Zeiss vs. Nikon eye relief

[Po'ouli]

I have a question regarding the eye relief of the Zeiss 8x42 FL compared to the Nikon 8x42 LXL. The Eagle Optics website lists 16mm of eye relief on the Zeiss and 20mm for the Nikon. Since this is a critical feature for me, I was leaning toward the Nikons (though I'm not crazy about the ergonomics).

I have not had a chance to try either one, since the local shop just tells me week after week that they're on order and will arrive any day. The problem is, the Cornell Lab binocular review in Living Bird gives the Zeiss a perfect 5 for eye relief and eyecup quality, and they give the Nikons a 4.8. Since I have an old pair of Zeiss 10x40 B/GA T bins with 16mm of eye relief (which isn't close to adequate for me), I was really surprised that the Cornell reviewers gave the new Zeiss a perfect score when they only have 16mm of eye relief.

So, are there any eyeglass wearers out there that have the Zeiss or Nikon 8x42 and can comment on the eye relief?

Thanks,

Bruce

PS: I have tried the 7x42 and 8x42 Leica Ultravids and would have seriously considered them if it wasn't for the awful focus mechanism, so they're out of the running.

[Robert Ellis]

I can't comment on those models but I can tell you my eyes are comfortable, with glasses on of course, with an eye relief from 14mm to about 16mm. At 20mm my eyes are too close to the eyepeices and I get blackout. There is such a thing as too much eye relief. I wear glasses that fit fairly within my eyesockets, not protruding anypast my eyebrow ridges.

The conclusion, or, how this relates to your question: the Cornell reviewers may have had similar glasses to mine, possibly because they are used to older bins with less eye relief than the newer crop, and so found that 20mm was a bit too long on average for the group.

If the 16mm you have experience with is not enough, pay no heed to the Cornell review, you already know it does not work for you. You can't adjust the FLs any longer than 16, but you could adjust the Nikons down a bit to 18 or so if 20 was a bit long.

PS, on the Leica focusing. They are designed to work without lubricant, so at normal temps they are not a silky as the others, but the feel does not worsen at any temperature, whereas lubricated mechanisms can (even the best to a small degree). It is a tradeoff. Average but always or silky most of the time.

[Rich N]

I have the Zeiss 10x42 FL. I believe it is listed with 16mm of eye relief. It works well for me and I wear eye glasses. I was surprised because I usually need 18mm of eye relief.

Rich

[Pileatus]

I have a question regarding the eye relief of the Zeiss 8x42 FL compared to the Nikon 8x42 LXL. The Eagle Optics website lists 16mm of eye relief on the Zeiss and 20mm for the Nikon. Since this is a critical feature for me, I was leaning toward the Nikons (though I'm not crazy about the ergonomics).

I have not had a chance to try either one, since the local shop just tells me week after week that they're on order and will arrive any day. The problem is, the Cornell Lab binocular review in Living Bird gives the Zeiss a perfect 5 for eye relief and eyecup quality, and they give the Nikons a 4.8. Since I have an old pair of Zeiss 10x40 B/GA T bins with 16mm of eye relief (which isn't close to adequate for me), I was really surprised that the Cornell reviewers gave the new Zeiss a perfect score when they only have 16mm of eye relief.

So, are there any eyeglass wearers out there that have the Zeiss or Nikon 8x42 and can comment on the eye relief?

Thanks,

Bruce

PS: I have tried the 7x42 and 8x42 Leica Ultravids and would have seriously considered them if it wasn't for the awful focus mechanism, so they're out of the running.


Bruce,

Do not trust the raw eye relief numbers. Eyepiece and eyecup design have a powerful affect on performance.

The 20mm Nikons work fine with my eyeglasses and the viewing window is superb. The Zeiss and Leicas work fine with my eyeglasses.

I own a Leica 7X42 Ultravid and I, too, had serious reservations about the focus wheel. If it's stiff, and many are, it will break in over time depending on how much you use it. Mine is much smoother after several months of steady use and I'm no longer bothered by it. It has never failed to focus and has always been more of an inconvenience than an optical shortcoming. On the positive side, it continues to get smoother and is unaffected by low temperatures.

Preferences vary, so make up your own mind. I dislike really fast focusers like the Nikon LX/HG, but others love them. The SE won't allow me to track fast movers as well as my Ultravid, but then the SE has greater DOF so there's less need to focus. In the end, if the shoe fits, wear it!

Best of luck to you.

John

[Curtis Croulet]

I wear glasses, and I can easily see the full field in my Zeiss 8x42 FL. When I tested the Leica Ultravid 8x42 last summer, my recollection is that its eye-relief was also satisfactory for me.

[dwalton]

I tested both of these back and forth in my office for at least a week this winter. I wear glasses, and I thought the ER on the Nikons was just a tad bit better for me. The Zeiss needed maybe 2mm more for me to feel as comfortable with them as I did with the Nikons. As an aside, the Swaro ELs had what seemed to be even more ER than either the Nikons or FLs - quite a relaxing view for me.

I bought the Nikon LXLs, and after several field trips, I'm very happy with the decision. Color, contrast, sharpness, sharpness across the FOV, ER, ergos, fast-focus (which it turns out I like a lot), smooth focuser knob, build quality, and price were all factors for me.

[Curtis Croulet]

The Nikons, judging from the specs, have a significantly narrower FOV than the Zeiss FL. With the exact same eye-relief, you should see the field more easily in the Nikon. In any case -- eye-relief seems to be something that each user must judge for himself, stated specifications notwithstanding.

[dwalton]

The Nikons, judging from the specs, have a significantly narrower FOV than the Zeiss FL. With the exact same eye-relief, you should see the field more easily in the Nikon. In any case -- eye-relief seems to be something that each user must judge for himself, stated specifications notwithstanding.

I could see the FOV difference between the two when I did the comparison. However, as mentioned before, a fair bit of the FOV away from the center in the FLs isn't very sharp, and the off-center FOV of the Nikons is clearly sharper, so one could make an argument for it being a wash.

[kabsetz]

My measurements yielded an eye-relief of 15mm for the Zeiss FL 8x42 and 17mm for the Nikon HG L 8x42. These measurements were made with a gizmo which has a flat surface resting against the eyecup, so it gives rather accurate and consisent readings but does not take into account variances which might result from having a curved lens placed against eyecups of differing cup diameters and edge protrusions.

Since the Zeiss has a wider field, and the e-r difference is only 2mm, I would almost bet that you see as wide a field or wider with the Zeiss than with the Nikon. The Zeiss seems to work very well with plenty of eyeglass-wearers, but if you have thick glasses or frames which bring the lens far from your face, the Nikon could be better.

However, I'll stress yet again what most have said in their posts above and elsewhere: If You Wear Glasses, You Must Try The Binoculars Out For Yourself!!!! If you don't, you may either end up being dissatisfied because what you bought does not have enough eye-relief, or because you later find out that your second choice which you ruled out because of reputedly skimpier eye-relief would have had enough for you anyway and, when trying out your friends' pair, you notice you like it better than your own!

So, remember that you are going to use the binocular you buy for many, many years, and wait until you get to try out all the models you are seriously interested in or find one that you just know is so good for you that it doesn't matter if something out there is even better.

Kimmo

[Po'ouli]

Thanks to everyone who replied. The responses were very helpful. I guess I'll be waiting for awhile to try out the Zeiss and Nikons since no one seems to have them in stock. In the meantime, I'll try out the Leica 7x42 again. They seemed to have a smoother focus mechanism than the 8x for some reason.

Bruce

[Curtis Croulet]

Po'ouli: Have you tried Scope City on Clairemont Mesa Blvd?

[Po'ouli]

Curtis: Yes, that's the store I've been going to. They have Ultravids and a Nikon 8x32 LX, but no Nikon 8x42 LXL or Zeiss FLs as far as I can tell. Every week they tell me they'll be in next week. I suspect it's not their fault, Eagle Optics seems to be out of some of these as well.

Bruce

[Curtis Croulet]

I got my FL last August from Eagle Optics. Glad I didn't wait for Scope City to get them.

[Po'ouli]

Curtis: What else were you considering besides the Ultravids when you got the FLs? Any thoughts about your FLs compared to the new faster focusing Swaro 8.5x42 EL? What made you decide in favor of the FLs in the end?

Thanks for your thoughts and comments,

Bruce