Here are the new Victorys: Victory HT (2 Viewers)

[ronh]

Gijs has raised some interesting points. I suppose the Habicht and other top Porros enjoy the transmission advantages of optical simplicity, with their cemented doublet objectives, lack of extra focusing lenses, and simple eyepieces.

The Fujinon FMT-SX has been 95% transmitting since its introduction about 30 years ago, and that is an average over the main visible band, not the peak. My FMT is obviously brighter than my FLs, and it is an original model. The coatings were improved with a rumored 2% gain about ten years ago.

In addition to its old school Porro simplicity and excellent coatings, the Docter Nobilem has another transmission advantage that I don't see how can possibly be beaten. The two prisms making up its Porro cluster are cemented together, so there are only two air to glass transitions.

And no, neither Habicht, FMT nor Nobilem mention the use of any modern especially transmitting glass. If they did, look out.

Even in the HT generation, Porros will remain the most transmissive of binoculars. As a roof fan, I find this irritating.
Ron

 

[Troubador]

Quote from Brock: The "HT" refers to the use of High Transmission Schott glass used not the prisms, but in the lenses, which the 8x and 10x32 models will, in all likelihood, also employ.

Brock
I have found a reference in Zeiss publicity to Schott developing HT lenses but I haven't seen anything that actually states clearly that the HT glass is confined to the lenses of CZ HT binoculars and is not used in the prisms.

Wouldn't it be a bit odd to not make the largest hunks of glass in the whole shebang out of HT glass?

Lee

 

[Gijs van Ginkel]

Ron (post 1101)
On this forum Porro's have almost a cult status, but I agree that it is cheaper to make an excellent quality Porro binocular for a lower price than an excellent roof binocular.
Since there is a lot of discussion abut HT glass and light transmissions of different binoculars I want to present some of our measured data on different porro's. I will give only the transmissions at 550 nm, the transmissions at 500 nm are generally 1-4% lower depending on the porro model. I have also listed the year of production (as far as I could find) to give an overview of the historical developments:
Leitz Binodal 6x21 (1908): 51%
Leitz Binot 6x30 (1915): 54,5%
Leitz Binux 8x30 (1927): 54%
Leitz Mardocit 12x60 (1948): 72%
Leitz Camparit 10x40 (1950): 73%
Leica-Kern 8x30 (2000): 68% N.B. Transmission lower due to heat filter
Hartmann Compact 8x30 WW (1985): 70,5%
Hartmann Bernina 7x50 (1975): 77%
Kern Pizar 8x30 (1995?): 83%
Zeiss RLN 68200 (1943-1945): 73% N.B. The outstanding technology for this binocular is most likely identical to that used for U-boat glasses.
Nedinsco Nedelta 7x50 (1955): 75% (this binocular is based on the RLN Zeiss)
Bleeker 6x30 (1955): 79%
Beck Zenith 8x30 (1970): 66%
Beck Luchs 7x50 (1975): 70,5%
Beck Tordalk 22x80 (1985?): 76,5%
Hensoldt Diagon 7x50 (1955): 67%
Swarovski Habicht 6x30 (1949): 45%
Swarovski Habicht 6x30 (1963): 83,5%
Swarovski Habicht SL 10x40 (1985?): 90,3%
Swarovski Doppelteleskop 30x75 (1990): 88%
Nikon Monarch 8,5x56 (2000?): 79,3%
Nikon Tropical 7x50 (?): 87%
Nikon 10x70 (?): 82%
Nikon 7x35 nr 780xxx (?): 86,9%
Nikon 8x30 FOV 8,3 deg, nr 414xxx (?): 77,9%
Nikon 8x30 FOV 8,5 deg. nr. 537xxx (?): 74%
Nikon 8x30 EII nr. 808xxx (?): 74%
Nikon 8x32 SE nr 550xxx (?): 88,3%
Fujnon 10x50 FMTR-SX (2010?): 84,8%
Swarovski Habicht 8x30 WW (2010): 95%

N.B. The Swarovski roofs 8x30 CL and 8x32 SV both have light transmissions of 93% .
I add that I do not believe the transmission value of 95% of the Fujinon 10x50 or 98% for the Nobilem 8x56 until I have measured it myself. Up to now that is not the case.
My conclusion is that hasty remarks with regard to high light transmissions of porros are limited to only a few examples and until now it is only Swarovski that has the highest scores.
Gijs

 

[brocknroller]

Quote from Brock: The "HT" refers to the use of High Transmission Schott glass used not the prisms, but in the lenses, which the 8x and 10x32 models will, in all likelihood, also employ.

Brock
I have found a reference in Zeiss publicity to Schott developing HT lenses but I haven't seen anything that actually states clearly that the HT glass is confined to the lenses of CZ HT binoculars and is not used in the prisms.

Wouldn't it be a bit odd to not make the largest hunks of glass in the whole shebang out of HT glass?

Lee

Lee,

The Zeiss Website only specifies HT glass in the lenses, but that's clearly for marketing purposes, not technical specifications. So the HT glass might be used throughout or Zeiss might use other high quality glass for the prisms.

The reason I referenced that from Zeiss' Website was to reply to Hermann's post in which he speculated that the 8x32 HT(X) would not have HT glass in its prisms and would therefore be named something different. I didn't follow his reasoning. If the full sized HT prisms use HT glass, so will the midsized, if they don't use HT glass, the midsized prisms won't either. The significant difference will be in the prism type, not the glass. The midsized HTs will probably use Schmidt-Pechan prisms just like the FLs to make the bins more compact.

<B>

 

[Hermann]

The reason I referenced that from Zeiss' Website was to reply to Hermann's post in which he speculated that the 8x32 HT(X) would not have HT glass in its prisms and would therefore be named something different. I didn't follow his reasoning.

Read my post again. I didn't write that an 8x32 *wouldn't* have HT glass in its prisms.

Hermann

 

[Pileatus]

I'm just thankful no one has shared definitive knowledge concerning HT glass. Others, however, may see HT through a different prism.

 

[NDhunter]

I'm just thankful no one has shared definitive knowledge concerning HT glass. Others, however, may see HT through a different prism.

Or, some here like to see things through "Rose colored" glasses.

And I would like to have a look throught the new Zeiss HT, they have rose colored objectives.
They were announced to be available last fall in the US, but have not made it to any sporting goods stores here yet.
They should be a great low light hunting binocular, and should get some sales for that crowd.

Jerry

 

[Chosun Juan]

I'm just thankful no one has shared definitive knowledge concerning HT glass. Others, however, may see HT through a different prism.

(Courtesy :t: of James, waaaay back on post#9) This is a direct quote from a press release dated 01-25-2011 on the US Schott site: http://www.us.schott.com/english/news/press.html?NID=369

"In cinema digital projection applications with increasing light fluxes, the internal transmittance is important for prisms with long optical path length to reduce heating induced image aberrations. For such applications SCHOTT developed the prism glasses N-BK7HT and N-SK2HT with an improved transmittance compared to the standard glass type.

In general all applications with long optical path length inside can take advantage of the improved transmittance. HT and HTultra glasses from SCHOTT are the enablers of high quality products now and in the future."

No doubt Zeiss also made mention of it somewhere in the world, at some time ..... (it could even be buried in this thread!)

The 'clever' marketing 'trickle feed', started a looooong time ago, and as Jerry said, it's getting on for a year since the original announced availability date ......


Chosun :gh:

 

[Chosun Juan]

......Zeiss always said right from the start that the whole rationale behind the use of Schott HT glass was:
(i). To boost transmission (reduce losses) through the 'physically long' ABK (Abbe-König) prism components (even though as ronh rightly points out, the total light path through an S-P [Schmidt–Pechan] prism system is longer due to all the extra bending and folding of the light path to keep it compact. Its just that each 'run' is shorter in 'physical' length, compared to the 'runs' through the ABK's).
(ii). To boost transmission (reduce losses) in the shorter wavelengths - the 'bluish' parts of the spectrum in particular. The characteristics of the 'HT' glass are such that the transmission benefits have a different quantum for different wavelengths (colours). I think it was Ed, or Henrylink, who waaaay back in this thread did some calculations of transmission benefits v's wavelength based on the published Schott data, that turned out to be pretty darned close to the mark, given the half transmission graph that we've seen.....

Too late to [EDIT] this post, but I see from waaaaaaaaaaay back, that it was actually henry in post#15 :t: : http://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=2374847&postcount=15


Chosun :gh:

 

[ceasar]

Ron (post 1101)
On this forum Porro's have almost a cult status, but I agree that it is cheaper to make an excellent quality Porro binocular for a lower price than an excellent roof binocular.
Since there is a lot of discussion abut HT glass and light transmissions of different binoculars I want to present some of our measured data on different porro's. I will give only the transmissions at 550 nm, the transmissions at 500 nm are generally 1-4% lower depending on the porro model. I have also listed the year of production (as far as I could find) to give an overview of the historical developments:
Leitz Binodal 6x21 (1908): 51%
Leitz Binot 6x30 (1915): 54,5%
Leitz Binux 8x30 (1927): 54%
Leitz Mardocit 12x60 (1948): 72%
Leitz Camparit 10x40 (1950): 73%
Leica-Kern 8x30 (2000): 68% N.B. Transmission lower due to heat filter
Hartmann Compact 8x30 WW (1985): 70,5%
Hartmann Bernina 7x50 (1975): 77%
Kern Pizar 8x30 (1995?): 83%
Zeiss RLN 68200 (1943-1945): 73% N.B. The outstanding technology for this binocular is most likely identical to that used for U-boat glasses.
Nedinsco Nedelta 7x50 (1955): 75% (this binocular is based on the RLN Zeiss)
Bleeker 6x30 (1955): 79%
Beck Zenith 8x30 (1970): 66%
Beck Luchs 7x50 (1975): 70,5%
Beck Tordalk 22x80 (1985?): 76,5%
Hensoldt Diagon 7x50 (1955): 67%
Swarovski Habicht 6x30 (1949): 45%
Swarovski Habicht 6x30 (1963): 83,5%
Swarovski Habicht SL 10x40 (1985?): 90,3%
Swarovski Doppelteleskop 30x75 (1990): 88%
Nikon Monarch 8,5x56 (2000?): 79,3%
Nikon Tropical 7x50 (?): 87%
Nikon 10x70 (?): 82%
Nikon 7x35 nr 780xxx (?): 86,9%
Nikon 8x30 FOV 8,3 deg, nr 414xxx (?): 77,9%
Nikon 8x30 FOV 8,5 deg. nr. 537xxx (?): 74%
Nikon 8x30 EII nr. 808xxx (?): 74%
Nikon 8x32 SE nr 550xxx (?): 88,3%
Fujnon 10x50 FMTR-SX (2010?): 84,8%
Swarovski Habicht 8x30 WW (2010): 95%

N.B. The Swarovski roofs 8x30 CL and 8x32 SV both have light transmissions of 93% .
I add that I do not believe the transmission value of 95% of the Fujinon 10x50 or 98% for the Nobilem 8x56 until I have measured it myself. Up to now that is not the case.
My conclusion is that hasty remarks with regard to high light transmissions of porros are limited to only a few examples and until now it is only Swarovski that has the highest scores.
Gijs

Gijs,

Can you suggest any specific reasons why the Habicht 8 x 30 Porro has a light transmission figure 7% to 10% higher (or even more) than the 10 or 12 binoculars listed immediately below it? This is an impressive difference! It also appears to apply even to Swarovski's roof prisms which have dielectric prisms.

Does Swarovski, perchance, have a secret coating hidden (until this thread appeared) from the industry?:smoke:

Bob

 

[steve@37n84w]

Ron (post 1101)
On this forum Porro's have almost a cult status, but I agree that it is cheaper to make an excellent quality Porro binocular for a lower price than an excellent roof binocular.
Since there is a lot of discussion abut HT glass and light transmissions of different binoculars I want to present some of our measured data on different porro's. I will give only the transmissions at 550 nm, the transmissions at 500 nm are generally 1-4% lower depending on the porro model. I have also listed the year of production (as far as I could find) to give an overview of the historical developments:
Leitz Binodal 6x21 (1908): 51%
Leitz Binot 6x30 (1915): 54,5%
Leitz Binux 8x30 (1927): 54%
Leitz Mardocit 12x60 (1948): 72%
Leitz Camparit 10x40 (1950): 73%
Leica-Kern 8x30 (2000): 68% N.B. Transmission lower due to heat filter
Hartmann Compact 8x30 WW (1985): 70,5%
Hartmann Bernina 7x50 (1975): 77%
Kern Pizar 8x30 (1995?): 83%
Zeiss RLN 68200 (1943-1945): 73% N.B. The outstanding technology for this binocular is most likely identical to that used for U-boat glasses.
Nedinsco Nedelta 7x50 (1955): 75% (this binocular is based on the RLN Zeiss)
Bleeker 6x30 (1955): 79%
Beck Zenith 8x30 (1970): 66%
Beck Luchs 7x50 (1975): 70,5%
Beck Tordalk 22x80 (1985?): 76,5%
Hensoldt Diagon 7x50 (1955): 67%
Swarovski Habicht 6x30 (1949): 45%
Swarovski Habicht 6x30 (1963): 83,5%
Swarovski Habicht SL 10x40 (1985?): 90,3%
Swarovski Doppelteleskop 30x75 (1990): 88%
Nikon Monarch 8,5x56 (2000?): 79,3%
Nikon Tropical 7x50 (?): 87%
Nikon 10x70 (?): 82%
Nikon 7x35 nr 780xxx (?): 86,9%
Nikon 8x30 FOV 8,3 deg, nr 414xxx (?): 77,9%
Nikon 8x30 FOV 8,5 deg. nr. 537xxx (?): 74%
Nikon 8x30 EII nr. 808xxx (?): 74%
Nikon 8x32 SE nr 550xxx (?): 88,3%
Fujnon 10x50 FMTR-SX (2010?): 84,8%
Swarovski Habicht 8x30 WW (2010): 95%

N.B. The Swarovski roofs 8x30 CL and 8x32 SV both have light transmissions of 93% .
I add that I do not believe the transmission value of 95% of the Fujinon 10x50 or 98% for the Nobilem 8x56 until I have measured it myself. Up to now that is not the case.
My conclusion is that hasty remarks with regard to high light transmissions of porros are limited to only a few examples and until now it is only Swarovski that has the highest scores.
Gijs

Gijs

I'm sure many are skeptical about the light transmission of the little Habicht but the truth of the matter is they are that bright. I received a pm from one of the forum members who recently purchased a 8x30 Habicht and he was very impressed with the Habicht's sharpness (on axis) and its brightness when compared to his Nikon 8x30 EII and 8x32 SV.

I had actually been in possession of my Habicht for a while before I noticed just how much it excelled at light transmission. I had a bunch of binoculars on my coffee table and was comparing several models while watching birds at my feeder late in the evening as a rainy day ebbed into darkness. I was directly comparing the 8x30 Habicht to my 8x30 EII and 8x32 SE and the Habicht was noticeably brighter. I first compared the Habicht to the 8x30 EII and expected the Nikon to be brighter just because it seemed like the 8x30 EII's much larger oculars would just have to allow more light come through but of course that wasn't the case. I then compared the Habicht to the superb 8x32 SE and despite the SE's larger exit pupil the Habicht was still noticeably brighter.


Just the other day I spent several hours watching birds at the feeders and again I had a bunch of binos on the coffee table in front of the couch but I was mainly comparing four of my porros (8x30 Habicht, 8x30 EII, 8x32 SRGA, and 8x32 SE) with an occasional glance through some of the other binoculars. I'm including a pic so you can see that when I say a "bunch' of binoculars I really do mean a bunch.....and out of all these the little Habicht was by far the most impressive. The four porros I spent the most time comparing are in the lower lefthand corner.

Steve

 

[ceasar]

There has to be an explanation for their remarkable brightness if the numbers given are accurate and there is no reason to believe that they are not.

Until it is posited and discussed there will inevitably be skepticism.

One thing we do know is that, unlike the other porros, they are special order items and not mass produced. Perhaps they receive special care in their construction because of that?

Bob

 

[brocknroller]

Read my post again. I didn't write that an 8x32 *wouldn't* have HT glass in its prisms.

Hermann

Hermann,

Sorry I misquoted you. But whatever you did say, I disagreed with. That's general enough not to get nitpicked.

Regarding the "up to 15% increase" in contrast (and color saturation) in ED glass, I'm not sure which expert came up with that. I found that reference quite a while ago. Perhaps I bookmarked it. I will look for it when I get a chance.

Being a glass half empty sort of guy, "up to 15%" doesn't sound excessive to me when I consider the other 85% isn't affected.

Not being a "quant" I couldn't look at two bins and say, this one has 15% more contrast than the other, but what I can say qualitatively, is that when I've used bins with ED glass, the "cleaner and brighter" image was easily noticeable when comparing it to non-ED bins. As to contrast, I think Holger gave a good description of what I see with ED glass in his review of the Kowa Genesis (Prominar):

"... contrast and definition of its image are outstanding. I have observed power lines at a distance of 1/2 km in front of white clouds, and the cables were, through the Meopta and the Vortex, imaged as very fine, grey lines. This implies a high resolution of these binoculars. The Kowa, however, displays the same lines in deep black color, indicating an exceptionally high degree of contrast."

http://www.holgermerlitz.de/kowa85x44.html

But, as someone pointed out, not all ED glass is created equal. So I would assume that if that figure is correct, FL glass would be closer the 15% end, and the HTs use FL glass.

The ED glass in the Celestron 10x50 ED I had was very good in controlling CA. I watched crows on limbs against bright gray skies, and I did not see any CA on the limb or the crow in the center of the field, which I do, albeit slightly, in my 10x42 SE. It also provided excellent contrast on the night sky, and I sat for hours watching the stars and looking at the brighter DSOs.

But here's the rub, you can have high contrast and high color saturation in a bin without ED glass. The Nikon HG is such an example, although it is also an example of a bin with obvious CA.

When I compared my 8x32 HG to the 10x42 EDG, I could see that the colors in the EDG were "deeper". And the HG had the best color saturation I've seen in a bin, so that says something about the effect of good quality ED glass on color saturation and how even in high quality bins, the image is imperceptibly "muddy" but you can only notice it when compared side by side with a bin of equal quality plus ED glass, as Henry did when he compared the Nikon SE with his 8x56 FL.

Anyway, since I'm going to get nitpicked until I find that reference, suffice it to say, more generally, that ED glass increases contrast and color saturation.

<B>

 

[ronh]

Gijs,
Thanks for providing this interesting list of your measurements. Thanks, indeed, for all your work, and for the careful reviews that you have written.

I am sure you are aware of transmission measurements appearing in various other binocular reviews. One such source that is well known here, Allbinos, finds a result for a recent Habicht in pretty good agreement with your 95% value: 90 +/- 3%, although Allbinos gives neither the year of production nor the wavelenth reported. You and they also agree well on the original EL, 90 vs 92%. Results like that give me a feeling that binoculars are being made to a high and repeatable standard, and that different laboratory workers are doing basically the same things in their transmission measurements.

But when confronted by the discrepancies like that between your and Arek's measurement of the Fujinon (your 84.8% for the 10x50 vs Allbinos's 97% for the 7x50), and your opinion that the Docter is not highly transmissive (Allbinos reports 95% for the 8x56 and writes that over all frequencies, it is the highest of any binocular they have ever measured) it is impossible for an unprofessional consumer to know what to think.

But Gijs, you have told it like you see it, and I appreciate that.

Ron

 

[litebeam]

I didn't notice meopta on that comprehensive list, maybe they were there...From their advertisement for the meopro 10X42's:

If you want premium performance at the right price the Meopta MEOPRO 10x42 Binocular 523480 is the way to go. Meopta starts with its proprietary ion-assisted lens coatings to deliver an industry leading light transmission of 99.8 percent.
Am I missing something? The meopro is a midrange-priced binc....the high-dollar meostar boast this as well.

 

[dalat]

Meopta starts with its proprietary ion-assisted lens coatings to deliver an industry leading light transmission of 99.8 percent.

Probably they talk about a single coated glass surface here, which is something different than an entire binocular with lots of pieces of glass.

 

[Troubador]

Lee,

The Zeiss Website only specifies HT glass in the lenses, but that's clearly for marketing purposes, not technical specifications. So the HT glass might be used throughout or Zeiss might use other high quality glass for the prisms.

The reason I referenced that from Zeiss' Website was to reply to Hermann's post in which he speculated that the 8x32 HT(X) would not have HT glass in its prisms and would therefore be named something different. I didn't follow his reasoning. If the full sized HT prisms use HT glass, so will the midsized, if they don't use HT glass, the midsized prisms won't either. The significant difference will be in the prism type, not the glass. The midsized HTs will probably use Schmidt-Pechan prisms just like the FLs to make the bins more compact.

<B>

Yo Brock dude

My reading of Hermann's reasoning is somewhat different from yours and went like this: The whole HT-system groups the use of HT glass and the use of AK prisms together. Since the 32mm will likely have SP prisms they cannot, by this definition be called an HT-system. If Zeiss was to call an optical system 'HT' that contained SP prisms this would contradict what they has said about the 42mm HT bins.

Herman will no doubt correct me if I am wrong.

Lee

 

[Gijs van Ginkel]

Ron (post 1114),
Thank you for your comments and appreciation of our work. We have measured the Habicht 8x30 many times, since we first did not believe the data, but we found them over and over and they are confirmed also by Swarovski. We had high expectations of the Nikon 8x30EII and the Nikon 8x32 SE on the basis of this forum, but our observations and the measured data did not support our high expectations. There are other binoculars which performed far better than these two porro's.
Our results with the Fujinon 10x50 were a surprise so we will check our calibrations again to be absolutely sure.
Other reactions with regard to the absence of Meopta:
We measured different Meopta's and I will give some results of 550 nm light transmission(they are all roofs):
Meopta 6,5 x32: 82%
Meopta Meostar 8x32: 86,7%
Light transmissions of 99,8% are not real for binoculars, here may be referred to the reflection efficiency of the dielectric mirror coatings on the Schmidt-Pechan prisms.
Stays that the Zeiss Victory HT has a 550 nm light transmission of 95,2%, which is high for roof binoculars and I think we can compliment the Zeiss designers for their work, since they have designed a beautiful and very useful instrument.
I can also mention that the light transmission spectra of the Zeiss Victory FL 8x42 and that of the Zeiss Conquest HD 8x42 perfectly coincide within experimental error, what raises the question: did Zeiss transfer a lot of the FL optical design into the the Conquest HD's ? This question may raise probably a tsunami of posts, but that is a question whch crossed my mind lookong at the spectra.
Gijs

 

[Holger Merlitz]

Ron (post 1101)
On this forum Porro's have almost a cult status, but I agree that it is cheaper to make an excellent quality Porro binocular for a lower price than an excellent roof binocular.
Since there is a lot of discussion abut HT glass and light transmissions of different binoculars I want to present some of our measured data on different porro's. I will give only the transmissions at 550 nm, the transmissions at 500 nm are generally 1-4% lower depending on the porro model. I have also listed the year of production (as far as I could find) to give an overview of the historical developments:
Leitz Binodal 6x21 (1908): 51%
Leitz Binot 6x30 (1915): 54,5%
Leitz Binux 8x30 (1927): 54%
Leitz Mardocit 12x60 (1948): 72%
Leitz Camparit 10x40 (1950): 73%
Leica-Kern 8x30 (2000): 68% N.B. Transmission lower due to heat filter
Hartmann Compact 8x30 WW (1985): 70,5%
Hartmann Bernina 7x50 (1975): 77%
Kern Pizar 8x30 (1995?): 83%
Zeiss RLN 68200 (1943-1945): 73% N.B. The outstanding technology for this binocular is most likely identical to that used for U-boat glasses.
Nedinsco Nedelta 7x50 (1955): 75% (this binocular is based on the RLN Zeiss)
Bleeker 6x30 (1955): 79%
Beck Zenith 8x30 (1970): 66%
Beck Luchs 7x50 (1975): 70,5%
Beck Tordalk 22x80 (1985?): 76,5%
Hensoldt Diagon 7x50 (1955): 67%
Swarovski Habicht 6x30 (1949): 45%
Swarovski Habicht 6x30 (1963): 83,5%
Swarovski Habicht SL 10x40 (1985?): 90,3%
Swarovski Doppelteleskop 30x75 (1990): 88%
Nikon Monarch 8,5x56 (2000?): 79,3%
Nikon Tropical 7x50 (?): 87%
Nikon 10x70 (?): 82%
Nikon 7x35 nr 780xxx (?): 86,9%
Nikon 8x30 FOV 8,3 deg, nr 414xxx (?): 77,9%
Nikon 8x30 FOV 8,5 deg. nr. 537xxx (?): 74%
Nikon 8x30 EII nr. 808xxx (?): 74%
Nikon 8x32 SE nr 550xxx (?): 88,3%
Fujnon 10x50 FMTR-SX (2010?): 84,8%
Swarovski Habicht 8x30 WW (2010): 95%

N.B. The Swarovski roofs 8x30 CL and 8x32 SV both have light transmissions of 93% .
I add that I do not believe the transmission value of 95% of the Fujinon 10x50 or 98% for the Nobilem 8x56 until I have measured it myself. Up to now that is not the case.
My conclusion is that hasty remarks with regard to high light transmissions of porros are limited to only a few examples and until now it is only Swarovski that has the highest scores.
Gijs

These are interesting numbers, Gijs, thanks a lot for making them available to us. Transmissions slightly above 50% were normal at times when there existed no coatings. Later on, single coatings should have lifted the transmission data to levels between 65% and 75%, here again most measurements seem to make sense. The Habicht 6x30 (1963): 83,5% looks suspicious to me, perhaps this was a later model with multi-coating? Also the Nikon 8x30 EII nr. 808xxx (?): 74%, this sample seems to have a problem. I have used the EII (early model) for many years, also together with the Meopta Meostar 8x32, and found no significant differences in image brightness (you have measured the Meopta's transmission as 86,7%, which appears realistic to me).

I am not that much surprised about the Fujinon's transmission, I somewhere read about values near 88%, still far away from the claimed 95% (which were most likely peak transmission values). Allbino's 98% result for the Nobilem is definitely a bug, a little below 90% is the integral value I was told about from other (reliable ;-) sources, and even the peak would unlikely be far above 90% ...

Hence, these measurements are tricky, and it is a good idea to discuss the numbers critically and crosscheck whenever possible.

Thanks again,
Holger

 

[Holger Merlitz]

Hermann,

Sorry I misquoted you. But whatever you did say, I disagreed with. That's general enough not to get nitpicked.

Regarding the "up to 15% increase" in contrast (and color saturation) in ED glass, I'm not sure which expert came up with that. I found that reference quite a while ago. Perhaps I bookmarked it. I will look for it when I get a chance.

Being a glass half empty sort of guy, "up to 15%" doesn't sound excessive to me when I consider the other 85% isn't affected.

Not being a "quant" I couldn't look at two bins and say, this one has 15% more contrast than the other, but what I can say qualitatively, is that when I've used bins with ED glass, the "cleaner and brighter" image was easily noticeable when comparing it to non-ED bins. As to contrast, I think Holger gave a good description of what I see with ED glass in his review of the Kowa Genesis (Prominar):

"... contrast and definition of its image are outstanding. I have observed power lines at a distance of 1/2 km in front of white clouds, and the cables were, through the Meopta and the Vortex, imaged as very fine, grey lines. This implies a high resolution of these binoculars. The Kowa, however, displays the same lines in deep black color, indicating an exceptionally high degree of contrast."

http://www.holgermerlitz.de/kowa85x44.html

But, as someone pointed out, not all ED glass is created equal. So I would assume that if that figure is correct, FL glass would be closer the 15% end, and the HTs use FL glass.

The ED glass in the Celestron 10x50 ED I had was very good in controlling CA. I watched crows on limbs against bright gray skies, and I did not see any CA on the limb or the crow in the center of the field, which I do, albeit slightly, in my 10x42 SE. It also provided excellent contrast on the night sky, and I sat for hours watching the stars and looking at the brighter DSOs.

But here's the rub, you can have high contrast and high color saturation in a bin without ED glass. The Nikon HG is such an example, although it is also an example of a bin with obvious CA.

When I compared my 8x32 HG to the 10x42 EDG, I could see that the colors in the EDG were "deeper". And the HG had the best color saturation I've seen in a bin, so that says something about the effect of good quality ED glass on color saturation and how even in high quality bins, the image is imperceptibly "muddy" but you can only notice it when compared side by side with a bin of equal quality plus ED glass, as Henry did when he compared the Nikon SE with his 8x56 FL.

Anyway, since I'm going to get nitpicked until I find that reference, suffice it to say, more generally, that ED glass increases contrast and color saturation.

<B>

Hi Brock,

"... This implies a high resolution of these binoculars."

To my regret I must say that my conclusion was wrong in that point. The power lines are visible even when they are not resolved - what we see here is the diffraction image of the line, not the line itself. Since I wrote that article a couple of years ago, I understood these thinks a little better. My other conclusion, the Kowa having the highest contrast, remains valid ;-)

Cheers,
Holger