Zeiss 10x42 FL T* - first birding field trip

[Rich N]

This morning I took my new Zeiss 10x42 FL T* binocular on its first birding field trip. I don't know what more I could ask for in a birding binocular. It was just outstanding. The images were bright, clear, sharp, and high contrast. It was a pleasure scanning the hills and marsh areas. We had rain showers off and on, enough that the group decided to cut the morning trip short by about 45 minutes. We saw quite a few wet birds. It was interesting to see them trying to dry out. We were at Coyote Hills Regional Park, near Newark, California.
http://www.ebparks.org/parks/coyote.htm

I also had my Leica APO 77 Televid with 20-60 Zoom. It perforned just fine as always. I got a brief look through a Zeiss 85mm spotting scope. It was very nice but didn't have my Leica out at the time for a comparison.

I found I could easily hold and focus the Zeiss 10x42 FL with my right hand while I was holding my spotting scope and tripod on left shoulder with my left hand. I thought at 10x it would be really difficult but with a little practice it was easy.

Thank you Zeiss!

Rich

[Steve Napier]

Thanks for that Rich.
Just out of interest,is this model tripod adaptable?
Im seriously thinking of buying the 7x42 model as the larger field and easier hand held image would be an advantage for me.
Thanks,
Steve.

[Rich N]

Thanks for that Rich.
Just out of interest,is this model tripod adaptable?
Im seriously thinking of buying the 7x42 model as the larger field and easier hand held image would be an advantage for me.
Thanks,
Steve.

Thank you Steve.

AFAIK, my Zeiss 10x42 FL doesn't have a tripod lug. Does Zeiss offer their FLs with tripod lugs?

There have been several devices on the market to hold non lugged binoculars to tripods.

I didn't buy this Zeiss 10x42 FL with the idea of using it on a tripod.

I have tried to like 7x binoculars but keep finding them just not enough. I much prefer 8x binoculars. Look at the object rather than looking at the field. Like looking at an object on the shore when standing in a rocking boat.

Rich

[Leif]

Thank you Steve.

AFAIK, my Zeiss 10x42 FL doesn't have a tripod lug. Does Zeiss offer their FLs with tripod lugs?

There have been several devices on the market to hold non lugged binoculars to tripods.

I didn't buy this Zeiss 10x42 FL with the idea of using it on a tripod.

I have tried to like 7x binoculars but keep finding them just not enough. I much prefer 8x binoculars. Look at the object rather than looking at the field. Like looking at an object on the shore when standing in a rocking boat.

Rich

I have seen in the online Zeiss info for the FL a picture of a clamp to hold an FL on a tripod. It is just like the Leica one, whereby the binocular rests on a shaped seat, and is held in place by a strap, presumably fastened with Velcro. The idea is good but I haven't tried one so cannot comment on the realisation.

[Grousemore]

In the instructions for use booklet that came with the FL's, it states;
"The binoculars of the Victory FL series can be mounted on any commercial camera tripod using the Zeiss universal tripod adaptor for binoculars"

[Steve Napier]

Have just recieved the new Zeiss brouchre today with the 8x30 and 10x30 FL models.
There is a type of thick strip/seat that can be purchased as an tripod adapter,the binocular seems to be held in place with a thick looking strap.
The new brouchres can be ordered directly from Zeiss via their website.
Steve.

[hinnark]

Have just recieved the new Zeiss brouchre today with the 8x30 and 10x30 FL models.
There is a type of thick strip/seat that can be purchased as an tripod adapter,the binocular seems to be held in place with a thick looking strap.
The new brouchres can be ordered directly from Zeiss via their website.
Steve.

I once chose the Leica tripod adapter because it works with almost every roof prism binocular not only the Leicas so I can use it with most of my binoculars from pocket bino to the big ones. It works also with little porro binos. The advertised Zeiss tripod adapter looks like as if it could perform even better in respect of universal use than the Leica adapter. The (rubber?) strap seems adjustable by length and the platform is rounded so it should be possible to put even a big porro bino on it. It would be interesting to try this when the adapter is available.

Steve

[Steve Napier]

I made a mistake above,I should have said 8x32 FL and 10x32FL.
Steve.

[hg1]

I made a mistake above,I should have said 8x32 FL and 10x32FL.
Steve.
Over the weekend I had my first chance to use the new FLs (8x40). Although I was not able to use them under adverse weather conditions and I had them in my hands for only a short time, they impressed me as being very nice glasses. Sharp in the center, bright, and contrasty. They certainly hold their own with the competition. However, would I scrape up my pennies to replace my current binocs (Leica 8x30 and Victory 2 10x40)? Probably not - I don't consider them a significant advance over their rivals.

Regarding build quality - it seemed pretty good to me. The fall-off in sharpness away from the center of the field of view was way more noticeable than in my Victory 2s and I guess that I might have a hard time getting used to that.

[Henry B]

They are compared to a Ferrari in a Skoda body kit in bird watching mag to-day.

[Blincodave]

Have not read the aforementioned article in bird watching mag but do you realise just how good Skodas are these days! Not sure this would make much sense to our N. American members!

[Ben O]

They are compared to a Ferrari in a Skoda body kit in bird watching mag to-day.

I read that review as well today and my conclusion was that Mr Winter should stick to writing in the tabloid newspapers. Just what was all that rubbish about Jeremy Clarkson and car reviews? It was a big review small on what was important to someone like myself who is looking to buy a pair of top end binos, in fact awaiting delivery of 8x42FL. Bring back Dudley, all is forgiven!!
Having handled the binos I can vouch that body is superb for practical birding and that's exactly what I will use them for, not some birding fashion show.
Cheers,
Ben

[mak]

If you actually read the review, you will see that the writer mentions how good they feel (meaty is the word) and how snugly they fit in the hand, he then contradicts himself with the last two paragraphs. He is very enthusiastic about the optics and the performance.

[John Traynor]

If you actually read the review, you will see that the writer mentions how good they feel (meaty is the word) and how snugly they fit in the hand, he then contradicts himself with the last two paragraphs. He is very enthusiastic about the optics and the performance. The anti FL brigade will no doubt pick up on the negative parts.

I guess we can all give up on the notion of world peace.

We're discussing a stupid binocular, whose cost exceeds the annual income of most people on planet earth, and we can't agree to disagree with dignity. How shameful.

John Traynor

[Donzo98]

We're discussing a stupid binocular, whose cost exceeds the annual income of most people on planet earth, and we can't agree to disagree with dignity. How shameful.

John Traynor

I agree with you John... very sad indeed.

Don

[Pinewood]

Have not read the aforementioned article in bird watching mag but do you realise just how good Skodas are these days! Not sure this would make much sense to our N. American members!
Blincodave,

Was not the Skoda a Czech automobile, marked by the absence of many comforts, like a fuel gague, found in western vehicles? I believe that an appearance of one in the USA would start a twitch.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur Pinewood

[jmjutras]

I have to agree with both Don and John. Look's to me like a Zeiss FL religion is born. It (the religion) has arguments of it's own: barely any CA, light weigth, etc., but one Achiles heel: soft edge = small "sweet spot". Or should I say "alleged small sweet spot" (for the religion tends to dismiss it as a plot from American operatives working on behalf of any company but Zeiss). This "sweet spot" is really the only "real" negative (or questionable) point emerging from all I've read on this forum about the Zeiss FL (with one exception: John's comment about the FL robustness and dioptre adjustment, both off which have been contradicted by basicaly every other posts). Sorry to put you in the "Lime Light" John, but you do stand out on these two specific aspects (minor aspects should I say). But then again subjective impressions are exactly that: subjective impressions. And what's wrong with that? If you don't agree with it you just say otherwise (that's the point). People will sort it out. NOW, my scoop: most if not every one of those talking about a small "sweet spot" in the FL are also ASTRONOMERS. Can it be that astronomers are trained to look at the entire field of view (after all, a star at the very edge of the field of view is as much a star as any other). In birding it's different, we tend to focuss on the bird's features. Well first the bird, but then the eye, the beak the claws, etc. Just food for talk...

[Rico]

Photography is my main diversion and uniform performance across the field is a desirable property for most subjects. More than overall sharpness, the relative lack of sharpness off-center is quite noticeable in a static image like a print or projected slide.

I find the FL performance disconcerting, firstly because I'm a CZ fan and secondly because I like to tripod-mount my camera or bins and scan a scene by eye. The Victory 8x20 has limited FOV and significant field curvature, hence my interest in something better.

[Rich N]

I have to agree with both Don and John. Look's to me like a Zeiss FL religion is born. It (the religion) has arguments of it's own: barely any CA, light weigth, etc., but one Achiles heel: soft edge = small "sweet spot". Or should I say "alleged small sweet spot" (for the religion tends to dismiss it as a plot from American operatives working on behalf of any company but Zeiss). This "sweet spot" is really the only "real" negative (or questionable) point emerging from all I've read on this forum about the Zeiss FL (with one exception: John's comment about the FL robustness and dioptre adjustment, both off which have been contradicted by basicaly every other posts). Sorry to put you in the "Lime Light" John, but you do stand out on these two specific aspects (minor aspects should I say). But then again subjective impressions are exactly that: subjective impressions. And what's wrong with that? If you don't agree with it you just say otherwise (that's the point). People will sort it out. NOW, my scoop: most if not every one of those talking about a small "sweet spot" in the FL are also ASTRONOMERS. Can it be that astronomers are trained to look at the entire field of view (after all, a star at the very edge of the field of view is as much a star as any other). In birding it's different, we tend to focuss on the bird's features. Well first the bird, but then the eye, the beak the claws, etc. Just food for talk...


The night sky is all at infinity and you have a relatively dark background with many small points of light. Unless looking for a particular object, I do tend to look at the whole field. I know those virtual point sources of light should look like little pin points.

When I'm on a birding walk the view through the binocular changes greatly. Things are not always so far that they are at infinity (for the focuser of the binocular).
I'm usually looking for a bird and looking pretty much in the center of the field. When I see a bird of interest, I put it in the center of the field.

I'm surprised that there is so much of a dust up over the edge sharpness of the FL. Most binoculars have soft edges. It isn't anything new with Zeiss. It certainly isn't anything new with Leica. I found the 10x42 FL had better edge sharpness than the Leica 10x42 Ultravid.

The Nikon SEs have surprisingly good edge sharpness but they have problems in other areas that make it not so much fun to use in the birding field. Sometimes the view through the SE seems a little "dead", like looking at a TV screen. However, I like them for astronomy.

The Fujinon 10x70 FMT-SX has good edge sharpness but it is, IMHO, an astro binocular and not much use for birding unless it is on a mount. It is better on a mount for astro viewing too.

One feature of the FL that is a little strange is the way the image of something like a near by building spreads outward at the top. This effect may be seen in other binoculars. I don't notice it when birding.

Have people complained about the sweet spot in the Swarovski 8.5x42 EL? It has soft edges. I don't have my Zeiss FL with me at the moment to compare them, but I don't think there is a real differnece in the size of the ELs sweet spot vs. the FLs.

I find the Zeiss 10x42 FL a real pleasure to use. I don't think it has an overly small sweet spot. The image is very sharp and high contrast. Other good things about the FL, it's relatively light weight, has a very nice focuser, nice shape, nice eyecups, very good eye relief for 10x42, etc.

Rich

[hg1]

[QUOTE=Rich N]The night sky is all at infinity and you have a relatively dark background with many small points of light. Unless looking for a particular object, I do tend to look at the whole field. I know those virtual point sources of light should look like little pin points.

When I'm on a birding walk the view through the binocular changes greatly. Things are not always so far that they are at infinity (for the focuser of the binocular).
I'm usually looking for a bird and looking pretty much in the center of the field. When I see a bird of interest, I put it in the center of the field.

I'm surprised that there is so much of a dust up over the edge sharpness of the FL. Most binoculars have soft edges. It isn't anything new with Zeiss. It certainly isn't anything new with Leica. I found the 10x42 FL had better edge sharpness than the Leica 10x42 Ultravid.

I don't have any axes to grind in this debate about the FL edge sharpness. I am happy with the bins that I have and am not thinking of trading up. So, I consider my view of the FL to be disinterested. So, for what it is worth here goes - I was not particularly happy with the edge sharpness when I tried the new FLs last weekend. I guess that it depends on what you are used to: I currently own a pair Zeiss Victory 2s and they have phenomenal edge sharpness - noticeably better than the FLs (In my opinion). Using the Victory 2s I have come to really appreciate this feature. The other advantages of the new FLs (and there are some) don't seem to me to outweigh this disadvantage. Not enough, anyway, for me to rush out and buy them. I will say, however, that if the edge sharpness in the FL was as good as the previous Zeiss model, then they would, I think, be pretty much the perfect glass.

[Prague Dunlin]

Blincodave,

Was not the Skoda a Czech automobile, marked by the absence of many comforts, like a fuel gague, found in western vehicles? I believe that an appearance of one in the USA would start a twitch.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur Pinewood

Dear Arthur,

Skoda is still a Czech car, however, it's main owner is the Volkswagen Group now.

As a child, I remember being driven a lot in the old Skoda 120, produced in 1977 (my father had to wait a couple of months to get it from the factory). It was a very reliable car indeed. It served well for fifteen years. And it had a fuel gauge and orange indicator light.

But this thread is about binocs, anyway.

Lida

[Curtis Croulet]

The original FL discussion was largely about the area between center and edge. Now the area of interest seems to have shifted to the very edge of the field. Amazing. Do you guys really do your observing there? As to the statement about things widening toward the top of the field in the FL -- something like this should be apparent all around, since the FL does have noticeable pincushion distortion, as does my Eagle Optics Ranger Platinum Class 8x42 with a much narrower FOV.

I first became interested in astronomy in late November 1954, so I've looked through a telescope or two, but I yield in my detailed knowledge of optics to Alan French, who sometimes visits this forum. I currently own three astronomical telescopes. Yes, this is a paltry collection compared to the guy (Rich?) who has a stable of APO refractors. Most telescopes, regardless of design, show stars that are not points anywhere but on-axis. The amount of distortion depends upon the optical configuration and f-ratio. Eyepiece design also plays a significant role when the scope is used visually. Newtonian reflectors show coma, which is especially obvious in short focal ratios. If you take a good look at many astronomical photographs of large nebulae or galaxies, you'll see that the stars near the edge of the print (usually cropped from a much wider field) are ovals. However, when actually observing, it's rare for myself or anybody else who's come within my earshot to say anything about off-axis star images. For planetary observers, off-axis performance is usually a non-issue, since their quarry is put in the center for best resolution. Deep-sky observers often prize a wide real field of view, usually produced by a telescope with generous amounts of coma because of its short f-ratio. So to me, some distortion -- "softness," since the stars are not points -- is inevitable. Rather than being ignorant of astronomy, my remarks in past messages to the off-axis sharpness issue in the FL is a result of my long-time interest in astronomy, and I concede that I was originally taken aback with such emphasis on something I regard as unavoidable. If some people don't see off-axis softness in the SE, EL, Ultravid, or anything else, then they just aren't looking hard enough. Now, the Zeiss FL may be better or (as often claimed here) worse than these other models, but it's a matter of degree, not presence or absence.

[kabsetz]

Risking more zzzzzz:s, I'd like to remind readers that those of us who have talked about a "sweet spot" are not, alas, referring to the edge of the field. Rather, we (or I, at least) are talking about how large the area around the very center of the field is which manages to maintain enough of the central image quality that your eye does not have to do any extra adjusting or accomodation if you happen to turn your eyes "within the image" rather than redirecting the bins and re-centering the target every split second the object of interest changes location (either because the bird moved or because you decided to look at some other part of it, or the flock of them). Poor edge sharpness is a shortcoming of every binocular with any claim to a wide-field view, although some have it worse and others somewhat better.

With all this, it would be good if everybody would respect each others' views and preferences. If someone is bother by edge sharpness, small sweet spot or CA, then they are. If someone is not, they can consider themselves happy since their choice for a prefect binocular is that much easier.

Finally, "ease of view" seems to be highly subjective and individual. Some people just hit it off immediately with a certain binocular, it feels right to them, and another one which, taken analytically, is just as good or even better, does not do the trick. Simply saying that A just is better for me than B does not sound reasoned enough, and so we struggle to find reasons.

Kimmo

[hg1]

Risking more zzzzzz:s, I'd like to remind readers that those of us who have talked about a "sweet spot" are not, alas, referring to the edge of the field. Rather, we (or I, at least) are talking about how large the area around the very center of the field is which manages to maintain enough of the central image quality that your eye does not have to do any extra adjusting or accomodation if you happen to turn your eyes "within the image" rather than redirecting the bins and re-centering the target every split second the object of interest changes location (either because the bird moved or because you decided to look at some other part of it, or the flock of them). Poor edge sharpness is a shortcoming of every binocular with any claim to a wide-field view, although some have it worse and others somewhat better.

With all this, it would be good if everybody would respect each others' views and preferences. If someone is bother by edge sharpness, small sweet spot or CA, then they are. If someone is not, they can consider themselves happy since their choice for a prefect binocular is that much easier.

Finally, "ease of view" seems to be highly subjective and individual. Some people just hit it off immediately with a certain binocular, it feels right to them, and another one which, taken analytically, is just as good or even better, does not do the trick. Simply saying that A just is better for me than B does not sound reasoned enough, and so we struggle to find reasons.

Kimmo

To clarify my last comment - what I meant was that when I used the FLs I found that the fall-off in image quality from the center was more noticeable than in other bins that I have used. In other peoples' terms that would mean that I found the "sweet spot" to be comparatively small. Sure, no binocular, as a previous correspondent wrote, is sharp right out to the edge. However, I found the FL to be "unsharp" a fair way in from the edge. I am not saying that this is an absolutely fatal flaw. However, I would have trouble with it. Others might not. If Zeiss could remedy this I would have no hesitation in buying a pair to replace my ageing Leica 8x32s.

I also echo Kimmo's comments about tone of discussion and respect for others' views.

[Leif]

I agree when people say that choice of binocular is very much subjective and personal. I have had a bit more time to use an 8x42 FL, and while it is an excellent binocular, it is not perfect. Some people will appreciate the extremely high contrast and brightness and the almost complete absence of CA. Others will dislike the slight softness noticeable about 70% from the centre, and the slight pincushion distortion. Similarly some people will appreciate the excellent armour, excellent eye tube design, rapid focus, and light weight. Others might balk at the use of plastic (high density polyethylene ?) for the central hinge casing. Incidentally Leica use a similar material for the focus and diopter wheels on the BN series and it too feels incongruous IMO.

In my view the FL has got excellent optics and design and I think for me it is the best in its class. I do not think that it is optically equal to the Nikon 8x32 SE (nothing is IMO) but it comes close, it is considerably brighter, has better eye tubes, no tendency to kidney bean, a smoother focus and it is waterproof.

I am quite sure that many people will after much thought and deliberation end up preferring another binocular such as the excellent Leica Ultravid 8x42. We are lucky to have a wide range of quality instruments availble to suit all tastes.

However, since John Traynor keeps posting snide remarks, I will say that I dislike it when one person posts completely negative comments on one product as part of a grudge and it is obvious that he has a grudge against Zeiss. That is unfair to the manufacturer, and more importantly, us.

[mak]

I guess we can all give up on the notion of world peace.
We're discussing a stupid binocular, whose cost exceeds the annual income of most people on planet earth, and we can't agree to disagree with dignity. How shameful.
John Traynor

John.
Of course we can agree to disagree, that is what debate is all about. No problem on my side with your views.

[Rich N]

I've looked through a friends Zeiss Victory 10x40. I've not made a critical observation of its sweet spot or its edge sharpness. I've not had the pleasure of looking through a a Victory II.

If there was a big change between the sharpness across the field of the Victory II vs. the FL, I can see why people may be disappointed.

I see little difference in sweet spot and edge sharpness between the FL, the Swaro. EL and Leica Ultravid (also the Leica BA and BN).

Lots of nice glass out there. We are lucky to have so many choices.

Rich

[hinnark]

Hi,

a question to the guys who see a lost of sharpness off axis with the Victories FL. I hope I didn´t overlooked something. Is it possible to refocus by using the focus wheel the relative unsharp areas off axis so that sharpness of these areas increases?

Steve

[Rico]

The original FL discussion was largely about the area between center and edge. Now the area of interest seems to have shifted to the very edge of the field. Amazing. Do you guys really do your observing there? As to the statement about things widening toward the top of the field in the FL -- something like this should be apparent all around, since the FL does have noticeable pincushion distortion, as does my Eagle Optics Ranger Platinum Class 8x42 with a much narrower FOV.

I first became interested in astronomy in late November 1954, so I've looked through a telescope or two, but I yield in my detailed knowledge of optics to Alan French, who sometimes visits this forum. I currently own three astronomical telescopes. Yes, this is a paltry collection compared to the guy (Rich?) who has a stable of APO refractors. Most telescopes, regardless of design, show stars that are not points anywhere but on-axis. The amount of distortion depends upon the optical configuration and f-ratio. Eyepiece design also plays a significant role when the scope is used visually. Newtonian reflectors show coma, which is especially obvious in short focal ratios. If you take a good look at many astronomical photographs of large nebulae or galaxies, you'll see that the stars near the edge of the print (usually cropped from a much wider field) are ovals. However, when actually observing, it's rare for myself or anybody else who's come within my earshot to say anything about off-axis star images. For planetary observers, off-axis performance is usually a non-issue, since their quarry is put in the center for best resolution. Deep-sky observers often prize a wide real field of view, usually produced by a telescope with generous amounts of coma because of its short f-ratio. So to me, some distortion -- "softness," since the stars are not points -- is inevitable. Rather than being ignorant of astronomy, my remarks in past messages to the off-axis sharpness issue in the FL is a result of my long-time interest in astronomy, and I concede that I was originally taken aback with such emphasis on something I regard as unavoidable. If some people don't see off-axis softness in the SE, EL, Ultravid, or anything else, then they just aren't looking hard enough. Now, the Zeiss FL may be better or (as often claimed here) worse than these other models, but it's a matter of degree, not presence or absence.
Good post, Curtis!

From perusing specs of lessers bins like Pentax or EO Ranger Platinum, it's clear that FOV is one area of cost-cutting. In other words, part of the lofty price for top-tier bins underwrites that wider view. Quality at the edge is expected to be lower, but too low makes a mockery of the FOV spec (personal judgement call, there).

The astronomy angle (pun intended) is dependent on the goal. If splitting a pair is the evening challenge, then central resolution is all, and off-axis be damned! However, the Milky Way gazer wants a quality wide-field experience. I spent several hours on the Televue web site (thanks to a BF poster), and their products are oriented to the wide-field goal: they use the buzz-word "spacewalk". Nagler even offers a special EP to correct coma from parabolics. The NP101 refractor has a 4-element objective (built-in field flattener).

Of course, any attempt at corner-to-corner sharpness will come with some other penalty: weight, size, cost, linear distortion. Those Televue scopes, for example, are frighteningly expensive.

Being slightly nearsighted, I like to use my bins in place of eye wear. I'm also lazy and often drop them on a flat surface or 'pod while surveying the critters. And that is why I like edges which are good, or even better than good.

[Leif]

Hi,

a question to the guys who see a lost of sharpness off axis with the Victories FL. I hope I didn´t overlooked something. Is it possible to refocus by using the focus wheel the relative unsharp areas off axis so that sharpness of these areas increases?

Steve

The loss of sharpness is slight but noticeable and more pronounced than the Nikon 8x32 SE and Swarovski 8.5x42. The EL is known for its excellent off-axis image quality though not quite as good as the SE.

Yes some sharpness can be gotten back by refocusing but it seems to be largely due to aberrations and not curvature of the focal plane. In contrast the Nikon 8x32 SE is almost sharp to the edge as long as you re-focus.

Incidentally the loss of sharpness towards the edges is less when viewing nearby objects. This seems to be common to other binoculars too. It is probably what you want as a nearby object is more likely to fill the view.

I am curious to know how off-axis sharpness in the Leica BN and Swaro SLC binoculars is.

BTW Flare is not a problem with the FL, and I have tried to induce it. This was said to be a problem with the Victory I?

[DavidP]

[QUOTE=Rico]Good post, Curtis!

From perusing specs of lessers bins like Pentax or EO Ranger Platinum, it's clear that FOV is one area of cost-cutting. In other words, part of the lofty price for top-tier bins underwrites that wider view. Quality at the edge is expected to be lower, but too low makes a mockery of the FOV spec (personal judgement call, there).

I'm sure you're right about the field of view. However take a look at the Nikon EII, thats got a 450ft field of view at 8x30 and is well reviewed on Alula and Better view desired, actually has about 20% wider field than the 8x30 SE and also about half the price.

[hinnark]

The loss of sharpness is slight but noticeable and more pronounced than the Nikon 8x32 SE and Swarovski 8.5x42. The EL is known for its excellent off-axis image quality though not quite as good as the SE.

Yes some sharpness can be gotten back by refocusing but it seems to be largely due to aberrations and not curvature of the focal plane. In contrast the Nikon 8x32 SE is almost sharp to the edge as long as you re-focus.

Incidentally the loss of sharpness towards the edges is less when viewing nearby objects. This seems to be common to other binoculars too. It is probably what you want as a nearby object is more likely to fill the view.

I am curious to know how off-axis sharpness in the Leica BN and Swaro SLC binoculars is.

BTW Flare is not a problem with the FL, and I have tried to induce it. This was said to be a problem with the Victory I?

This reminds me to the fact that there are astronomical telescopes with high on axis sharpness and a slight lost of sharpness off axis which are designed for visual views and others with a flat field and homogeneous fov which are designed for photographic use. One says that it isn´t possible to get both characteristics at a maximum.

I have the 10x50 Leica Trinovid BN. I wouldn´t say that there is a lost of off axis sharpness. With my Leica it´s more a matter of outer edge sharpness. There is no sweet spot of highest sharpness in my eyes. This sweet spot I only know from the Victory FL (extreme sharp), Swarovski 8,5x EL and less pronounced with Leica Ultravids and Duovids but not with Nikon SEs or Zeiss Victory I and II. The edges of my Leica getting softer at about 80 % of fov but it´s possible to bring that areas of fov back to focus with refocusing almost to the edges. So the Leica have some image curvature I think. The Swaro SLCs are very similar to the Leica Trinovids in this respect. For example the 10x50 Swarovski SLC lost of sharpness starts a little bit later to fall off (about 85 %) but the lost of sharpness is more destinct than with the Leica.
Coming back to theory of optical trade-offs I ask myself if one can say that the Zeiss Victory FL stands on the one side of maximum visual perception on axis and the Nikon SE on the other of a homogeneous fov. The Swarovski 8,5 El may lay somewhere betweens these positions.

Steve

[henry link]

Steve,

I agree with Leif's post as to how the FL, EL, and SE compare off axis, including the improvement at close range. I have also found that refocusing does little to improve the sharpness of the FL off axis, indicating that field curvature is not a big factor.

Henry

PS. Just saw your post above. I think the field flatteners that have been used in binocular eyepieces to improve off axis sharpness have been designed for visual, not photographic purposes and don't significantly degrade on axis sharpness. I have four binoculars with field flattening elements; Nikon 7X50 Prostar and 8X32 SE, Fujinon 8X30 FMT-SX and Pentax 10X50 PIF. IMO all have central sharpness in the same class as the FL.

[hinnark]

Steve,

I agree with Leif's post as to how the FL, EL, and SE compare off axis, including the improvement at close range. I have also found that refocusing does little to improve the sharpness of the FL off axis, indicating that field curvature is not a big factor.

Henry

PS. Just saw your post above. I think the field flatteners that have been used in binocular eyepieces to improve off axis sharpness have been designed for visual, not photographic purposes and don't significantly degrade on axis sharpness. I have four binoculars with field flattening elements; Nikon 7X50 Prostar and 8X32 SE, Fujinon 8X30 FMT-SX and Pentax 10X50 PIF. IMO all have central sharpness in the same class as the FL.

Henry,

I know all Nikon SEs and also the Fujinon 10x70 FMT-SX. But I can´t see this sweet spot of extreme sharpness in the middle of the field with them.

Steve

[Curtis Croulet]

We're at almost the two month mark since the Zeiss FLs hit the shelves, and a lot of words have flown! I'd like to make a couple of observations. (1) It would have been fascinating to have attended the initial product planning meetings for the FL. A persistent complaint about the original Victory was that it simply wasn't sharp, and since most people most of the time are looking at the center, then that means the center wasn't sharp, at least not as sharp as the competition. Yes, I know, happy owners dispute that, especially owners of the Victory II, but -- true or not -- it's a widespread belief that the "Victory isn't sharp." This issue would seem to have been Item No. 1 on the agenda for the design of the FL. Perhaps they went overboard by providing exceptional resolution in the center at the expense of consistency across the field? (2) Some of the pre-release reports of the FL suggested that it might be so good as to render other brands obsolete. Clearly that's not the case. The FL represents, inevitably, a balance of characteristics that some may like and some may not like. I'm sure the brass at Leica, Nikon and Swarovski have taken notice, but they are still very much in the game.

[Wine Man]

This reminds me to the fact that there are astronomical telescopes with high on axis sharpness and a slight lost of sharpness off axis which are designed for visual views and others with a flat field and homogeneous fov which are designed for photographic use. One says that it isn´t possible to get both characteristics at a maximum.

I have the 10x50 Leica Trinovid BN. I wouldn´t say that there is a lost of off axis sharpness. With my Leica it´s more a matter of outer edge sharpness. There is no sweet spot of highest sharpness in my eyes. This sweet spot I only know from the Victory FL (extreme sharp), Swarovski 8,5x EL and less pronounced with Leica Ultravids and Duovids but not with Nikon SEs or Zeiss Victory I and II. The edges of my Leica getting softer at about 80 % of fov but it´s possible to bring that areas of fov back to focus with refocusing almost to the edges. So the Leica have some image curvature I think. The Swaro SLCs are very similar to the Leica Trinovids in this respect. For example the 10x50 Swarovski SLC lost of sharpness starts a little bit later to fall off (about 85 %) but the lost of sharpness is more destinct than with the Leica.
Coming back to theory of optical trade-offs I ask myself if one can say that the Zeiss Victory FL stands on the one side of maximum visual perception on axis and the Nikon SE on the other of a homogeneous fov. The Swarovski 8,5 El may lay somewhere betweens these positions.

Steve

I received this reply from a major optical company recently which is enlightening.
In eyepieces, distortion occurs. Rectlinear distortion and angular magnification distortion.

To correct rectlinear distortion (straight lines appear straight in the centre and at the edge of the fov) the magnification over the fov must follow an equation.
In doing so the image appears to be bent (image bending).

To correct A.M.D. the distance btw the 2 lines is the same in the centre and at the edge of fov, the magnification over the fov has to follow a different equation. In doing so the straight lines appear curved in a pin cushion effect, with the curvature becoming greater with increasing distance from the centre of the fov.

It is difficult from the mathematical equations to correct both distortions at the same time, so designers must mix the 2 equations and correct both only partially to form a compromise. I would have thought that this would be down to the optical designers and would not always be a fault with the binocular.

[Leif]

Apologies if the following is obvious but there might be a little confusion.

Distortion is of course when straight lines look bent, and is usually either of the pin cushion or barrel varieties. Distortion is most noticeable when viewing straight lines, or when panning when objects appear to shrink and grow as they traverse the field.

Curvature of the image plane is when the optic cannot simultaneously bring an image to focus both on axis and at the edge. Thus one or the other is in focus, but not both. Older people with less 'agile' eyes tend to notice this more.

I've also noticed that depth of field often seems greater on axis than near the edge. Some say that DOF is a fixed property of the magnification and aperture, but I tend to wonder if optical aberrations can reduce it.

[Leif]

We're at almost the two month mark since the Zeiss FLs hit the shelves, and a lot of words have flown! I'd like to make a couple of observations. (1) It would have been fascinating to have attended the initial product planning meetings for the FL. A persistent complaint about the original Victory was that it simply wasn't sharp, and since most people most of the time are looking at the center, then that means the center wasn't sharp, at least not as sharp as the competition. Yes, I know, happy owners dispute that, especially owners of the Victory II, but -- true or not -- it's a widespread belief that the "Victory isn't sharp." This issue would seem to have been Item No. 1 on the agenda for the design of the FL. Perhaps they went overboard by providing exceptional resolution in the center at the expense of consistency across the field? (2) Some of the pre-release reports of the FL suggested that it might be so good as to render other brands obsolete. Clearly that's not the case. The FL represents, inevitably, a balance of characteristics that some may like and some may not like. I'm sure the brass at Leica, Nikon and Swarovski have taken notice, but they are still very much in the game.

Swift have ED versions of several binoculars which seem to use the same optics and mechanics as the non-ED versions. I wonder if other manufacturers will follow Zeiss and introduce low dispersion triplet objective versions? I suspect not because a) it would add at least £100 (going by the Swift example) and probably more to the product cost, and b) I suspect the reduction of CA requires the whole optical system to be re-designed from the outset.

[henry link]

Henry,

I know all Nikon SEs and also the Fujinon 10x70 FMT-SX. But I can´t see this sweet spot of extreme sharpness in the middle of the field with them.

Steve

I agree with you that there is an area of "extreme sharpness" in the middle of the field in the 8X42 FL. It's certainly as sharp as any binocular I have seen in the center, perhaps the sharpest. Your idea about design trade-offs may explain it, but other factors might also be involved. For instance, thanks to the Fluoride glass in the objective, the center of the field is virtually free of longitudinal chromatic aberration. After using the FL's for a while I am convinced that longitudinal CA is a significant problem that has the effect of slightly softening the center image in virtually every other binocular. Contrast in the FL is also the best I have seen, which tends to enhance the impression of sharp edges compared to the lower contrast in other bins. I hesitate to bring this up again, but even the loss of sharpness away from the center may also play a role by creating a feeling of extra sharpness in the center compared to the relatively soft area around it.

[marcus]

Have just recieved the new Zeiss brouchre today with the 8x30 and 10x30 FL models.
There is a type of thick strip/seat that can be purchased as an tripod adapter,the binocular seems to be held in place with a thick looking strap.
The new brouchres can be ordered directly from Zeiss via their website.
Steve.
Thank you very much Steve for telling me this. I just went to The Zeiss website and ordered those brouchres.
marcus

[John Traynor]

I agree with you that there is an area of "extreme sharpness" in the middle of the field in the 8X42 FL. It's certainly as sharp as any binocular I have seen in the center, perhaps the sharpest. Your idea about design trade-offs may explain it, but other factors might also be involved. For instance, thanks to the Fluoride glass in the objective, the center of the field is virtually free of longitudinal chromatic aberration. After using the FL's for a while I am convinced that longitudinal CA is a significant problem that tends to slightly soften the center image in virtually every other binocular. Contrast in the FL is also the best I have seen, which tends to enhance the impression of sharp edges compared to the lower contrast in other bins. I hesitate to bring this up again, but even the loss of sharpness away from the center may also play a role by creating a feeling of extra sharpness in the center compared to the relatively soft area around it.

Henry,

Your insights (no pun intended) are always fascinating. The only question I have is will that softness eventually creep in to the user's view and adversely affect the acknowledged benefits found in the center. I clearly remember how that gorgeous center appealed to me and how disappointed I was it didn't last. It may be similar to CA; some see it and some don't.

John

[hinnark]

I agree with you that there is an area of "extreme sharpness" in the middle of the field in the 8X42 FL. It's certainly as sharp as any binocular I have seen in the center, perhaps the sharpest. Your idea about design trade-offs may explain it, but other factors might also be involved. For instance, thanks to the Fluoride glass in the objective, the center of the field is virtually free of longitudinal chromatic aberration. After using the FL's for a while I am convinced that longitudinal CA is a significant problem that has the effect of slightly softening the center image in virtually every other binocular. Contrast in the FL is also the best I have seen, which tends to enhance the impression of sharp edges compared to the lower contrast in other bins. I hesitate to bring this up again, but even the loss of sharpness away from the center may also play a role by creating a feeling of extra sharpness in the center compared to the relatively soft area around it.

Henry,

if supression of longitudinal chromatic aberration caused by Fluoride glass in the objectives might be the reason for enhancing the sharpness in the center of the FL I still ask myself why I can see this sweet spot also with the Swarovski EL and Leica Ultravids too which don´t have flourid glasses but not with the binos using flat field lens elements like Nikon SE, Canon IS and Fujinon FMT-SX. Are the latters really that much worse in correcting CA than the Swaro EL and Ultravids? Not in my eyes.
Another question: why don´t European top bino manufactorers use flat field lens elements with their top products? Should they do this for best optical results?
In other words: which are the advantages of using flat field lens elements and what could be the disadvantages?

Steve

[hinnark]

I received this reply from a major optical company recently which is enlightening.
In eyepieces, distortion occurs. Rectlinear distortion and angular magnification distortion.

To correct rectlinear distortion (straight lines appear straight in the centre and at the edge of the fov) the magnification over the fov must follow an equation.
In doing so the image appears to be bent (image bending).

To correct A.M.D. the distance btw the 2 lines is the same in the centre and at the edge of fov, the magnification over the fov has to follow a different equation. In doing so the straight lines appear curved in a pin cushion effect, with the curvature becoming greater with increasing distance from the centre of the fov.

It is difficult from the mathematical equations to correct both distortions at the same time, so designers must mix the 2 equations and correct both only partially to form a compromise. I would have thought that this would be down to the optical designers and would not always be a fault with the binocular.

Thank you, Wine Man, that´s what I was thinking of when speaking about optical trade-offs.

[Rico]

Related to Carl Zeiss and LCA is a test of photo lenses I just completed, but the illustration is applicable to binoculars.

The Canon EF 50/1.4 and CZ Planar 50/1.4 are available-light lenses for 35mm SLR cameras (and equivalent in their performance).

http://patternassociates.com/rico/d30/misc/lca50.jpg

Left column shows EF 50 with far focus, in focus, and near focus object at 2m distance, with lens wide open (f/1.4). With image cropped to image center, the view is roughly equal to 8x36 bins. Specular reflections show purple fringing that shifts to green: this is suggestive of LCA. There is no visible fringing in other image areas, but the effect is that of lower contrast. This is shown in the published MTF from CZ.

Right column shows CZ 50 (in focus) as the aperture is changed: f/1.4, f/2, f/2.8. The binocular equivalent would be 8x36, 8x25, 8x18. The reduction in fringing is dramatic, again suggesting that LCA is present.

This test does not attempt to detect other aberrations, notably TCA.

Returning to binoculars, I expect to see more LCA under certain conditions, and from certain bins. For conditions, we all know about high contrast edges (tree branches, white plumage). But also be aware of out-of-focus objects, which may exaggerate the purple (and green) fringing. For bins, expect more trouble from high magnifications (duh), and from larger apertures.

For myself, the new FL 32's should be interesting. All other things being equal, 8x32 should have lower LCA (and other optical ills) than 8x42. The FOV certainly reflects some confidence from the designers!

[Rich N]

I've looked through a friends Zeiss Victory 10x40. I've not made a critical observation of its sweet spot or its edge sharpness. I've not had the pleasure of looking through a a Victory II.

If there was a big change between the sharpness across the field of the Victory II vs. the FL, I can see why people may be disappointed.

I see little difference in sweet spot and edge sharpness between the FL, the Swaro. EL and Leica Ultravid (also the Leica BA and BN).

Lots of nice glass out there. We are lucky to have so many choices.

Rich

This afternoon I compared my friends Zeiss Victory 10x40 to my Zeiss 10x42 FL. If there is a difference in the size of the sweet I could not see it.

I also did a more careful comparison between my Swarovski 8.5x42 EL to my 10x42 FL for the size of the sweet spots. The EL does have a larger sweet spot.

I wouldn't mind a larger sweet spot with the FL but I have to think to look for differences in sharpness across the field to notice it... when birding. If I'm observing the birds or looking for a bird, I don't notice the change in sharpness across the field. I still very much enjoy using the Zeiss 10x42 FL.

Rich

[Rich N]

This evening I compaired my Zeiss 10x42 FL and Swarovski 10x42 EL. I used as a target a microwave tower on the ridge of a mountain roughly 3 miles west of my location. This tower has lots of nice detail (through the binocular) and the sky was nice and bright and pink behind it.

Edit: After checking my topo map it looks as if the tower is roughly 7 miles, in a straight line, from my observing spot.

The size of the sweet spot was virtually the same in both 10x42 binoculars, unlike the apparent sweet spot in the 8.5x42 EL.

As I would move the image of tower (took up a very small part of the horizontal field and little of the vertical part of field) from the center of the field slowly to the edge, the image would seem to compress a little horizontally and blur a little. I could refocuse the image so that at the extreme edge of the field the tower could be in very good focus. Who would do that in normal use? The image of the tower looked better to me near the edge of the field in the Zeiss than in the Swarovski. The images were both very sharp in the center of the field. I would have had to set up my bino stand to be sure which was bringing out the most fine detail. My impression was the Zeiss maybe was showing a little more detail.

I tried my 10x EL without my eye glasses. I couldn't focus the EL at infinity without my glasses. I could easily focus at infinity using my 10x FL, without my glasses. This let me see that with my glasses the image looks smaller. No wonder I prefer 8x over 7x binoculars. I'm quite near sighted and my make the image quite a bit smaller.

Just some bits of info I thought might be helpful.

Rich

[Leif]

Henry,

if supression of longitudinal chromatic aberration caused by Fluoride glass in the objectives might be the reason for enhancing the sharpness in the center of the FL I still ask myself why I can see this sweet spot also with the Swarovski EL and Leica Ultravids too which don´t have flourid glasses but not with the binos using flat field lens elements like Nikon SE, Canon IS and Fujinon FMT-SX. Are the latters really that much worse in correcting CA than the Swaro EL and Ultravids? Not in my eyes.
Another question: why don´t European top bino manufactorers use flat field lens elements with their top products? Should they do this for best optical results?
In other words: which are the advantages of using flat field lens elements and what could be the disadvantages?

Steve

The Nikon SE, Fujinon and IIRC the Canon are all porro prism designs. For some reason I find that roof prism binoculars usually have significantly more CA and to my eyes some have so much I find them hard to use. Even my cheap Nikon 8x40 Egret has very little CA. However, the Zeiss Classic 8x30 BGAT also has very little CA and I have heard that the Zeiss 7x42 BGAT has very little CA too. The two Zeiss and the porros all have one thing in common, namely that focus is achieved by moving the eyepieces or, in the case of the 8x30, the objectives. In most roof prism binoculars focus is achieved by moving a small negative lens situated between the objective and the prism. It is conceivable that if the lens is fairly strongly curved, then the objectives will need to have a much smaller F ratio than normal to compensate, and hence longitudinal CA will be much more evident. (Long. CA increases with objective size and decreases with F ratio.) Evidently Zeiss have been able to correct for it in the FL range. I would also expect some CA to originate in the prisms and the eyepieces, and this might be the origin of some of the slight CA still visible in the FL.

Regarding flat field, I suspect the issue is one of cost. A typical 8x40 binocular has F4 objectives of focal length 160mm, and eyepieces of focal length 20mm. A high quality 20mm eyepiece for a scope costs ~£200. Thus two high quality eyepieces already consume ~£400 before we have started to consider the prisms, the objectives and the housings. The conclusion I draw is that the eyepieces in a binocular must be a compromise between quality and the price the market will tolerate. A porro prism binocular is cheaper to make, so I expect that in the case of the Nikon and Fujinon a proportionately much larger part of the cost is in the eyepieces. Quite why Nikon use a field flattener lens in the eyepiece and the others don't (?) is unclear, at least to me.

I suspect that a manufacturer could produce a binocular much better than we see today - almost no CA as per Zeiss FL, flat field almost sharp to the edges as per Nikon 8x32 SE, very wide 70 degree field as per some older designs and so on - but it would cost the best part of £2,000. When Swarovski introduced the EL range they were taking a risk as they cost more than competing products due to the use of advanced coatings etc. Maybe in 20 years time as we become more affluent we will see this 'super-binocular'.

Mind you, the binocular is after all no more than a tool for birding, and even ~£100 will buy one that has ~95% of the usefulness of anything on the market.

[John Traynor]

The Nikon SE, Fujinon and IIRC the Canon are all porro prism designs. For some reason I find that roof prism binoculars usually have significantly more CA and to my eyes some have so much I find them hard to use. Even my cheap Nikon 8x40 Egret has very little CA. However, the Zeiss Classic 8x30 BGAT also has very little CA and I have heard that the Zeiss 7x42 BGAT has very little CA too. The two Zeiss and the porros all have one thing in common, namely that focus is achieved by moving the eyepieces or, in the case of the 8x30, the objectives. In most roof prism binoculars focus is achieved by moving a small negative lens situated between the objective and the prism. It is conceivable that if the lens is fairly strongly curved, then the objectives will need to have a much smaller F ratio than normal to compensate, and hence longitudinal CA will be much more evident. (Long. CA increases with objective size and decreases with F ratio.) Evidently Zeiss have been able to correct for it in the FL range. I would also expect some CA to originate in the prisms and the eyepieces, and this might be the origin of some of the slight CA still visible in the FL.

Regarding flat field, I suspect the issue is one of cost. A typical 8x40 binocular has F4 objectives of focal length 160mm, and eyepieces of focal length 20mm. A high quality 20mm eyepiece for a scope costs ~£200. Thus two high quality eyepieces already consume ~£400 before we have started to consider the prisms, the objectives and the housings. The conclusion I draw is that the eyepieces in a binocular must be a compromise between quality and the price the market will tolerate. A porro prism binocular is cheaper to make, so I expect that in the case of the Nikon and Fujinon a proportionately much larger part of the cost is in the eyepieces. Quite why Nikon use a field flattener lens in the eyepiece and the others don't (?) is unclear, at least to me.

I suspect that a manufacturer could produce a binocular much better than we see today - almost no CA as per Zeiss FL, flat field almost sharp to the edges as per Nikon 8x32 SE, very wide 70 degree field as per some older designs and so on - but it would cost the best part of £2,000. When Swarovski introduced the EL range they were taking a risk as they cost more than competing products due to the use of advanced coatings etc. Maybe in 20 years time as we become more affluent we will see this 'super-binocular'.

Mind you, the binocular is after all no more than a tool for birding, and even ~£100 will buy one that has ~95% of the usefulness of anything on the market.

Leif,

Good info!

Two points I disagree with.

First, I think people will pay the price for ultimate quality, though I think current offerings are pretty close. Would a $3000 (USD) bin find a market? The answer depends solely on the quality of the product.

Second, I don't believe a serious birder who uses a bin for many hours at a time will find a low cost bin useful 95% of the time. Casual birders, yes, but not serious birders who want the best possible view each and everytime. If what you say is true, I think we'd be endlessly debating the pros/cons of dozens of low cost bins.

John

[Leif]

Leif,

Good info!

Two points I disagree with.

First, I think people will pay the price for ultimate quality, though I think current offerings are pretty close. Would a $3000 (USD) bin find a market? The answer depends solely on the quality of the product.

Second, I don't believe a serious birder who uses a bin for many hours at a time will find a low cost bin useful 95% of the time. Casual birders, yes, but not serious birders who want the best possible view each and everytime. If what you say is true, I think we'd be endlessly debating the pros/cons of dozens of low cost bins.

John

It would certainly be interesting to see a $3000 8x42 binocular. I don't think I would buy one since as you say current ones are pretty good, but some might.

[Leif]

Second, I don't believe a serious birder who uses a bin for many hours at a time will find a low cost bin useful 95% of the time. Casual birders, yes, but not serious birders who want the best possible view each and everytime.

I think you're right. I was thinking of the casual birder and not the 'paramilitary wing of the birding community'.

[Rich N]

-snip
Second, I don't believe a serious birder who uses a bin for many hours at a time will find a low cost bin useful 95% of the time. Casual birders, yes, but not serious birders who want the best possible view each and everytime. If what you say is true, I think we'd be endlessly debating the pros/cons of dozens of low cost bins.

John


Hi John,

What do you consider a low cost binocular. One that is < $600 USD?

I see a number of excellent birders use relatively inexpensive binoculars. Maybe they don't feel they can afford a better binocular.

I have several high end binoculars. I also have a $350 USD Orion Savannah 8x42 roof binocular. The apparent field isn't quite as wide but the image quality is very, very close to my high end models. The high end models may be more rugged, maybe.

I admit I'm a bit of an optics snob. I would rather take my high end binocular on a group birding trip, but I don't think I would miss anything if I used my $350 binocular. They aren't more difficult to use. They give very nice images. I'm sure this is true for other store brand roofs like the ones sold by Eagle Optics.

That 95% might be even higher.

Rich

[Leif]

I would love to spend some time comparing a top end binocular with some budget and mid-range offerings. I once tried a Pentax 8x42 DCF WP which in many respects was excellent, with good sharpness and little distortion, excellent finish but a rather narrow field, poor brightness and a loose hinge after several years of ownership. I have heard that the Pentax SP range is better. Incidentally the person who owned the Pentax was a far far better birder than me. He originally went to buy a Leica BN, but could not see a difference between it and the Pentax!

[John Traynor]

Hi John,

What do you consider a low cost binocular. One that is < $600 USD?

I see a number of excellent birders use relatively inexpensive binoculars. Maybe they don't feel they can afford a better binocular.

I have several high end binoculars. I also have a $350 USD Orion Savannah 8x42 roof binocular. The apparent field isn't quite as wide but the image quality is very, very close to my high end models. The high end models may be more rugged, maybe.

I admit I'm a bit of an optics snob. I would rather take my high end binocular on a group birding trip, but I don't think I would miss anything if I used my $350 binocular. They aren't more difficult to use. They give very nice images. I'm sure this is true for other store brand roofs like the ones sold by Eagle Optics.

That 95% might be even higher.

Rich

Hello Rich,

Leif's post used £100 as the low cost price I was referring to. That's about $180 (USD), which I think is a bit low for optics you want to use day in and day out for birding. In the $300 and up range there are some very nice roof bins worth considering. Actually, you can get some visually excellent porros below $200 (USD) but their FOV's are usually narrower than birders like.

You're correct about Eagle Optics. Their Platinum Rangers are excellent values and the optical quality of that line would surprise most people.

The very best low(er) cost bin I've seen (and use) is the SE 8X32. If you can get comfortable with it and don't bird in thunderstorms, the SE at $550 (USD) is superbly constructed and the finest optical value available. That's just one man's opinion, of course!

One more hour until sunrise so I'm now going birding!

John

[Atomic Chicken]

Leif,

I own a Pentax SP 10X50 which I use for evening viewing when the light starts getting dim... I also use it for watching birds in flight and very distant birds occasionally.

You have heard right - the DCF SP are MUCH better than the DCF WP series... I have tested both extensively and can say without hesitation that the SP has a sharper, brighter, more pleasing view. While they are not in the same league as my beloved Nikon HG 8X32, they are still great binoculars with a lot going for them.

Comparing the Pentax to the Nikon, the chromatic aberration is noticably worse in the Pentax and the edges are not as sharp - but for the money the Pentax simply kills everything else in the price range. I'm very happy with mine, and would highly recommend them as a 2nd binocular or even as a primary binocular for someone on a budget.

Best wishes,
Bawko

[Leif]

Leif,

I own a Pentax SP 10X50 which I use for evening viewing when the light starts getting dim... I also use it for watching birds in flight and very distant birds occasionally.

You have heard right - the DCF SP are MUCH better than the DCF WP series... I have tested both extensively and can say without hesitation that the SP has a sharper, brighter, more pleasing view. While they are not in the same league as my beloved Nikon HG 8X32, they are still great binoculars with a lot going for them.

Comparing the Pentax to the Nikon, the chromatic aberration is noticably worse in the Pentax and the edges are not as sharp - but for the money the Pentax simply kills everything else in the price range. I'm very happy with mine, and would highly recommend them as a 2nd binocular or even as a primary binocular for someone on a budget.

Best wishes,
Bawko

Bawko: Thanks for the interesting posting. I don't suppose you have compared the brightness of the 10x50 against a premium 10x40, and 10x50 e.g. Leica BN ? In a year or two I might go for a 10x50 for dusk and the night sky. Leif.

[Leif]

Hello Rich,

Leif's post used £100 as the low cost price I was referring to. That's about $180 (USD), which I think is a bit low for optics you want to use day in and day out for birding. In the $300 and up range there are some very nice roof bins worth considering. Actually, you can get some visually excellent porros below $200 (USD) but their FOV's are usually narrower than birders like.

You're correct about Eagle Optics. Their Platinum Rangers are excellent values and the optical quality of that line would surprise most people.

The very best low(er) cost bin I've seen (and use) is the SE 8X32. If you can get comfortable with it and don't bird in thunderstorms, the SE at $550 (USD) is superbly constructed and the finest optical value available. That's just one man's opinion, of course!

One more hour until sunrise so I'm now going birding!

John

I think you can get a very useable binocular for about £100. My 10 year old Nikon 8x42 Egret is about that price, and is much brighter than at least one 8x42 roof prism binocular costing 3 times as much - Pentax 8x42 DCF WP - and yet has a much much wider field of view, albeit with significant distortion and softness off-axis. It is also very rugged, mine having survived appalling abuse from me. It is as sharp on axis as the Leica 8x32 BN, and reveals as much in low light thanks to good coatings.

Also the Nikon 8x36 Sporter is ~£100 here and gets some very favourable comments, though I have not used one.

Oops, I've just noticed that I sound like a Nikon salesman. I'm sure that there are equally good products from other manufacturers.

[hinnark]

The Nikon SE, Fujinon and IIRC the Canon are all porro prism designs. For some reason I find that roof prism binoculars usually have significantly more CA and to my eyes some have so much I find them hard to use. Even my cheap Nikon 8x40 Egret has very little CA. However, the Zeiss Classic 8x30 BGAT also has very little CA and I have heard that the Zeiss 7x42 BGAT has very little CA too. The two Zeiss and the porros all have one thing in common, namely that focus is achieved by moving the eyepieces or, in the case of the 8x30, the objectives. In most roof prism binoculars focus is achieved by moving a small negative lens situated between the objective and the prism. It is conceivable that if the lens is fairly strongly curved, then the objectives will need to have a much smaller F ratio than normal to compensate, and hence longitudinal CA will be much more evident. (Long. CA increases with objective size and decreases with F ratio.) Evidently Zeiss have been able to correct for it in the FL range. I would also expect some CA to originate in the prisms and the eyepieces, and this might be the origin of some of the slight CA still visible in the FL.

Regarding flat field, I suspect the issue is one of cost. A typical 8x40 binocular has F4 objectives of focal length 160mm, and eyepieces of focal length 20mm. A high quality 20mm eyepiece for a scope costs ~£200. Thus two high quality eyepieces already consume ~£400 before we have started to consider the prisms, the objectives and the housings. The conclusion I draw is that the eyepieces in a binocular must be a compromise between quality and the price the market will tolerate. A porro prism binocular is cheaper to make, so I expect that in the case of the Nikon and Fujinon a proportionately much larger part of the cost is in the eyepieces. Quite why Nikon use a field flattener lens in the eyepiece and the others don't (?) is unclear, at least to me.

I suspect that a manufacturer could produce a binocular much better than we see today - almost no CA as per Zeiss FL, flat field almost sharp to the edges as per Nikon 8x32 SE, very wide 70 degree field as per some older designs and so on - but it would cost the best part of £2,000. When Swarovski introduced the EL range they were taking a risk as they cost more than competing products due to the use of advanced coatings etc. Maybe in 20 years time as we become more affluent we will see this 'super-binocular'.

Mind you, the binocular is after all no more than a tool for birding, and even ~£100 will buy one that has ~95% of the usefulness of anything on the market.

Hi Leif,

the argument of costs is surely part of the truth. But I´m not sure if this explains everything. Nikon does use field flattener lenses in the roof prism models of their HG/Venturer series. There could be optical reasons to avoid field flattener lenses (FFL) in binocular construction too. To answer this question definitly we probably need real experts in optics which I am not. But I have some ideas or observations. First: these field flattener lenses are additional optical elements that increase glass-air surfaces of the construction. The Canon 15x50 IS for example has 2 of these lenses. A lost of light could be the result.
Second: If I compare the field of view of binoculars with and without field flattener lenses something is conspicious:

FOV 10x42 binos

Nikon SE, Nikon HG(Venturer) 105m/1000m (with FFL)
Swarovski EL and SLC, Zeiss Victory FL, Leica Ultravid and Trinovid 110m/1000m (without FFL)

Doesn´t sound very much but the difference is quite visible.
BTW the Nikon 10x42 HG is the sharpest 10x bino I saw in the pre FL era (sharper than the SE and even with higher resolution power than some of the high class 10x50). I didn´t have the opportunity to compare it with Zeiss Victory FL and Leica Ultravid. It would be very interesting to do this. Unfortunately also Alula didn´t do this at their latest test report of 10x42 binoculars.

FOV 8X42 binos

Nikon HG 122m/1000m (with FFL)
Zeiss FL 135m/1000m, Leica Ultravid 130m/1000m. Out of contest because of differing magnification: Swarovski 8,5 EL: 130m/1000m (without FFL).


But otherwise Fujinon (porro binos with FFL) shows that a narrower fov doesn´t have to be always the case.

FOV 7x50 binos

Fujinon FMT-SX 131m/1000m
Zeiss ClassiC B/GAT* and Steiner Commander V 130m/1000m

FOV 10x50 binos

Fujinon FMT-SX 113m/1000m
Leica Ultravid 115m/1000m Swarovski SLC 112m/1000m

With the exception of the Nikon SEs all FFL binos seems to be comparative heavyweight.
At the end I´d say that we have do some more research at this topic. Sharpness is a product of resolution and contrast. So we should compare careful these items again against each other wth the FL and its competitors. But as I mentioned before we should do this at comparable designs what means aperture and magnifications should be the same.

Steve

[henry link]

Steve,

I agree it is difficult to determine the contribution or the loss from FFL's when they are inseparable from the rest of the optics. However, I doubt that they limit field width. My Pentax 10X50 PIF has a 65 degree AFOV, and the Fujinon 16X70 FMT-SX has a 64 degree AFOV. Not many current bins have fields wider than that. I suspect narrower fields result more from weight saving by the use of small prisms.

Long ago I bought one of the 16X70 FMT-SX flat field eyepieces (about 16.5mm focal length) from the Fujinon parts dept. and adapted it for the 1 1/4" focusers on astronomical scopes. When it is used in an f/7 APO refractor it equals or betters the performance of the best comparable astronomical eyepieces in regard to sharpness (center and edge), light transmission and contrast. I believe the limiting factors when this eyepiece is in the Fujinon binocular are the f/4 achromatic objective and the prisms, not the eyepiece.

Henry

[Atomic Chicken]

Bawko: Thanks for the interesting posting. I don't suppose you have compared the brightness of the 10x50 against a premium 10x40, and 10x50 e.g. Leica BN ? In a year or two I might go for a 10x50 for dusk and the night sky. Leif.

Leif,

As a matter of fact, when I was shopping for a pair of 10x42 or 10x50 binoculars for low light and distant birding use, I did compare everything locally available - including the BN models you list. The only thing I couldn't find locally was a Zeiss FL (they had just been announced at that time I was shopping) and a Swarovski EL in 10x.

The first thing that happened during my evaluations is that I disqualified all of the 10x42 models as viable contenders for my needs. I noticed enough difference between the 42mm and 50mm objectives under low light conditions that I pretty much had to settle on a 50mm or larger objective lens for my intended low light use. This pretty much narrowed my choices down to the Pentax SP 10x50, the Leica Trinovid BN 10x50, the Leica Ultravid 10x50, the Zeiss Victory 10x56, and the Swarovski 10x50 SLC.

Although the Zeiss 10x56 was the brightest of all options, it was also the heaviest and one of the costliest as well. I was looking for a fairly low cost binocular for low light conditions, one that I would only be using for a few dozen minutes in the evenings or during other uncommon viewing situations. When comparing the Leica and Swarovski models to the Pentax, in terms of brightness, there was so little difference between the three options that the Pentax became the obvious choice for my needs. The main area of difference that I did see between the three was that the Pentax had probably 25-40% more chromatic aberration than the high-end models, but it is very difficult to accurately quantify CA so the rough figure is the best I can give. In almost every other respect the Pentax was comparable to the Leica and Swarovski within 5-10%.

Long winded, undoubtably... but I'm hoping this information will better help you make your decision.

Best wishes,
Bawko

[Leif]

Atomic Chicken: Thanks for the very helpful posting. Leif

[hinnark]

Steve,

I agree it is difficult to determine the contribution or the loss from FFL's when they are inseparable from the rest of the optics. However, I doubt that they limit field width. My Pentax 10X50 PIF has a 65 degree AFOV, and the Fujinon 16X70 FMT-SX has a 64 degree AFOV. Not many current bins have fields wider than that. I suspect narrower fields result more from weight saving by the use of small prisms.

Long ago I bought one of the 16X70 FMT-SX flat field eyepieces (about 16.5mm focal length) from the Fujinon parts dept. and adapted it for the 1 1/4" focusers on astronomical scopes. When it is used in an f/7 APO refractor it equals or betters the performance of the best comparable astronomical eyepieces in regard to sharpness (center and edge), light transmission and contrast. I believe the limiting factors when this eyepiece is in the Fujinon binocular are the f/4 achromatic objective and the prisms, not the eyepiece.

Henry

Henry,

that´s very interesting. Considering that at a bino construction needs eps twice and the fact that the Fujinons are not that expensive I assume costs may be not the limiting factor for using FFLs. So the mystery question arises again: Why European companies don´t use them? I hesitate to think they don´t cope with that optical technology. Maybe I have opportunity to ask them.

Steve

[henry link]

Henry,

that´s very interesting. Considering that at a bino construction needs eps twice and the fact that the Fujinons are not that expensive I assume costs may be not the limiting factor for using FFLs. So the mystery question arises again: Why European companies don´t use them? I hesitate to think they don´t cope with that optical technology. Maybe I have opportunity to ask them.

Steve

I don't think cost is a factor either. The Fujinon FMT and Nikon HG use a single negative element just behind the eyepiece field stop, which couldn't add much to the cost. Field flatteners are also not very new. The Nikon Prostar and Fujinon FMT appeared in the mid 80's. I suppose it could be argued that the Swaro EL is good enough as it is, but IMO the Zeiss FL could use a little improvement in this area. Of course, what I don't know is whether a field flattener would actually provide that kind of improvement in the particular optical design used in the FL. If you have the oportunity to ask some one who really knows, that would be very interesting.

Henry

[kabsetz]

Just a quick response to Steve a few postings above concerning Alula review of 10x binoculars and the Nikon HG. At the time we did the review, the 10x42 HG was not available for testing. However, in September 2000 I rather thoroughly tested the 10x42HG against the 10x42 SE, although these results have not been published anywhere. The two were extremely alike in just about all respects optical, and very different in just about all respects to do with handling. With the units I had, the SE was ever so slightly sharper, a tad brighter, had very slightly more neutral colours and noticeably less secondary colour (CA). The HG, in deep twilight, might have had a tad better contrast, but I'm not sure whether this impression was a real effect or just a subjective feeling. The SE was also slightly freer of flare, although the HG was also very good.

Handlingwise I preferred the HG. It fit my hands better, had way superior eyecups and a much more responsive focus. However, the unit I had (which had been used by a birder for some time) had rather too loose central hinge, which ment that I needed to re-adjust the interpupillary distance ever so often. The weight difference was also quite substantial, but with the new "L" models that has been taken care of.

Despite what some say, and all of us would like to think, individual variation does play a role in the resolution of even the best binoculars, and therefore I have no reason to doubt reports such as the Porters' which state that the HG is sharper than the SE. With the units they had for testing, that must have been the case. Similarly with Steve. With the units I had, the situation was the opposite. However, with these top models we have around today, unless you have a true lemon (which fortunately are rare), the differences are quite minute and make a difference only if you regularly view with a tripod-mounted binocular. Telescopes are a different matter altogether. They are always tripod-mounted, and are often used at such high magnifications that even with a perfect specimen the optics of the scope itself would be the limiting factor for what you can see.

Kimmo

[hinnark]

Just a quick response to Steve a few postings above concerning Alula review of 10x binoculars and the Nikon HG. At the time we did the review, the 10x42 HG was not available for testing. However, in September 2000 I rather thoroughly tested the 10x42HG against the 10x42 SE, although these results have not been published anywhere. The two were extremely alike in just about all respects optical, and very different in just about all respects to do with handling. With the units I had, the SE was ever so slightly sharper, a tad brighter, had very slightly more neutral colours and noticeably less secondary colour (CA). The HG, in deep twilight, might have had a tad better contrast, but I'm not sure whether this impression was a real effect or just a subjective feeling. The SE was also slightly freer of flare, although the HG was also very good.

Handlingwise I preferred the HG. It fit my hands better, had way superior eyecups and a much more responsive focus. However, the unit I had (which had been used by a birder for some time) had rather too loose central hinge, which ment that I needed to re-adjust the interpupillary distance ever so often. The weight difference was also quite substantial, but with the new "L" models that has been taken care of.

Despite what some say, and all of us would like to think, individual variation does play a role in the resolution of even the best binoculars, and therefore I have no reason to doubt reports such as the Porters' which state that the HG is sharper than the SE. With the units they had for testing, that must have been the case. Similarly with Steve. With the units I had, the situation was the opposite. However, with these top models we have around today, unless you have a true lemon (which fortunately are rare), the differences are quite minute and make a difference only if you regularly view with a tripod-mounted binocular. Telescopes are a different matter altogether. They are always tripod-mounted, and are often used at such high magnifications that even with a perfect specimen the optics of the scope itself would be the limiting factor for what you can see.

Kimmo


Thank you Kimmo for your comment. I agree with all you´ve said. I tried the 10x42 SE and HG once on an overcast evening handhold watching the reed belt of a lake (Katinger Watt, North Sea) at distances of about 200-300 m. I was amazed about the HG because it let me see in this observing situation more details in the reed with its culms, leaves and blossoms and so on than any other binocular even than the brighter SE and my own Leica 10x50 Trinovid BN. But its relative narrow fov was bothering me and so I kept my Leica.

Steve

[chartwell99]

I wondered whether others have experienced a loose hinge problem with the Nikon HG. My 8 x 42 is afflicted and while the problem is presently not severe enough to warrant returning the binocular to Nikon under warranty, it is annoying and surprising for a glass that appears to be otherwise very robust. I do not have this problem yet with my Nikon 10 x 32 HG, although it is newer and may suffer the same fate.

[hinnark]

I wondered whether others have experienced a loose hinge problem with the Nikon HG. My 8 x 42 is afflicted and while the problem is presently not severe enough to warrant returning the binocular to Nikon under warranty, it is annoying and surprising for a glass that appears to be otherwise very robust. I do not have this problem yet with my Nikon 10 x 32 HG, although it is newer and may suffer the same fate.

Yes, I saw a 8x42 Nikon HG with a loose hinge too. It was a dealer demo bino. I wonder if one can tighten it by himself. Is there a screw or someting like this?

Steve