I have been curious about the 10x56 FL ever since Henry Link made his case for the large exit pupil advantage in his review of the 8x56. But I like higher magnification for low light, distant views, and stargazing. Like the 8x, the 10x56 is not very popular here, but the occasional reports glow about its optical performance. Who wouldn't want a 10x with at least part of the optical advantages so eloquently described in Henry's review?
So after a lengthy period of personal twisting and rationalizing, I went for a demo at a good price and have had the big FL about a week now. I have used it heavily in this short time, daily including a full day of birding with lots of distant waterbirds, and nightly on the stars through a period of clear October skies. I have taken it on my daily sunrise walks, and even on a 2000 foot climb to the top of a local mountain. I have stared through it, turned backwards, at a computer monitor through a polarizing filter to judge the quality of the phase coatings (very good I'd say), and admired things around the house, mainly my wife's incredible collection of blues CDs, the cases I mean.
I've been using an 8x42 FL and a Leica 10x50 BR about equally, so I'll describe the 56mm mostly as it compares to those two.
The green rubber of the 10x56 is actually softer and tackier than the starting to gleam black of the 8x42, the opposite what some users have found respecting the two colors. It certainly benefits from the (as Piers would say) "grippibilita'"-- with its size and weight it needs all the help it can get. Thankfully, the bowed out barrels dictated by the AK prisms leaves a good thumb's width between the barrels so you can get your wrist under the front end for a comfortable and stable support. Eyecups have three click stops in addition to full down, and the middle click fits me perfectly. With cups down, with my big sunglasses, I can see 5/6 of the field, about like with the 8x42.
The Zeiss focuses to about 10 feet vs 11 for the 10x50. From 11 feet to infinity requires 0.8 turn with 10x56, 1.25 turn with the 10x50, but only a blinding 0.55 turn with the 8x42. Despite the faster ratio, the 56 is actually slower for me to bring to sharpness than the 50. I think this is because of the feel of the focus knobs, the Zeiss being silky smooth but still quite resistive and heavy feeling, the Leica having the feel of unlubricated sticktion in such a way that when it moves, it really moves, and you are, like, THERE. I must just learn to crank the 56 boldly. The 10xs are both nicely tuned for the difficulty of focusing higher power, but are elephants compared to the 8x42's gazelle. No doubt about what is the warbler medicine here.
The apparent field of the 10x50 will contain the entire box of Cassiopeia with a little room to spare, but the 10x56 won't quite fit it in. In turn, the apparent field of the 8x42 FL is a little smaller still. All have pincushion distortion, and in practice the difference is negligible, as all pan smoothly. Off axis blur is due to field curvature in the Leica, but mostly astigmatism in the FLs. The sweet spots of the two makes are similar, and although the edge sharpness of any would disappoint fans of binoculars that correct this well, others would not notice the minor differences among the three.
I have tried to objectify what I easily could, but regarding the overall quality of the view, I will fall back on the fearless naked eyeball method.
Looking through the 10x56, the view is just about like that in the familiar 8x42, only bigger. Any differences are overwhelmed by the magnification difference. This was actually my fondest hope, because for me it means "as good as I've seen". By Henry's logic, the 8x56 should be even better. I don't think I want to look through one of those, thank you!
Compared to the 10x50 BR, the obvious in house competition, the view is noticeably a little brighter and cleaner. After sunset its slightly larger exit pupil, and I also suspect better corrected exit pupil geometry, eliminates the eye pupil/exit pupil interactions that I experience with the 10x50, when eye position and direction of view in the field must be closely disciplined for a clear view. The view in the 10x56 is simple, and my eyes can wander without darkening/brightening effect, and so I would call the view relaxing.
On the stars, it really packs a stronger punch, a combination of aperture and transmission. Not only are stars in the middle of the view intense and tight, but I became immediately aware of the darkening edge of the Leica's field, which I only notice at night and had mostly learned to ignore. The big FL is bright all over, very pleasing for starwatching. The sharp, and overall bright view is so friendly that it may even replace the 12x50 BN that I use a lot for stargazing, but that's another story. The old principle is reaffirmed, that one can become accustomed to the weaknesses in something, which which then suddenly become obvious when something better comes along.
The question is not so much if the view in the 10x56 is better, but whether it is better enough to put up with the extra weight (44 vs 35 ounces) and bulk. I am impressed anew at what Leica can pack into the slim and delightful Ultravid, which is much nicer to handle and not heavy for a quality for 10x50. But in this comparison the compromises that go into the Leica become evident. I would still recommend the Leica over the Zeiss for a birdwatcher who wants the long range and low light capabilities of 10x50 but doesn't want to suffer unduly for it. The 56mm FL better fits the profile of the optically obsessed nature lover/stargazer, than the practical birder. With my pupils which will still open to about 6mm in the dark, it is probably about all the binocular that I can use to good advantage without some kind of support. I have had enjoyable experiences with big binoculars in the past though, and I am happily "strapping it on".
As to personal bias, consider that my honest striving for the truth may be affected by a need to rationalize an expensive purchase by overstating its wonders, and the ironically conflicting desire to not deflate too badly the reputation of a binocular that I will go right out and try to sell! All in all, it keeps me on the middle ground. Seriously, the 10x50 BR is a very good binocular, if you can find an excellent one for a good price. The 10x50 SV is no doubt better, but the BRs can be had for bargains that will cost the buyer well over $1000 less. And, you actually might soon be able to find such a gem more easily than you ever thought possible, very close by as a matter of fact.
Ron
So after a lengthy period of personal twisting and rationalizing, I went for a demo at a good price and have had the big FL about a week now. I have used it heavily in this short time, daily including a full day of birding with lots of distant waterbirds, and nightly on the stars through a period of clear October skies. I have taken it on my daily sunrise walks, and even on a 2000 foot climb to the top of a local mountain. I have stared through it, turned backwards, at a computer monitor through a polarizing filter to judge the quality of the phase coatings (very good I'd say), and admired things around the house, mainly my wife's incredible collection of blues CDs, the cases I mean.
I've been using an 8x42 FL and a Leica 10x50 BR about equally, so I'll describe the 56mm mostly as it compares to those two.
The green rubber of the 10x56 is actually softer and tackier than the starting to gleam black of the 8x42, the opposite what some users have found respecting the two colors. It certainly benefits from the (as Piers would say) "grippibilita'"-- with its size and weight it needs all the help it can get. Thankfully, the bowed out barrels dictated by the AK prisms leaves a good thumb's width between the barrels so you can get your wrist under the front end for a comfortable and stable support. Eyecups have three click stops in addition to full down, and the middle click fits me perfectly. With cups down, with my big sunglasses, I can see 5/6 of the field, about like with the 8x42.
The Zeiss focuses to about 10 feet vs 11 for the 10x50. From 11 feet to infinity requires 0.8 turn with 10x56, 1.25 turn with the 10x50, but only a blinding 0.55 turn with the 8x42. Despite the faster ratio, the 56 is actually slower for me to bring to sharpness than the 50. I think this is because of the feel of the focus knobs, the Zeiss being silky smooth but still quite resistive and heavy feeling, the Leica having the feel of unlubricated sticktion in such a way that when it moves, it really moves, and you are, like, THERE. I must just learn to crank the 56 boldly. The 10xs are both nicely tuned for the difficulty of focusing higher power, but are elephants compared to the 8x42's gazelle. No doubt about what is the warbler medicine here.
The apparent field of the 10x50 will contain the entire box of Cassiopeia with a little room to spare, but the 10x56 won't quite fit it in. In turn, the apparent field of the 8x42 FL is a little smaller still. All have pincushion distortion, and in practice the difference is negligible, as all pan smoothly. Off axis blur is due to field curvature in the Leica, but mostly astigmatism in the FLs. The sweet spots of the two makes are similar, and although the edge sharpness of any would disappoint fans of binoculars that correct this well, others would not notice the minor differences among the three.
I have tried to objectify what I easily could, but regarding the overall quality of the view, I will fall back on the fearless naked eyeball method.
Looking through the 10x56, the view is just about like that in the familiar 8x42, only bigger. Any differences are overwhelmed by the magnification difference. This was actually my fondest hope, because for me it means "as good as I've seen". By Henry's logic, the 8x56 should be even better. I don't think I want to look through one of those, thank you!
Compared to the 10x50 BR, the obvious in house competition, the view is noticeably a little brighter and cleaner. After sunset its slightly larger exit pupil, and I also suspect better corrected exit pupil geometry, eliminates the eye pupil/exit pupil interactions that I experience with the 10x50, when eye position and direction of view in the field must be closely disciplined for a clear view. The view in the 10x56 is simple, and my eyes can wander without darkening/brightening effect, and so I would call the view relaxing.
On the stars, it really packs a stronger punch, a combination of aperture and transmission. Not only are stars in the middle of the view intense and tight, but I became immediately aware of the darkening edge of the Leica's field, which I only notice at night and had mostly learned to ignore. The big FL is bright all over, very pleasing for starwatching. The sharp, and overall bright view is so friendly that it may even replace the 12x50 BN that I use a lot for stargazing, but that's another story. The old principle is reaffirmed, that one can become accustomed to the weaknesses in something, which which then suddenly become obvious when something better comes along.
The question is not so much if the view in the 10x56 is better, but whether it is better enough to put up with the extra weight (44 vs 35 ounces) and bulk. I am impressed anew at what Leica can pack into the slim and delightful Ultravid, which is much nicer to handle and not heavy for a quality for 10x50. But in this comparison the compromises that go into the Leica become evident. I would still recommend the Leica over the Zeiss for a birdwatcher who wants the long range and low light capabilities of 10x50 but doesn't want to suffer unduly for it. The 56mm FL better fits the profile of the optically obsessed nature lover/stargazer, than the practical birder. With my pupils which will still open to about 6mm in the dark, it is probably about all the binocular that I can use to good advantage without some kind of support. I have had enjoyable experiences with big binoculars in the past though, and I am happily "strapping it on".
As to personal bias, consider that my honest striving for the truth may be affected by a need to rationalize an expensive purchase by overstating its wonders, and the ironically conflicting desire to not deflate too badly the reputation of a binocular that I will go right out and try to sell! All in all, it keeps me on the middle ground. Seriously, the 10x50 BR is a very good binocular, if you can find an excellent one for a good price. The 10x50 SV is no doubt better, but the BRs can be had for bargains that will cost the buyer well over $1000 less. And, you actually might soon be able to find such a gem more easily than you ever thought possible, very close by as a matter of fact.
Ron
