CA in the EL 8.5X42 SV (1 Viewer)

SuperDuty · Dec 14, 2015

After seeing how free of CA the 10X32SV is in comparison to my 10X50SV, I have to wonder about the correction of the 8.5X42SV. What I've read indicates that CA in the center 80 percent of the FOV is nearly invisible, and that the CA it has is on the outer edge of the fairly wide FOV. I know that I will need to see them first hand, but I would still like to here what anyone has to say. Beyond that, what do you think of the 8.5 in general.

Robert

Chosun Juan · Dec 14, 2015

SuperDuty said:
After seeing how free of CA the 10X32SV is in comparison to my 10X50SV, I have to wonder about the correction of the 8.5X42SV. What I've read indicates that CA in the center 80 percent of the FOV is nearly invisible, and that the CA it has is on the outer edge of the fairly wild FOV. I know that I will need to see them first hand, but I would still like to here what anyone has to say. Beyond that, what do you think of the 8.5 in general.

Robert

SD, susceptibility to CA can be exacerbated by individual processing quirks, and even by things such as asymmetrical facial features etc. I'm fairly susceptible to CA despite my perfectly symmetrical face! I think any CA in the bin is magnified and made critical by lower alignment margins of error due to my Mr. Magoo-like myopic eyeglasses. That established, I don't see it in the centre 80 % of any of the SV's that I've looked through - and I've tested some of those fairly meticulously and deliberately for CA. They all seem to exhibit the same characteristic no matter the format (x, 32, 42, or 50mm). :cat: You're right though, the 8.5x42 SV does have a fairly "wild" Fov! :-O Just kiddin' --- there have been that many tweaks to the optical formula, that the iterations I saw were fine, ....... besides, I think? :brains: you meant "wide" Fov |

|

Extensive tests of a 10x50SV against my highly rated for CA control, Zen-Ray 8x43 ED3, show that the SV outdoes it by at least a factor of 2+ (centre 33% for the Zen, v's 67%+ for the SV) .......... I honestly don't know what is going on with you and your 10x50 SV ???? :eek!:

As far as the 8.5x42 SV goes in general, I certainly Would crawl over a pair (broken glass or not) to get to the 10x50 SV without hesitation. The 8.5x looks pretty much the same as any of the other formats in the range -ie. good! :t: But that 10x50 ........ Wow! :king: you certainly don't want to put it down (shoulders permitting hahahaha :-O )

Indeed, it may even be worthwhile for you to send your 10x50 SV's back to Swarovski via SONA for checking that the CA that your unit exhibits falls within quality tolerances ...... :h?:

Chosun :gh:

SuperDuty · Dec 14, 2015

My Kindle Fire seems to like to change my words after I type them. My 10X50 has enough CA that I'm finding it harder to ignore each time I use them, I feel certain they will be leaving soon. The Zen 8X43 I had, as well as the 10X32 SV I looked at this weekend, in direct side by side comparison to my 10X50 both have far less CA. For my eyes this is a fact, this is what I see. Apparently I have a unique, "weird" eye-brain interface. There is no mistaking bright purple and fluorescent yellow fringes when objects are surrounded by them.

Chosun Juan · Dec 14, 2015

SD, of course your eyes see what your eyes see, and mine see what mine see, and there's nothing wrong with that, but I'm thinking it would be seriously worthwhile to get your unit checked (the 10x50 SV I mean!)

Chosun :gh:

Vespobuteo · Dec 14, 2015

I don't find the CA level in the 8.5x SV to be a problem at all, and I tend to be rather sensitive to CA.
Compared to my 7x42 FL it's as good or even better. Completely CA-free they are not, but what is important for me is that CA is not disturbing in most situations in any of the bins.

The 10x50 have a faster aperture, higher magnification and is quite short/compact for a 50mm bin. Things that can increase the CA level and IMO the 10x50 do have more CA of axis. And that's the price you pay for having a larger objective lens. It's the same story with scopes. (Unless you have a Kowa)

If you hold your bins not aligned correctly to your eyes, looks into branches in trees, against the light, high contrast situations etc. there will be off-axis CA in any bin. The usage style, environment and light affect how much CA you will see. It may well be the reason for that people don't think alike in CA levels and if it is a problem for them.

Pileatus · Dec 14, 2015

CA and the IPD...

I have the 8.5X42 and 10X50 SV's. My wife has the 8X32 SV.
I found that minimizing the IPD delivers the BEST possible view. It's very tempting to "open" the IPD, thinking I will get a more expansive view or increase comfort. In fact, squeezing the IPD to the absolute minimum for my eyes provides the most natural, pleasant and CA-free view. I assume it's because the optical centers of the bin are aligned with the optical centers of my eyeglasses which, in turn, are aligned with my eyes.

At first, a minimum IPD doesn't "look" right. However, like many things, once I get on with my birding that setting proves to be more transparent than anything else.

PS
Do not assume your eyeglass optical centers are properly aligned. Some years back I had a problem and I asked for the centers to be marked on the lenses. Neither was aligned properly. Ever since I make sure they align them with my pupils and I believe it makes a big difference. Eyeglasses and eyeballs have "sweet spots" too!

Rathaus · Dec 14, 2015

Vespobuteo said:
If you hold your bins not aligned correctly to your eyes, looks into branches in trees, against the light, high contrast situations etc. there will be off-axis CA in any bin. The usage style, environment and light affect how much CA you will see. It may well be the reason for that people don't think alike in CA levels and if it is a problem for them.

I agree with this. Sometimes I get lazy while viewing or I'm too relaxed and slumped in a chair and off axis while viewing. It causes all sorts of viewing issues not just CA :smoke:

I've certainly had no problem with my 8.5SV re CA. It's more immune to slumped chair viewing CA than most of my other bins. The 10x Cannon is a freak here. Looking through it drooping way off axis through the worst part of its fov...it's almost as good as an 8.5 is on axis. Freaky hideous brick.

Rathaus

SuperDuty · Dec 14, 2015

Chosen Juan

Don't you think that was a rather flaccid attempt at humor ? 3

Chosun Juan said:
SD, I'm thinking it would be seriously worthwhile to get your unit checked (the 10x50 SV I mean!)
Chosun :gh:

SuperDuty · Dec 14, 2015

I agree.

Pileatus said:
CA and the IPD...

I have the 8.5X42 and 10X50 SV's. My wife has the 8X32 SV.
I found that minimizing the IPD delivers the BEST possible view. It's very tempting to "open" the IPD, thinking I will get a more expansive view or increase comfort. In fact, squeezing the IPD to the absolute minimum for my eyes provides the most natural, pleasant and CA-free view. I assume it's because the optical centers of the bin are aligned with the optical centers of my eyeglasses which, in turn, are aligned with my eyes.

At first, a minimum IPD doesn't "look" right. However, like many things, once I get on with my birding that setting proves to be more transparent than anything else.

PS
Do not assume your eyeglass optical centers are properly aligned. Some years back I had a problem and I asked for the centers to be marked on the lenses. Neither was aligned properly. Ever since I make sure they align them with my pupils and I believe it makes a big difference. Eyeglasses and eyeballs have "sweet spots" too!

SuperDuty · Dec 14, 2015

Thanks, good post.

Vespobuteo said:
I don't find the CA level in the 8.5x SV to be a problem at all, and I tend to be rather sensitive to CA.
Compared to my 7x42 FL it's as good or even better. Completely CA-free they are not, but what is important for me is that CA is not disturbing in most situations in any of the bins.

The 10x50 have a faster aperture, higher magnification and is quite short/compact for a 50mm bin. Things that can increase the CA level and IMO the 10x50 do have more CA of axis. And that's the price you pay for having a larger objective lens. It's the same story with scopes. (Unless you have a Kowa)

If you hold your bins not aligned correctly to your eyes, looks into branches in trees, against the light, high contrast situations etc. there will be off-axis CA in any bin. The usage style, environment and light affect how much CA you will see. It may well be the reason for that people don't think alike in CA levels and if it is a problem for them.

Kammerdiner · Dec 14, 2015

If you like the low CA of a Zen 8x43 ED2, you will like it in the 8.5 SV as well. I used them side-by-side for a few years and the CA of the 8.5 SV is a wee bit better, but really the ED2 is plenty good enough in that department.

In general, the 8.5 is probably my most-used binocular. After nearly five years it's an old friend. The extra .5x compared to 8x actually makes a difference when birding. At 29 ounces it's at the upper limit of what I want to carry, but I've done so for hours on end without complaint.

For travel and long hikes I prefer the little 8x32 SV, but for travel and long hikes so does my wife...so guess who gets that one?

Mark

Piskeddu · Dec 14, 2015

Good evening everyone , can I ask you something ? ... Using Kowa ( TSN 66M with a 8.5x44 and 20x60 and 30x ) I read in several parts which are not affected by the CA , if I have mistranslated in this thread has just said Vespobuteo (which is very true ) as ever here in the forum of a few people who have special use Kowa ? Thanks , George.

SuperDuty · Dec 14, 2015

Thanks, that sounds very promising.

Kammerdiner said:
If you like the low CA of a Zen 8x43 ED2, you will like it in the 8.5 SV as well. I used them side-by-side for a few years and the CA of the 8.5 SV is a wee bit better, but really the ED2 is plenty good enough in that department.

In general, the 8.5 is probably my most-used binocular. After nearly five years it's an old friend. The extra .5x compared to 8x actually makes a difference when birding. At 29 ounces it's at the upper limit of what I want to carry, but I've done so for hours on end without complaint.

For travel and long hikes I prefer the little 8x32 SV, but for travel and long hikes so does my wife...so guess who gets that one?

Mark

Chosun Juan · Dec 15, 2015

Chosun Juan said:
SD, of course your eyes see what your eyes see, and mine see what mine see, and there's nothing wrong with that, but I'm thinking it would be seriously worthwhile to get your unit checked (the 10x50 SV I mean!)

SuperDuty said:
Chosen Juan

Don't you think that was a rather flaccid attempt at humour ? 3

Nup! :-O ...... just a helpful suggestion of what I would do in your position - it's pretty easy for y'all US folk with SONA right there. There's something going on with you and your 10x50 SV, and for the life of me I have no idea what it is! :h?: :brains: So the easiest option is to have the bin checked, unless you know a team of specialists that can get inside your noggin' 'Fantastic Voyage' style and track down the CA in there! 3

Otherwise, I'm thinking it has something to do with your set-up and/or fit with the bin (Pileatus added some good thoughts for consideration, etc) as for me (with my critical eye placement set-up) when A-B'ing the Zen 8x43 ED3 to the 10x50 SV several times, particularly for CA, the SV was noticeably much better ..... who knows? perhaps I'm not getting the most out of the Zen? as my glasses mean that I can't quite get the full Fov - though what I observed with the CA neatly matches up to the sweet spot, and when the pincushion distortion of the Zen starts to really kick in. I didn't notice any appreciable difference for CA between the 8.5x42 and the 10x50SV above maybe a smidge related to magnification ---- certainly not enough to make me ever want to pick up the 8.5x in preference to the 10x50 SV ....... o

Over and out ....... Good luck! :t:

Chosun Juan said:
Extensive tests of a 10x50SV against my highly rated for CA control, Zen-Ray 8x43 ED3, show that the SV outdoes it by at least a factor of 2+ (centre 33% for the Zen, v's 67%+ for the SV) .......... I honestly don't know what is going on with you and your 10x50 SV ???? ....... Indeed, it may even be worthwhile for you to send your 10x50 SV's back to Swarovski via SONA for checking that the CA that your unit exhibits falls within quality tolerances ...... :h?:

Chosun :gh:

SuperDuty · Dec 15, 2015

I'm thinking it has to do mostly with my noggin. :eat::-O

Chosun Juan said:
So the easiest option is to have the bin checked, unless you know a team of specialists that can get inside your noggin' 'Fantastic Voyage' style and track down the CA in there! 3
Otherwise, I'm thinking it has something to do with your set-up and/or fit with the bin
Chosun :gh:

kabsetz · Dec 15, 2015

SD

I think CJ's suggestion bears consideration. There are sample to sample differences in optics, binoculars as well as scopes, and amounts of CA is certainly among the possible variables.

Two questions/suggestions come to mind before going through the trouble of sending the binocular for inspection.

Firstly, have you compared your 10x50 SV to another 10x50 SV? If you have, and they all look similar with respect to CA, then it would not be worthwhile to have yours checked as the result would most likely be that yours would be declared meeting its specs and nothing would be done about it. Mind you, this is a rather likely outcome even if you do see differences in the CA levels between your sample and some others.

Secondly, have you examined whether your 10x50 SV has similar levels of CA in both tubes? Having the binocular on a tripod and checking each tube individually with your better eye should tell you if there is an anomaly in one side. If so, the better side should show you what ought to be possible for both. This would also help you in presenting your case to SONA.

Kimmo

SuperDuty · Dec 15, 2015

Thanks Kimmo

kabsetz said:
SD

I think CJ's suggestion bears consideration. There are sample to sample differences in optics, binoculars as well as scopes, and amounts of CA is certainly among the possible variables.

Two questions/suggestions come to mind before going through the trouble of sending the binocular for inspection.

Firstly, have you compared your 10x50 SV to another 10x50 SV? If you have, and they all look similar with respect to CA, then it would not be worthwhile to have yours checked as the result would most likely be that yours would be declared meeting its specs and nothing would be done about it. Mind you, this is a rather likely outcome even if you do see differences in the CA levels between your sample and some others.

Secondly, have you examined whether your 10x50 SV has similar levels of CA in both tubes? Having the binocular on a tripod and checking each tube individually with your better eye should tell you if there is an anomaly in one side. If so, the better side should show you what ought to be possible for both. This would also help you in presenting your case to SONA.

Kimmo

SuperDuty · Dec 16, 2015

Anyone know why the 8.5X SV would have lower transmission than the 10X as noted in the two reviews ?

http://www.allbinos.com/251-binoculars_review-Swarovski_EL_8.5x42_Swarovision.html

http://www.allbinos.com/223-binoculars_review-Swarovski_EL_10x42_Swarovision.html

Vespobuteo · Dec 16, 2015

SuperDuty said:
Anyone know why the 8.5X SV would have lower transmission than the 10X as noted in the two reviews ?

http://www.allbinos.com/251-binoculars_review-Swarovski_EL_8.5x42_Swarovision.html

http://www.allbinos.com/223-binoculars_review-Swarovski_EL_10x42_Swarovision.html

the difference is within the margin of error +-1.5%

the opposite result where found when Gijs measured

http://www.houseofoutdoor.com/testrapporten/Test-42mm-kijkersMEI-2011.pdf

swaros figures are 90% for both,

Every thing else equal, in theory, a 10x with a little bit thicker glass
would have slightly lower transmission than an 8.5x

SuperDuty · Dec 19, 2015

I have an 8.5X SV in house to compare to my 10X50, got to look a little today under less than favorable conditions, maybe a better day Sunday when I should have more time. They both have their pros and cons, it's hard for me to say which one I like the best.

CA in the EL 8.5X42 SV (1 Viewer)

Well-known member

Given to Fly

Well-known member

Given to Fly

Well-known member

"Experientia Docet”

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Given to Fly

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread