is the rim of the focusing lens, is set in or held in place by a metal ring. This metal ring is fairly wide and although it has a black finish it is reflective and not matte. The reflection off that ring appears to be causing the glare and it seems to be more or less equally reflective regardless of the focus position. The bright arc in the infinite focus picture above is the reflection of the light from that surface off another surface outside the exit pupil and is itself more or less innocuous.

I have the feeling that if that one detail were amended I could be very happy with these bins.

[shaocaholica]

Perhaps someone at Zen could simply take apart a pair and check for sure. This could easily be solved in a day if one were to sacrifice a pair.

[Steve C]

I looked at the exit pupil with a loupe tonight, and although the light conditions in the house are not conducive for photographing it I think I am beginning to dimly perceive what's going on.

You may be onto something. When I read your post with the photos and this most recent post, I looked at my ED. When mine are set at minimum focus the bright crescent glare in your photo is there in mine. With my particular binoculars, 8x43 ED 2, as I adjust outward to infinity, the point where the crescent of light goes away is just about precisely the point where I have the binocular set for normal distance viewing, with a focus point some 200 or so meters distant. With my 7x36 the crescent disappears when the central focus distance is moved from close in to about 50 feet away.

I can see the ring you mention. So maybe it is an easy fix. In my ED 1 there is an ever so slight cresent (perhaps 10% or so the size of your picture) present at all points in the focus movement.

[Bob A (SD)]

So maybe it is an easy fix.

Steve,

If this is indeed the root cause, it certainly sounds like it'd be an easy fix for future production, but replacing this ring with a non-reflective piece would require re-collimation of the bins already sold wouldn't it? Wouldn't that be rather costly for Charles to do for those of us who have been early adopters?

[Fireform]

But, what sort of person would take advantage of the 30 day return policy to send their early-release Zens back and wait for a debugged edition?

[Steve C]

Well these happen to be keepers for me and both of mine are a non issue. I suspect most might be non issues. It also depends on what is really the root cause. This sounds promising, but who knows. I don't pretend to have the answer.

[shaocaholica]

I doubt ZR could fix the issue within 30 days even if they sent word out to the factory last week.

It might be more cost efficient to offer a service to replace the offending part at cost although I'm not sure how much work it would be to disassemble an ED2 and re-seal/argon purge/water test.

[Bob A (SD)]

But, what sort of person would take advantage of the 30 day return policy to send their early-release Zens back and wait for a debugged edition?

If you're responding to my post, you're reading w-a-y too much into my comments. In no way was I advocating what you're inferring. My question simply wonders how costly such a fix of existing bins would be and whether collimation would also be required. And that despite Charles' superb record of customer service, that such costs would undoubtedly be out of the question, especially with not everyone having issues with the glare problem.... Me included if you also have read my posts elsewhere (e.g. the Other sub-forum). You would have noted that I have not been among those who has had issues with glare. I have absolutely NO intentions of returning these to Charles for glare problems.

I just came in from about 45 minutes under a nice clear sky comparing the 7x36 with my Swaro 7x42 SLCs.

I use the automatic e-mails indicating favorable viewing conditions available from: http://cleardarksky.com/csk/

Tonight my location included this projection:
Opportunities to observe at: (Clouds/Trans/Seeing)
08-17 @ Hour 21 for 2 hours (0%/Average/Average)

The minor objective size difference did not produce detectable differences in the views. That was a surprise as I had expected maybe a slight edge to the 7x42s. Both gave crisp pinpoint star images against inky black backgrounds. The Zens of course give the wider view. Both have fall off around the edges with the Zens having a bit less sweet spot than the Swaros but when the FOV is factored in.... Again another surprise as I had expected a smaller sweet spot based on some tests reported in the 7x36 evaluation thread. This even using the averted vision approach to binoviewing the starry skies. About the only place I gave a distinct thumbs up to the Swaros over the Zens was with the winged eyecups I have in use. They do a superb job of killing any stray side lighting and would be nice to have on the Zens.

[ronh]

The finish on the surface of the internal-focus machinery is of great interest to me. And no, I don't have much of a social life.

In my 8x42 Trinovid BA, I can see, upon shining a flashlight into the bino, that the carriage and supporting mechanism are bare aluminum, albeit very finely matte finished and knife edge ribbed.

In my new 8x42 FL, I eagerly pointed the flashlight in, only to see precisely the same treatment.

This doesn't really surprise me. In my work, I often use surfaces that have been coated with dendritic "grown" blackening, to supress reflected light. While these coatings can appear shockingly black when viewed face-on, they reflect light surprisingly well at glancing angles. As well, in fact, as bare, normally machined aluminum!!

Could it be that those guys at Zeiss and Leica actually know what they are doing?
Ron

[Howard220]

Now you're getting the idea. :) Hold your binoculars up to the open sky and look through the objective ends. What do you see? Unpainted surfaces? Painted but otherwise shiny surfaces? Lens edge reflections? It's too bad these are not instruments we consumers can take apart to deal with these issues. Years ago, Celestron, Orion, et al came out with an inexpensive 80mm f/6 refractor that we amateur astronomers glommed onto. They were good, but suffered from this aberration, that reflection.... Some guys came up with a list of things to do, many of which were to paint unpainted internal surfaces with matte black paint -- or even magic marker. But we could do this because we were able to remove the objective and the focuser. With binoculars we don't have that kind of luxury.

[Fireform]

BobA, my post was rhetorical, not directed at you, and it was also meant in fun. The sort of person who might return them may very well be me. :-O

As so often happens, EdZ and Henry had it right the first time. This glare problem is most obvious to me in subdued lighting situations and one reason I noticed it right away is that my first testing of this binocular involved low-light performance, which I am very interested in, and night viewing. They are potentially a great binocular, but IMO, based on the one I have in hand, they have a significant flaw.

As I said before, I don't expect everyone to agree with my opinion and many viewers are likely to be thrilled with the considerable strengths of the ED2s.

[Jonathan B.]

I have heard via e-mail from two people regarding experiences this past weekend with the ED2, both 8x43 and 7x36. The 8x43 gets a strong thumbs up for its optical performance, but the 7x36 has apparently disappointed in one area that is not mentioned here.

It seems everybody is impressed with the sharpness of the 7x36 sweet spot. However in addition to stated concerns about flare and dropoff in sharpness toward the edge, both people e-mailing me mentioned pronounced slack or backlash in the focusing wheel of the 7x36. Can any of you comment on that, and also whether you have experienced it in the 8x43?

There is a new post in another thread (See MargaretC's post here: http://birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=148796&page=3) in which the focus knob of the 10X ED2 is described as "sloppy."

[falcondude]

stated concerns about flare and dropoff in sharpness toward the edge.

I might have read it wrong. The edge performance of 7x36 seem to be decent from I have read. You guys expect too much: wide FOV AND edge to edge sharpness.

[Fireform]

I have heard via e-mail from two people regarding experiences this past weekend with the ED2, both 8x43 and 7x36. The 8x43 gets a strong thumbs up for its optical performance, but the 7x36 has apparently disappointed in one area that is not mentioned here.

It seems everybody is impressed with the sharpness of the 7x36 sweet spot. However in addition to stated concerns about flare and dropoff in sharpness toward the edge, both people e-mailing me mentioned pronounced slack or backlash in the focusing wheel of the 7x36. Can any of you comment on that, and also whether you have experienced it in the 8x43?

There is a new post in another thread (See MargaretC's post here: http://birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=148796&page=3) in which the focus knob of the 10X ED2 is described as "sloppy."

Yes, I mentioned this in another thread. I wouldn't quite call mine sloppy, but there are a few degrees of backlash in the focus knob of my 7x36s. It wasn't immediately apparent but I guess as the lubricant spread out in the mechanism I began to notice it.

[Bob A (SD)]

It seems everybody is impressed with the sharpness of the 7x36 sweet spot. However in addition to stated concerns about flare and dropoff in sharpness toward the edge, both people e-mailing me mentioned pronounced slack or backlash in the focusing wheel of the 7x36. Can any of you comment on that?

Mine aren't evidencing any backlash at all. Note that several folks have said the same thing but then noticed a very small amount after quite a bit of use. Mine have only see a few hours use thusfar, so.... As an aside when looking at the stars last night I did note that the infinity focus was at the one end of the focusing knob travel with not much excess at all to spare. As long as focus is achieved I suppose it's no big deal. Someone else commented that they would have preferred a bit more overtravel in the range.

[mooreorless]

" As an aside when looking at the stars last night I did note that the infinity focus was at the one end of the focusing knob travel with not much excess at all to spare. As long as focus is achieved I suppose it's no big deal. Someone else commented that they would have preferred a bit more overtravel in the range."

Hi Bob this might be a problem with some people that don't wear glasses to adj. their eye "problem". I think hyperopia.
Regards,Steve

[Bob A (SD)]

" As an aside when looking at the stars last night I did note that the infinity focus was at the one end of the focusing knob travel with not much excess at all to spare. As long as focus is achieved I suppose it's no big deal. Someone else commented that they would have preferred a bit more overtravel in the range."

Hi Bob this might be a problem with some people that don't wear glasses to adj. their eye "problem". I think hyperopia.
Regards,Steve

Steve,

Understood. I'm near-sighted. I don't wear my glasses when using bins or telescopes. BTW they're progressive trifocals:
R: -0.75 -0.75 55 L: -1.25 -0.50 130 +225 PAL

[Steve C]

I have heard via e-mail from two people regarding experiences this past weekend with the ED2, both 8x43 and 7x36. The 8x43 gets a strong thumbs up for its optical performance, but the 7x36 has apparently disappointed in one area that is not mentioned here.

It seems everybody is impressed with the sharpness of the 7x36 sweet spot. However in addition to stated concerns about flare and drop off in sharpness toward the edge, both people e-mailing me mentioned pronounced slack or backlash in the focusing wheel of the 7x36. Can any of you comment on that, and also whether you have experienced it in the 8x43?

There is a new post in another thread (See MargaretC's post here: http://birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=148796&page=3) in which the focus knob of the 10X ED2 is described as "sloppy."

Well, when you get 9* or so fov, some edge distortion is inevitable. People seem to get overly concerned with edge sharpness.

Now both of my ED 2's are keepers. There is no flare that I can see in mine. Just in mine, I am not saying others are not seeing what they see. I can see the crescent as posted by Fireform, just not the glare unless I really LOOK for it. I happen to be completely satisfied with the edge sharpness as well as other optical parameters.

The focus on the ED 2 seems to be to be a bit stiffer than the ED 1, but I really have no idea what "sloppy" focus means. In other threads and posts,I have taken it to mean focus that it too stiff, too easily moved, too slow, or that has some backlash, ie a dead spot of varying degrees where some slack needs to be taken up before the focus movement actually changes focus (as more or less described by Johnathan B), or maybe that the feel wasn't quite "right". Mine have no slack in the middle and I can see no particular problems. However, focus characteristics are of paramount importance to a lot of people. Focus traction seems about the same to me in both my 7x36 and 8x43, but the focus travel is a bit less in the 7x36.

As to edge effects, I agree there seems to be too much nit-picking over a wide fov and edge to edge sharpness. Keep in mind that only Swarovski seems to offer edge to edge flat field sharpness in their yet to be delivered new and improved EL. We are also taking a lot more money than the current EL too.

I have asked Charles to send me a returned binocular or two with focus or glare complaints. I am curious to see what difference there exists between those units and mine.

[FrankD]

I have asked Charles to send me a returned binocular or two with focus or glare complaints. I am curious to see what difference there exists between those units and mine.

That is something that I would be interested in Steve. I am having a problem discovering this issue. Comparing your unit with one that is of "returnable quality" should make for an interesting discussion point.

[Steve C]

That is something that I would be interested in Steve. I am having a problem discovering this issue. Comparing your unit with one that is of "returnable quality" should make for an interesting discussion point.

Yeah, I have a hard time seeing it as a practical matter of significance. I don't want anybody to misunderstand me, I do not wish to try and tell everybody they are crazy. It may well be I am crazy, who knows. But usually I can get a pretty good handle on what others describe, not here. It seems something is going on. It may well be a too much fov issue too, that was posted someplace. Things like focus traction I can pretty well understand, but this crescent glare has be baffled a bit. There seem to be good observations of its presence, as well as its absence.

[Fireform]

Who knows? You might even get to see my pair.

Having looked at the innards of this binocular, though, I think they should all be pretty much the same unless for some unlikely reason the MFG is using matted rings in some and not in others. It's an intermittent problem that depends on particular circumstances--at this point I think that moderate to low light in the field of view with a brightish sky or other illumination off axis brings it out most strongly. If you use it under those circumstances the glare is likely to bother you a lot, and if not you may not notice it. I've found it only faintly noticeable in bright sun, but that doesn't mean it's not affecting what I see.

[mayoayo]

Fireform:..I forgot, In the pictures You took of the glare,..Was it more evident at close focus?..Is this when the focusing lens is closer to the objective or towards the back?...

[Fireform]

The bright reflection outside the exit pupil is more prominent at infinite focus, but that is just a secondary reflection from the focus lens ring off of something else. If anything, the reflection that causes the actual glare within the field of view is more prominent at closer focus, because the focus lens retaining ring is more exposed nearer to the objective.

I had a good look inside the objective end of the Zens, and it's remarkable how well they perform considering how much bare metal there is inside them and how rough some of the finishing is. It's a very different view from what you see inside an alpha bin. The inner surface of the metal ring retaining the focusing lens is not black as it appeared from the ocular end through the loupe, but bare aluminum. So, there's a good deal of light bouncing around in there. That so little of it affects the view certainly speaks to good overall design.

[Nova88]

well fireform no one could say that your not thorough thanks for the interesting reviews

[Tero]

The internal components are made of some stable material, and metal certainly holds things in place. I have no idea how you then make all the parts black. But if it is some coating, then there is risk of the coating pieces falling off and showing up as specs.

[Howard220]

Black anodizing?

That is, maybe that's a method of properly painting the surfaces without future deterioration.

[Sancho]

The internal components are made of some stable material, and metal certainly holds things in place. I have no idea how you then make all the parts black. But if it is some coating, then there is risk of the coating pieces falling off and showing up as specs.
I once bought a pair of Swaro EL´s in a store and didn´t check them properly. When I checked later, I saw two black specks in the barrels when I looked through the objectives. Pretty horrified, I took them back and the guy in the store changed them, commenting (pretty casually) that it was probably specks of "paint". I couldn´t understand why paint would be inside a pair of very expensive binoculars.

[NDhunter]

Overall:
I’m not going to produce an overall ranking, because the above factors matter to different degrees to different users, and the subjects vary in price by a factor of 5 even including maximum discounts. In my subjective case the newcomers did not unseat my existing go-to bins, the Zeiss Fls and the Nikon SEs. The EDGs have gone back to the retailer—a very fine binocular but the bottom line is that they are heavier than the ED2s and the SEs and less bright than either.
The jury is out on the Zens. Their strengths (center field sharpness and contrast, brightness, color rendition) are in areas that are very important to me. Their weaknesses (edge sharpness, stray light control and slowish focus) are in areas that don’t usually fuss me very much. They are substantially brighter than any 8x32 roof I’ve ever owned or auditioned, they have enough magnification to provide excellent center field resolution, and they weigh the same as the SEs and 2 oz less than the EDGs. However, the stray light problem is a serious demerit and I will have to use them for a couple of weeks before I decide whether it’s a deal-breaker. I know the argument has been advanced that this only appears when the bins are tilted up at the sky or the eye is not centered. Tilting them upward from the horizontal does aggravate the problem, but in my 35 years or so of using binoculars I’ve found that birds not uncommonly appear above the horizontal, what with being able to fly and all. The argument that a particular bin is perfect but that I’m holding it wrong or looking at the wrong things with it is not persuasive. They either do the job for me or they don’t.
I’ll make up my mind on these pretty soon, because I’m quite tired of looking through binoculars to find their optical flaws. It’s time for the fall migration!

Fireform: Now that the glare issue is becoming more known in the Zen Ray, I hope you update your review. The Zen Ray, does not even belong in the same corral as these other fine bins.

[shaocaholica]

The internal components are made of some stable material, and metal certainly holds things in place. I have no idea how you then make all the parts black. But if it is some coating, then there is risk of the coating pieces falling off and showing up as specs.

A chemical finish process which actually reacts with the material will have a much less chance of separation than simply "coating". These chemical processes have been around for a while although some of the tougher ones are a bit pricey.

[falcondude]

I once bought a pair of Swaro EL´s in a store and didn´t check them properly. When I checked later, I saw two black specks in the barrels when I looked through the objectives. Pretty horrified, I took them back and the guy in the store changed them, commenting (pretty casually) that it was probably specks of "paint". I couldn´t understand why paint would be inside a pair of very expensive binoculars.


another post also reports dust issue with his binoculars

http://birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=148712

[Kevin Purcell]

They were Zeiss but the OP was too timid to say.

And Dalat's Leica's too.

Obviously there is something going around in the alpha bin world. ;)

[spyglass2]

I vote for the SE, to keep porro-binocularing alive!! Bring back the premium dogleg.....!

[Fireform]

That would be a dream of mine, too. The SE with ED glass, twist-up eyecups and a little faster focus.

Sigh.