• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

What causes Habicht 8x30 W veiling glare ? (1 Viewer)

If thats what you do 90% of the time with a bino...
No, but observing wildlife or birds from a lower vantage point looking up is common here with our high Rocky Mountains. If a binocular can't cut it I just have no need for it. I have no problem in that respect with my Canon 10x42 IS-L, Tract Toric 8x42 or Leupold Mojave 8x32. No veiling glare in any of them. Henry Link described the cause of the veiling glare in detail in the Habicht 8x30 W.
 
Last edited:
I hear what you're saying....however, regarding the critical observation of sunbathed 'goats on slopes' from deep canyons...it sounds mighty interesting, but I'm not sure I can see it happening for myself any time soon.

It is too bad you even replied to this post.

This guy only takes a quick look, no real experience of the optics
he talks about, a very unreliable source.

Jerry
 
I have not had the pleasure of using a Habicht but having used a multi coated 8x30 Jenoptem quite a bit and recently having had the chance to try an 8x30 Oberkochen, I do wonder whether the older 8x30 porro designs may not cope as well near strong sunlight as more modern binoculars. When I tried pointing the 8x30 Oberkochen near the sun (obviously not into it) at around 6.30 or so in the evening UK time there was so much glare that the image could hardly be seen. I had a 8x30 SLC with me to make direct comparisons with and the latter was very significantly superior. The 8x30 Jenoptem was somewhat better, probably because of the multi-coating, but still affected. I try to choose viewing spots with the sun behind me whenever possible, but you can't control where targets pop up, or fly to.
 
Regarding flare, glare and ghosting I am pretty sure that Dennis is accurate despite Jerry's comments.

For me, my early sample 8x42 Monarch HG is poor. The Zeiss 8x32 Conquest HD disappointing, and many other well regarded binoculars are not up to my standards of night time observing in severe light pollution and into street lights.
But my observations are not of birds or Men staring at Goats in the daytime.
The best for me at the moment is the 10x42 Conquest HD, with the 12x50 Leica Ultravid and Canon 10x42 L not far behind.
But I use the 8.5x44 HR/5 Swift a lot and it is not good for flare, glare and ghosts. So I don't use it where this is a problem.
 
Last edited:
Insufficient blackening for sure

Thanks, Henry, for posting that again - so the front/objectiv side diameter of the baffling cone is too wide?

To my eyes, the blackening inside the Habicht is absolutely insufficient. The big cone baffle is rippled, and the grooves are sheer silver metal. Next baffle is also silvery metal instead of black.

It should be so easy to improve on this for Swarovski, it´s a shame really. Some more black colour. The whole baffling stuff is way too reflective (that is why I swear on some short homemade sunshades which do improve performance quite a bit).

I am seriously thinking about getting a special treatment for my Habicht, and not from Swarovski.

Nevertheless, this little bin keeps amazing me. Had another sample of the 8x30 E2 recently, but the view is so dull, dark and red compared to the Habicht that I just couldn´t keep it. But Nikon is even a more hopeless case than Swarovski caring a bit more about a 70 year old design...

http://www.greatestbinoculars.com/allpages/reviews/nikon/nikon8x30e2/nikon8x30e2review.html
 
Last edited:
I've had a few binoculars out which are renowned for their veiling glare. These would include the SV 8.5, the 8x30 Habicht, and the Nikon 8x30 Monarch 7 which appear to set benchmarks in glare.

Many point out the fact that when we hold these binoculars up to light and look at the eyepiece, we can see the myriad of kaleidoscope type reflections in the eyepiece surrounding the exit pupil which is proof of the lack of baffling. People have also directly correlated this phenomena with the amount of veiling glare/flare which we will see through the binocular.

I've made some comparisons under moderate viewing conditions and I've become slightly confused. When viewing the eyepiece of my Noctivid, it is as black as a cows innards and it gives me a wonderful view, the SV8.5 is lit up like a kaleidoscope and yet gives me a wonderful view, while the eyepiece of the monarch 7 is also lit up like a kaleidoscope and the same view is so milky it is unusable. It is likely that the Monarch 7 has even more visible scattered light in the eyepiece, but it is far far closer to the SV8.5 than the SV is to the Noctivid.

There is no question that the Noctivid will easily outperform all of these binoculars under difficult viewing conditions, but I'm intrigued as to why, under so many viewing conditions, the SV performs so well while it's eyepieces are lit up like kaleidoscopes? I would say the same for the 8x30 Habicht. How can this happen?

Rathaus
 
In most cases, the reflections are far enough away from the exit pupil of the binocular that the stay light falls outside of the persons pupil and is not picked up.

In the case of the Monarch 7, some of that stray light is right on the edge of the binocular exit pupil and if the person's eyes are dilated enough, the reflection will be picked up in their vision.
 
Bruce - I hear you, which is why an exit pupil of 6-7mm does not require the same level of baffling to avoid glare.

I've used the SV in dimly lit conditions post sunset and have found the view to be veiled with so much glare as to render it useless... (The optometrist measured my pupils at 6mm in a dimly lit room in which I can still easily read). I can see how veiling glare could vary dramatically from person to person and within a person's lifetime.

Regarding the little Monarch 7 - I find it to be so inferior to even the SV regarding veiling glare that it has become a small paper weight. It's a pity because it is fantastic otherwise. I picked it up at a bargain price, so I was thinking of dismantling it and playing around with it in an attempt to baffle it more effectively.
 
I have the Monarch 7 in an 8X30 and only hit a total wash out situation once. I was looking near the top of a mountain ridge just before the morning sun broke out over the top of the ridge. I took one hand and used it as a shade over the top of the objectives and all the glare and wash out went away. The view was then incredibly clear!

What was interesting is that I tried to recreate the scenario one morning a couple of weeks later and could not.

Now that I have an easy way to get around the problem for what looks to be a rare occurance, I continue to use and enjoy the little Monarch.
 
Bruce - I hear you, which is why an exit pupil of 6-7mm does not require the same level of baffling to avoid glare.

I've used the SV in dimly lit conditions post sunset and have found the view to be veiled with so much glare as to render it useless... (The optometrist measured my pupils at 6mm in a dimly lit room in which I can still easily read). I can see how veiling glare could vary dramatically from person to person and within a person's lifetime.

Regarding the little Monarch 7 - I find it to be so inferior to even the SV regarding veiling glare that it has become a small paper weight. It's a pity because it is fantastic otherwise. I picked it up at a bargain price, so I was thinking of dismantling it and playing around with it in an attempt to baffle it more effectively.

Sensitivity to glare might also vary with light levels over the year/season.
In bright day light I guess your eye pupil might take care of baffling to some extent. In the dark (winter) season I tend to prefer my 7x42 FL:s over the 8.5x42 SV:s.

Did you try putting hoods on the objective lenses?
Wonder if the monarchs will be possible to dismantle in a non-destructive way?

What is bit strange is the variance within models. According to Allbinos the 8x32 UVHD:s have very low internal reflections, the 8x42 is not as good, and the 10x42 is the worst of the three. Not sure if theses results correlates with perceived glare/flare in real reviews though.
 
What is bit strange is the variance within models. According to Allbinos the 8x32 UVHD:s have very low internal reflections, the 8x42 is not as good, and the 10x42 is the worst of the three. Not sure if theses results correlates with perceived glare/flare in real reviews though.

The images and scores of these Leica binoculars are good examples of what Allbinos sometimes gets wrong about glare. The 10x42 is downgraded for completely irrelevant reflections that are far removed from the exit pupil. The really damaging reflections at the edge of the exit pupil actually look better in the 10x42 than the 8x42. Also notice that the left side of the 8x42 looks worse than the right side (probably because of slightly different positioning of the light source) even though the left's glare resistance should be identical to the right.

Another glare variable that hasn't been mentioned in this thread is the position of the focusing lens (obviously not applicable to the 8x30 Habicht). Sometimes the focusing lens cell acts to baffle reflections from the objective lens cell, but only when the focusing lens is moved forward near the objective (this may be either close or distant focus depending on whether the focusing lens is positive or negative). When the focusing lens moves backward the objective cell reflection will be exposed to the eye.

Sometimes reflection from the focusing lens cell is the problem. Then the reflection is likely to be exposed to the eye when the focusing lens in in its forward position, but baffled by the prism aperture as the focusing lens moves backward.
 
Last edited:
The images and scores of these Leica binoculars are good examples of what Allbinos sometimes gets wrong about glare. The 10x42 is downgraded for completely irrelevant reflections that are far removed from the exit pupil. The really damaging reflections at the edge of the exit pupil actually look better in the 10x42 than the 8x42. Also notice that the left side of the 8x42 looks worse than the right side (probably because of slightly different positioning of the light source) even though the left's glare resistance should be identical to the right.

Another glare variable that hasn't been mentioned in this thread is the position of the focusing lens (obviously not applicable to the 8x30 Habicht). Sometimes the focusing lens cell acts to baffle reflections from the objective lens cell, but only when the focusing lens is moved forward near the objective (this may be either close or distant focus depending on whether the focusing lens is positive or negative). When the focusing lens moves backward the objective cell reflection will be exposed to the eye.

Sometimes reflection from the focusing lens cell is the problem. Then the reflection is likely to be exposed to the eye when the focusing lens in in its forward position, but baffled by the prism aperture as the focusing lens moves backward.

Henry:

I suppose Allbinos tests binoculars all the same way, and so
what you see in the photos, is consistent across a large range.

The reviews are a comparison, and I think those ratings are a good idea
of the light handling of the optics they test and rank.

I have not found any other testers that perform tests like this, and so while
your points may be valid, it is hard to disagree with Allbinos, as the scores they present are valid under many lighting situations.

I suppose you could contact Arek, and ask about his testing methods.

Jerry
 
Hi Henry,

I have made the same observation! In my HT 10x42, I am almost sure the reflection from the cell of the focusing lens directed to the objective lens, plus, a BIG PLUS, the strong reflection from some part of the A-K prism, also directed to the objective, are the causes of that milki veiling glare. The Habicht 10x40 does not have, of course, any moving lenses in that position and is very well baffled and blackened in that section. So, it is noticeable better on the veiling glare than the HT 10x42.

PHA
 
Thanks, Henry, for posting that again - so the front/objectiv side diameter of the baffling cone is too wide?

To my eyes, the blackening inside the Habicht is absolutely insufficient. The big cone baffle is rippled, and the grooves are sheer silver metal. Next baffle is also silvery metal instead of black.

It should be so easy to improve on this for Swarovski, it´s a shame really. Some more black colour. The whole baffling stuff is way too reflective (that is why I swear on some short homemade sunshades which do improve performance quite a bit).

I am seriously thinking about getting a special treatment for my Habicht, and not from Swarovski.

Nevertheless, this little bin keeps amazing me. Had another sample of the 8x30 E2 recently, but the view is so dull, dark and red compared to the Habicht that I just couldn´t keep it. But Nikon is even a more hopeless case than Swarovski caring a bit more about a 70 year old design...

http://www.greatestbinoculars.com/allpages/reviews/nikon/nikon8x30e2/nikon8x30e2review.html

It seems painting the baffles with the latest black coatings wouldn't be to difficult.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vantablack

Heck, if I owned one I'd be tempted to use my lens ring spanners to take it apart and fabricate a better baffle.
 
Last edited:
The baffling cone in my 8x30 is blackened, but reflections from the ribbed interior of the cone are essentially harmless anyway because they're invisible from the eyepiece end. The main problem is that the cone's front opening is too large to block the bright glancing reflections from the metal objective cell that are very visible from the eyepiece. If the cone opening were slightly reduced in diameter the objective cell problem ought to be fixed. That would be a big improvement, but the undersized prism that intrudes into the exit pupil would still sometimes cause glare when strong side light comes from an angle opposite the prism intrusion.
 
Last edited:
The baffling cone in my 8x30 is blackened, but reflections from the ribbed interior of the cone are essentially harmless anyway because they're invisible from the eyepiece end. The main problem is that the cone's front opening is too large to block the bright glancing reflections from the metal objective cell that are very visible from the eyepiece. If the cone opening were slightly reduced in diameter the objective cell problem ought to be fixed. That would be a big improvement, but the undersized prism that intrudes into the exit pupil would still sometimes cause glare when strong side light comes from an angle opposite the prism intrusion.

It seems such a simple mod. We need a guinea pig to strip down their own binos and try...
 
Warning! This thread is more than 6 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top