Zeiss 8x42FL small sweet spot or edge to edge sharpness

[Zolarcon]

Hi BF,

Was surfing and ran across this about the new New Zeiss FL on B&H in NY, USA.

Read below (from B&H):
"The optics of the Victory T* FL series were created with elements of abnormal partial dispersion, a chunk of gobbledygook easily translating to the observer as the theoretical limit of razor sharp imagery free of color shift or chromatic aberration, the dreaded bane of bargain binoculars. When focusing upon a flat subject, the image is as sharp at the edges of the enormous viewing field as it is at the center. The broad focusing range goes from end to end in just a single rotation of the center focus dial, which also houses the dioptric correction."

So what is the deal are the rumors true do the new Zeiss FLs have a small sweet spot or are they like the Nikon HG- with its' edge to edge sharpness?

Thanks,
Carlos

[Curtis Croulet]

This topic has been covered ad nauseum. Look at the Zeiss FL threads last summer, starting about Aug 5, when the first FLs found their way to consumers. Judge for yourself.

[dwalton]

...So what is the deal are the rumors true do the new Zeiss FLs have a small sweet spot or are they like the Nikon HG- with its' edge to edge sharpness?

Thanks,
Carlos
I tested both of these recently. The Zeiss 8x42 FLs do not have the edge-to-edge sharpness that the Nikon LXLs have.

[Leif]

Hi BF,

Was surfing and ran across this about the new New Zeiss FL on B&H in NY, USA.

Read below (from B&H):
"The optics of the Victory T* FL series were created with elements of abnormal partial dispersion, a chunk of gobbledygook easily translating to the observer as the theoretical limit of razor sharp imagery free of color shift or chromatic aberration, the dreaded bane of bargain binoculars. When focusing upon a flat subject, the image is as sharp at the edges of the enormous viewing field as it is at the center. The broad focusing range goes from end to end in just a single rotation of the center focus dial, which also houses the dioptric correction."

So what is the deal are the rumors true do the new Zeiss FLs have a small sweet spot or are they like the Nikon HG- with its' edge to edge sharpness?

Thanks,
Carlos

Maybe we could comment better if we saw the original text rather than your interpretation? Anyway, I would never believe the marketing blurb if I were you. As Curtis wisely says, there's plenty of threads on this issue and you can benefit from comments from many people including many FL owners. I won't rehash what has already been said, but why don't you try a pair for yourself and then you can judge who is closest to the truth as you see it?

As an aside, the 8x42 FL does not have the same degree of edge to edge sharpness as the Nikon 8x42 HG. That is one of the great strengths of the Nikon HG and SE range. But then again the 8x42 HG has a noticeably narrower FOV. It's a case of horses for courses, although in France horse would be served as the main course, but I digress.

Leif

[John Traynor]

Hi BF,

Was surfing and ran across this about the new New Zeiss FL on B&H in NY, USA.

Read below (from B&H):
"The optics of the Victory T* FL series were created with elements of abnormal partial dispersion, a chunk of gobbledygook easily translating to the observer as the theoretical limit of razor sharp imagery free of color shift or chromatic aberration, the dreaded bane of bargain binoculars. When focusing upon a flat subject, the image is as sharp at the edges of the enormous viewing field as it is at the center. The broad focusing range goes from end to end in just a single rotation of the center focus dial, which also houses the dioptric correction."

So what is the deal are the rumors true do the new Zeiss FLs have a small sweet spot or are they like the Nikon HG- with its' edge to edge sharpness?

Thanks,
Carlos

Carlos,

The truth is no binocular has perfect edge-to-edge sharpness. The question each person should ask is what level of imperfection are they willing to tolerate. The SE, which you own, is extremely good in this regard and SE users are probably less willing than others to settle for less. That wonderfully large, crisp field of the SE is as relaxing as it gets. Unfortunately, the SE is not waterproof and many SE users buy an additional roof prism bin. Few roofs have the edge-to-edge sharpness of the SE, though some are very close.

Leica has the same edge sharpness marketing hype about the Ultravid and in some instances I see superb edge sharpness. At other times, it doesn't begin to compare with my SE on edge sharpness, primarily at close range. I think the Nikon LX and Swaro EL are very good on edge sharpness, but not perfect. The LX probably has the best edge sharpness, but I don't think its overall image is as sharp and crisp as the EL, and I would further argue that the Ultravid is crisper than the Swaro! That’s my opinion and why I bought it. However, both the EL and LX have better edge sharpness than the Ultravid, IMO.

Let me defer to FL owners for a moment. Many have reported on the FL edge sharpness issue and I believe it is a perfectly legitimate topic of discussion. Some have reported seeing nothing and others say it’s obvious. Since I don’t believe our eyes introduce anomalies into a bin, I’ll conclude the FL, like every other bin, does not have perfect edge sharpness and that it’s only a problem for some people. I believe, as I have from the very beginning, that the curvature of each individual’s eye is a primary factor in whether or not one notices a drop off in sharpness. The second factor is user sensitivity to optical variations that can be physiological or behavioral in nature. Essentially, either you like the image or you don’t.

I remember the FL debate well and, in hindsight, it became ridiculous. People see what they see, at the moment, and that’s it. My left eye carries my weaker right eye and in one day of birding I often have perfect views followed by lousy views. I sometimes wondered why my SE seemed to work when the Ultravid began to fail me. After experimenting, the answer became crystal clear. The SE image in my left eye was so perfect it didn’t matter what my right eye saw…my brain received the information from the left and said “OK, I can work with that”. The fact that the SE is a wide porro and I have a narrow IPD is also a factor. I have ALWAYS preferred the view through a porro. The Ultravid, though it's a great bin, just couldn’t deliver the same exceptional image of the SE. Conclusion: For me, the SE is the better of the two. I do, however, prefer the relaxed view of the Ultravid. SE quality optics in an Ultravid body…now that would be something!

Whenever I use my Ultravid, I recall the admonition that edge sharpness doesn’t matter because you should “point your bin at the target”. As an SE user I could look around the image, but as an Ultravid user I happily point a little more often. I enjoy both bins a lot and I’m sure FL owners enjoy theirs. Get to a store and find one you can live with.

The rain has subsided so I’m going birding.

John

[henry link]

I'll know that hell has frozen over when I read some binocular advertising poop that says something like: "Acceptable edge sharpness, but not as good as the best in its class"

Since I suppose I am the one who started this last August, perhaps I should update my impressions. The first pair of 8X42 FL's I bought and reviewed did have unimpressive edge sharpness and more importantly showed a significant loss of central sharpness at only about 10 to 12 degrees off axis. After a few weeks I was lucky enough to be able to exchange that pair for a better one which is the best of three I was able to try. The off axis sharpness of this pair is still "not as good as the best in its class", but it's good enough. The loss of sharpness about half way between the center and the edge is noticeable in a direct comparison with the best, but I find it easy enough to ignore in the field. In every other respect the optics of this binocular either equals or betters anything else I have seen.

[Zolarcon]

Maybe we could comment better if we saw the original text rather than your interpretation? Anyway, I would never believe the marketing blurb if I were you. As Curtis wisely says, there's plenty of threads on this issue and you can benefit from comments from many people including many FL owners. I won't rehash what has already been said, but why don't you try a pair for yourself and then you can judge who is closest to the truth as you see it?

As an aside, the 8x42 FL does not have the same degree of edge to edge sharpness as the Nikon 8x42 HG. That is one of the great strengths of the Nikon HG and SE range. But then again the 8x42 HG has a noticeably narrower FOV. It's a case of horses for courses, although in France horse would be served as the main course, but I digress.

Leif


Hi Leif,

I would not post if I could see the Zeiss FL for myself.

If I knew the thread for the Zeiss FL sweet spot I would have not posted.

Also it is very disheartening to read through people attacking others for binocular information. I didn't want to put muyself through that.

What I posted was copied and pasted from the B&H site. And yes, I would not take their word for it. I was suprised by their claim- I thought maybe it was a newer version of the new FL.

Thanks for everyone's input,
Carlos

[RCMann]

That wonderfully large, crisp field of the SE is as relaxing as it gets. John

John-it always comes down to what's best for the individual, doesn't it?

I was out on a bluff overlooking the San Elijo Lagoon today with my wife, who was carrying her 8x32 SEs. I had my 7x42 FLs and spent 15-20 minutes just sitting there looking at a variety of waterfowl switching back and forth between the two while she had a quick nap in the sun.

It had been awhile since I've used the SEs in the field, and I was immediately struck with how dissatisfied I was with them as I was experiencing mega blackouts. Which is really sad because I've always loved them.

I've become used to using the FLs with their extremely wide FOV and, more important in this case, the 6mm exit pupil. I can shift my eyes around and never get blackouts. It's as natural a view as I've experienced with binoculars.

The SEs have, of course, the edge-to-edge sharpness the FLs can't match, but it's pretty difficult to see the edge other than peripherally, so it's kind of a moot point, at least with me.

I can actually shift my eyes to the edge of the field with the FLs such that I'm looking directly at the edge, and, no, it's not as clear as the SEs. But the fact that I can do it without getting blackout is more than worth the slight loss of clarity at the very edge. Better to see an unclear edge than black out with a clear one as I did with the SEs.

As 8x32s, The SEs are a magnificent set of binoculars. But when compared to a wider FOV combined with a 50% bigger exit pupil the edge clarity is simply overwhelmed by the other factors.

As has been repeated ad nauseum, everyone's eyes are different, therefore, of course, YMMV.

Saw some beautiful Caspian Terns today, first of the season for me.

Rod

[Zolarcon]

It had been awhile since I've used the SEs in the field, and I was immediately struck with how dissatisfied I was with them as I was experiencing mega blackouts. Which is really sad because I've always loved them.

But the fact that I can do it without getting blackout is more than worth the slight loss of clarity at the very edge. Better to see an unclear edge than black out with a clear one as I did with the SEs.



Rod

Hi Rod

SE user, eyeglass wearer never experienced a black out yet.

Carlos

[Curtis Croulet]

Zolarcon: You're right not to take B&H's word for it, but please understand, some of us who lived through the FL war last year are not eager to repeat it. I'm an FL owner (apparently one of the first in the USA, as was Henry Link). I have an opinion, as do Henry and John Traylor (who rejected the FL in favor of the Ultravid). We all had our say, and the posts are available for anyone who cares to review them. Among those three, there was one enthusiastic thumbs-up from someone who can't even see the "problem," one lukewarm thumbs-up, and an emphatic thumbs-down. The main area of contention was "size of the sweet spot" and its harmony with the rest of the field.

[Leif]

Hi Leif,

I would not post if I could see the Zeiss FL for myself.

If I knew the thread for the Zeiss FL sweet spot I would have not posted.

Also it is very disheartening to read through people attacking others for binocular information. I didn't want to put muyself through that.

What I posted was copied and pasted from the B&H site. And yes, I would not take their word for it. I was suprised by their claim- I thought maybe it was a newer version of the new FL.

Thanks for everyone's input,
Carlos

Hi Carlos. Fair enough! I thought you had edited the text quoted as it read a bit strangely. I do recall that the Zeiss marketing blurb was not as honest and frank as it could have been. I'm sometimes surprised at what marketing people can get away with. I suppose you can't blame them for trying to show a product in the best light.

Since you would like comments on the FL, I would agree with Henry's balanced assessment: the edge softness is acceptable but not on a par with the best e.g. Swarovski 8.5x42 EL. When I am birding with a Zeiss 8x42 FL, I do not notice edge softness unless I look for it. However, the incredible contrast and brightness and vibrancy of the colours (due to freedom from CA?) provided by the FL easily outweighs any edge softness. But that is a subjective judgement on my part. I suppose if you are really keen on a pair, you could buy from a store with a good return policy? That way you incur a small-ish postage charge if you don't like them. It could get a bit expensive were you to try many models and makes.

Leif

[Jonathan B.]

Hi Rod

SE user, eyeglass wearer never experienced a black out yet.

Carlos

Carlos,

I'm also an SE user--have been for five years--and do not experience blackouts. Incidentally I also own 7x42 Ultravid and do not experience noticeable CA with it. It has a trace, but so does the SE, and in my experience the SE has slightly more. The CA in both is corrected by re-positioning the bins. Months ago I reported here on my comparison of 7x42 FL to Ultravid. Their performance is essentially identical, and one's choice should be made by handling. I prefer the handling of the Ultravid, as do many others; Leif prefers the handling of the FL, as do many others.

John's comments above, on the relative merits of each of the top contenders, are 100% on target IMO.

[Zolarcon]

Thanks to everyone, wonderful information.

My 2 cents- it is interesting lots of birders love the Ultravid 7x42 and the 8x42 FL. Probably because brightness and contrast both of these models seem to provide that. I think if it weren't for the edge softenss of the Zeiss it would be perfect and if it weren't for the Ultravid in 7x magnification causing a brighter, picture window feel the 8x Ultravid would be great. I am very suprised how dull yet sharp the view is through the Swaro 8.5 EL. I still believe there are large comprises in this price range. I will make an effort to try the FL and Ultravid out for myself but I just might wait a few years when bin makers take the next step further. No matter what the SE for the price makes you realize old school still has it right except in the rain.

These forum disdcussions really help so when you actually have the bin in your hands you think about all these things we write about. Sometimes you are taken by a bin and only after you've had it for a while do you start to see problems.

Thanks,
Carlos

[Leif]

Carlos,

I'm also an SE user--have been for five years--and do not experience blackouts. Incidentally I also own 7x42 Ultravid and do not experience noticeable CA with it. It has a trace, but so does the SE, and in my experience the SE has slightly more. The CA in both is corrected by re-positioning the bins. Months ago I reported here on my comparison of 7x42 FL to Ultravid. Their performance is essentially identical, and one's choice should be made by handling. I prefer the handling of the Ultravid, as do many others; Leif prefers the handling of the FL, as do many others.

John's comments above, on the relative merits of each of the top contenders, are 100% on target IMO.

Jonathan: This is a good example of why someone really must try optics for themselves so that they can decide what suits them. When I tried the Leica 8x42 Ultravid, I was impressed with the compact size, the contrast and the brightness (what else did I expect from one of the big names), but was less keen on the ergonomics, and I saw very noticeable CA (it was a sunny day which accentuates CA), and far more than from the 8x32 SE. I used to own both an 8x32 SE and a Swaro 8.5x42 EL and could compare them. To my eyes the EL had much more CA than the SE to the extend that I did not like using it, though many people do not notice it. For me the lack of CA is one of the strengths of the FL range. A recent rather heated thread - it became somewhat of a bun fight - addressed the issue of CA.

Incidentally my choice of the FL was on the basis of the optics, not the handling though I do rather like the handling of the FL.

You are quite right that handling is very subjective.

Leif

[dwalton]

....I am very suprised how dull yet sharp the view is through the Swaro 8.5 EL. ....
Carlos

This comment describes the opinion I had of the ELs when comparing them to the FLs and the Nikon LXLs. I couldn't quite put my finger on it, but "dull", although perhaps a bit strong, describes what I saw.

[Leif]

This comment describes the opinion I had of the ELs when comparing them to the FLs and the Nikon LXLs. I couldn't quite put my finger on it, but "dull", although perhaps a bit strong, describes what I saw.

I would describe it as slightly lower contrast. 'Dull' does seem a bit strong though descriptive.

Leif

[Jonathan B.]

Jonathan: This is a good example of why someone really must try optics for themselves so that they can decide what suits them. When I tried the Leica 8x42 Ultravid, I was impressed with the compact size, the contrast and the brightness (what else did I expect from one of the big names), but was less keen on the ergonomics, and I saw very noticeable CA (it was a sunny day which accentuates CA), and far more than from the 8x32 SE. I used to own both an 8x32 SE and a Swaro 8.5x42 EL and could compare them. To my eyes the EL had much more CA than the SE to the extend that I did not like using it, though many people do not notice it. For me the lack of CA is one of the strengths of the FL range. A recent rather heated thread - it became somewhat of a bun fight - addressed the issue of CA.

Incidentally my choice of the FL was on the basis of the optics, not the handling though I do rather like the handling of the FL.

You are quite right that handling is very subjective.

Leif

Leif,

On a thread some months ago I posed a question that nobody responded to, and somebody else asked the same thing a short time later, also without response as I recall.

Is it possible that some people, due to physical differences in their eyes, are more prone to see CA? I know that some people don't see it because they don't look for it, and that is a different matter.

I look for CA but don't find it to be as pronounced in the same bins that you do. Believe me, I see plenty in the Nikon HG, and see terrible CA in Swarovski's porro bins. But I see only the faintest bit in the Ultravid. I do not wear glasses and am fortunate to have exceptional vision, with only a trace of astigmatism in one eye.

Aside from the question of CA, I think most of us are on the same page about how one should select bins (the more subjective side of choice, for example ergonomics). And we all seem to be in agreement about the relative merits or lack thereof among the high-end products (the more objective side of the matter, demonstrated by comparisons which all of us can replicate).

I also repeat a question I asked last week. Has anybody compared the 8x32 FL to Ultravid or SE?

Jonathan

[kabsetz]

I have compared the 8x32 FL to 8x32 Ultravid, the test should be coming out in ALULA's issue 2/2005 shortly. The 8x32 SE was not available, but I do have an 10x42 SE and also had the 10x32 FL. I shall naturally not include the whole test report, or even substantial parts of it here, but can comment on CA. To my eyes, the small FL's have about as little CA as the 42mm FL's. The SE has noticeably more, but for me the SE is in the category of "little enough CA not to be noticeable (under most conditions) unless I look for it." The Ultravid (and all other Ultravids I have tried) have enough CA for me to be bothered by it under many, but not all, viewing conditions.

Before Ultravid owners jump on me, let me repeat that above I'm only speaking of CA, and nothing else. Also, some of my fellow birders (some of them much more experienced birders than I ever will be) were not bothered at all by the Ultravid's CA if they even saw it. It is clear that people differ significantly in their ability/willingness to see CA, and I really do not know why this is. If someone has sharp eyes and does not see CA, they should just consider themselves lucky.

Kimmo

[Leif]

Leif,

On a thread some months ago I posed a question that nobody responded to, and somebody else asked the same thing a short time later, also without response as I recall.

Is it possible that some people, due to physical differences in their eyes, are more prone to see CA? I know that some people don't see it because they don't look for it, and that is a different matter.

I look for CA but don't find it to be as pronounced in the same bins that you do. Believe me, I see plenty in the Nikon HG, and see terrible CA in Swarovski's porro bins. But I see only the faintest bit in the Ultravid. I do not wear glasses and am fortunate to have exceptional vision, with only a trace of astigmatism in one eye.

Aside from the question of CA, I think most of us are on the same page about how one should select bins (the more subjective side of choice, for example ergonomics). And we all seem to be in agreement about the relative merits or lack thereof among the high-end products (the more objective side of the matter, demonstrated by comparisons which all of us can replicate).

I also repeat a question I asked last week. Has anybody compared the 8x32 FL to Ultravid or SE?

Jonathan

Jonathan: To be honest I have not seen any convincing explanation of differences in perception of CA. I suspect there are a lot of people on BF who would agree with me, and certainly I concur with Kimmo's comments. My personal prejudice is that it is not physiological i.e. in the eye, but I accept that I might be wrong. I sold several highly rated Nikon 35mm lenses due to excess CA in the images produced. The reviews usually ignore the CA.

I certainly agree that correct eye placement helps, both in reducing CA and ensuring optimum sharpness.

I do not have exceptional vision although I seem to have pupils that open fairly wide (at least 6.5mm). I did once have astigmatism in one eye due to foreign matter embedded in the cornea causing it to swell. It was easily cured.

I am sure that Henry Link has tried the Zeiss 8x32 FL and posted a short review to BF and his comments are very interesting. I am not sure where they are: maybe in a thread dedicated to his mini review?

Leif

[Jonathan B.]

Jonathan: To be honest I have not seen any convincing explanation of differences in perception of CA. I suspect there are a lot of people on BF who would agree with me, and certainly I concur with Kimmo's comments. My personal prejudice is that it is not physiological i.e. in the eye, but I accept that I might be wrong. I sold several highly rated Nikon 35mm lenses due to excess CA in the images produced. The reviews usually ignore the CA.

I certainly agree that correct eye placement helps, both in reducing CA and ensuring optimum sharpness.

I do not have exceptional vision although I seem to have pupils that open fairly wide (at least 6.5mm). I did once have astigmatism in one eye due to foreign matter embedded in the cornea causing it to swell. It was easily cured.

I am sure that Henry Link has tried the Zeiss 8x32 FL and posted a short review to BF and his comments are very interesting. I am not sure where they are: maybe in a thread dedicated to his mini review?

Leif

Thanks, Leif

I was away birding and trying to get some of the last spring wildflowers in the Arizona desert for a few days, so didn't respond. I will look for Henry's comments on 8x32 FL.

JB

[Zolarcon]

I would describe it as slightly lower contrast. 'Dull' does seem a bit strong though descriptive.

Leif

I guess I was expecting a lot more from Swarovski. When you pay as much money for these, I expect- Wow. I will not take way that the Swarovski EL is not excellent but when you compare a Nikon HG 8x42 for 800 US dollars to European Glass like Swarovski for 1600 US dollars on this particular aspect "dull" sets it straight. Even B&L Elite is brighter than the Swarovski to my eyes.


Like I said before I will wait a while before I put 1600 dollars into a bin that still isn't on par with my SE.

Best Regards,
Carlos

[dwalton]

I guess I was expecting a lot more from Swarovski. When you pay as much money for these, I expect- Wow. I will not take way that the Swarovski EL is not excellent but when you compare a Nikon HG 8x42 for 800 US dollars to European Glass like Swarovski for 1600 US dollars on this particular aspect "dull" sets it straight. Even B&L Elite is brighter than the Swarovski to my eyes.

Like I said before I will wait a while before I put 1600 dollars into a bin that still isn't on par with my SE.

Best Regards,
Carlos
This is a bit off-topic to this forum, but now that my comparo is done, and all binos either returned (or kept), I will say that I was disappointed in the Swarovski EL 8.5x42. I thought the focus mechanism felt a bit cheesy - plasticky - and there was a bit of slop in the focuser when changing directions that, while not a big deal, was nevertheless a little irritating to me. I thought the view was slightly flat (dull?), as described above. I felt that the ergos were nice, and I liked the extra .5x, but that the binos themselves felt like they might be a bit less robust than some of the others.

In my mind, the ELs are definitely overpriced. I believe my LXLs are better, and they were $600 less. I would have happily spent the extra money on the ELs had I thought they warranted it. I wanted to buy them. And what can I say about the CLO review that dissed the LXLs and hyped the ELs? Well, I think that the ratings that were given were goofy and misleading.

After having used my Nikon 8x42 LXLs in the field several times under different conditions, I am very happy that I went with them instead of the ELs, or the 8x42 FLs. The Nikons are just superb. I love the way they handle, the ultra-sharp, contrasty, saturated views, their operation, and their build quality.

OK - I'll shup up now on this. :-)

[elkcub]

... Whenever I use my Ultravid, I recall the admonition that edge sharpness doesn’t matter because you should “point your bin at the target”. As an SE user I could look around the image, but as an Ultravid user I happily point a little more often. I enjoy both bins a lot and I’m sure FL owners enjoy theirs. Get to a store and find one you can live with.
...
John

John,

I forgot to compliment you on an extremely insightful post. So, before it gets away from me — you hit the nail on the head!

It makes a great deal of sense to me that the combination of hyperstereo and retinal curvature correction (i.e., flat field) would combine to make the SE's stereo perceptual field easier to navigate. In short, one can switch attention within the scene without moving the binoculars as much. Of course, good DOF would also be an important factor.

Regards,
Elkcub

[Curtis Croulet]

CLO review that dissed the LXLs and hyped the ELs? Well, I think that the ratings that were given were goofy and misleading.

The Nikon Premier LXs tested by Living Bird were prototypes (clearly stated in the article). Maybe the production bins are better. The "hype" for the EL was mainly for ergonomics and handling. I find it interesting that the Swarovski EL, so very recently and widely considered to be the "ultimate," has fallen from grace so dramatically. Note: I'm not an EL owner. Rather, I'm one of the notorious Zeiss FL owners. I've read comments in this forum about the Zeiss that I thought were "goofy and misleading." I just have to accept that not everybody agrees with my enlightened opinion ;) . Maybe the same situation prevails with your opinion of the Nikon.

[dwalton]

...I just have to accept that not everybody agrees with my enlightened opinion ;) . Maybe the same situation prevails with your opinion of the Nikon.

Agreed! My opinions are just opinions. There are more experienced folks out there who have different and valid views. I was fortunate in that I had these various high-end binos in my office for 2-3 weeks, all at the same time, and I was able to go back and forth quite often to compare them. It was fun comparing them all to the Pentax 8x43 SPs too.

If the FLs that I tried out had just a bit more eye relief, I likely would own them now. They were wonderful. When I looked for it, I could see how the image got a little soft outside the sweet spot on the FLs, but I didn't find it objectionable. And I really liked how they felt in my hands, the focuser action, and the build quality.

Heck - all the high-end binos are great. Many of the mid-range binos are excellent too. It's fun comparing and discussing them, but even more fun using them in the field.

[Curtis Croulet]

If the FLs that I tried out had just a bit more eye relief, I likely would own them now.

I wear glasses all the time (up to age 45, I never wore glasses), but not real thick ones. For me the eye-relief of the 8x42 FL is ample.

[elkcub]

... To be honest I have not seen any convincing explanation of differences in perception of CA. ... My personal prejudice is that it is not physiological i.e. in the eye, but I accept that I might be wrong. I sold several highly rated Nikon 35mm lenses due to excess CA in the images produced. The reviews usually ignore the CA.

Leif

Leif,

In the last few days I evaluated CA comparatively between four of my own binoculars. The weather in my area lent itself to doing this. My primary reason was to determine, introspectively, how I would react (mentally), rather than analyzing the visual details. The long and short of it is that behaviorally I did things quite differently than I would normally when using binoculars. Essentially, this required that I manipuate instrument pointing, move my eyes, and above all attend to the binoculars themselves rather than to the birds. In the process I became keenly aware of the high contrast backlit situations that made the annoying color fringe effects observable. Moreover, once having learned to do it, a "compulsive attention" (another CA) developed that persisted for quite a while, and I became consciously aware that I had developed a localized fascination for the phenomenon.

Anyway, having done this personal experiment for the first (and only) time, I believe that anyone can observe optical CA if they learn the behavior, which all binoculars produce to some extent — differing perhaps in pervasiveness. However, at least for high-end binoculars I'm also convinced that compulsive attention behavior is an integral part of the problem and must be unlearned for the user to be free of it.

Basically, that requires a form of behavior modification. In my case I broke the compulsion (or fasination) by going into the field. When I discovered a family of Eared Grebes in full plumage my attention shifted to the important matters in life, and this was followed by a splendid family of Surf Scoters that sealed the deal.

Of course, this topic has received much discussion on several threads so I apologize for walking on sacred footprints. I wonder how my conclusions square with yours.

Elkcub

[Leif]

Leif,

In the last few days I evaluated CA comparatively between four of my own binoculars. The weather in my area lent itself to doing this. My primary reason was to determine, introspectively, how I would react (mentally), rather than analyzing the visual details. The long and short of it is that behaviorally I did things quite differently than I would normally when using binoculars. Essentially, this required that I manipuate instrument pointing, move my eyes, and above all attend to the binoculars themselves rather than to the birds. In the process I became keenly aware of the high contrast backlit situations that made the annoying color fringe effects observable. Moreover, once having learned to do it, a "compulsive attention" (another CA) developed that persisted for quite a while, and I became consciously aware that I had developed a localized fascination for the phenomenon.

Anyway, having done this personal experiment for the first (and only) time, I believe that anyone can observe optical CA if they learn the behavior, which all binoculars produce to some extent — differing perhaps in pervasiveness. However, at least for high-end binoculars I'm also convinced that compulsive attention behavior is an integral part of the problem and must be unlearned for the user to be free of it.

Basically, that requires a form of behavior modification. In my case I broke the compulsion (or fasination) by going into the field. When I discovered a family of Eared Grebes in full plumage my attention shifted to the important matters in life, and this was followed by a splendid family of Surf Scoters that sealed the deal.

Of course, this topic has received much discussion on several threads so I apologize for walking on sacred footprints. I wonder how my conclusions square with yours.

Elkcub

Elkcub: Yes this path has been gone over so many times that we are now in danger of falling into the ruts. There is in a separate thread a picture from Ilkka in Finland that shows how severe it can be i.e. it is not necessarily a result of obsessive compulsive disorder. It depends strongly on the instrument and on image contrast: hence if you happen to bird in a shady wood, then CA will not be an issue, but watch a crow against snow on a sunny day and it might be seen, depending on the instrument.

I remember someone saying that he had tested a Nikon 8x32 HG and thought it was one of the best corrected binoculars he had ever tried. I owned one and sold it due to excessive CA. I remember watching Red Kites in flight and being distracted by the equally large equally bright purple siblings. I have tried three samples and all were the same. Some binoculars have so little CA that I can, as you say, forget about it - e.g. Zeiss 8x42 FL, Nikon 8x32 SE, most/all 8x20 compact binoculars, Nikon 8x40 Egret - whilst others - e.g. Nikon 8x32 HG, Steiner 10x40 Rocky S - show so much that it bothers me and distracts from the bird. Sometimes CA in extreme cases can prevent an id as the bird becomes a hazy smear.

One possible complication is that CA often gets worse when the eye and binoculars are not aligned. So if you do not wear glasses, the way that the eye tubes align with your eye sockets will influence the view you see (both in terms of CA, but also other aberrations which also get worse off axis).

As you say, I think people have difference tolerance levels. Some people object to colour casts, whereas I am fairly insensitive to them, and in fact I struggle to determine what the cast if any is. Others object to distortion, whereas I can usually ignore it without it being distracting (I have learnt to ignore it). Clearly one person's review of an instrument is far from impartial.

That is why the BF mantras seems to be "Try before you buy" and "Form your own opinion".

Leif

[elkcub]

Leif,

Okay. Obviously I've not plumbed the CA depths as you, Ilkka, and others have, and I happily content myself with escaping this one scarey behavioral experience. At least for me the fasination pitfall is crystal clear, although I do not by any means suggest that binoculars don't differ significantly along these lines, or that it can be overcome as mind over matter. Although all of my binocs do have it (in different colors), fortunately I have to go out of my way to find it. There I quit the topic to live in blissful ignorance.

Best regards,
-elk