• 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.

Is HD glass overrated? (1 Viewer)

J

justabirdwatcher

Well-known member
Being a confessed binocular junkie, by now I've tried quite a few late-model binoculars. Not nearly as many as some here, but certainly in the 20-30 range in the past few years. And by "try" I mean spent some real time with them in the field. Not just looking through them in the store.

After all the bin's I've borrowed and owned, it dawned on me that "non-HD" optics seem to deliver my preferred view. My two favorites as of right now are my Sightron Blue Sky II 8x32 and my 10x42 Nikon LX-L's. Now I'm not sure if the LX-L's are considered "HD" glass... maybe they are?

What I do know is that every pair I've owned and used that said "HD" or "ED" or whatever designation is used, I've sold. Why? Because the view just didn't look real to me, and in some cases, it was downright annoying.

Has anyone else noticed this or had this experience?
 
justabirdwatcher said:
Being a confessed binocular junkie, by now I've tried quite a few late-model binoculars. Not nearly as many as some here, but certainly in the 20-30 range in the past few years. And by "try" I mean spent some real time with them in the field. Not just looking through them in the store.

After all the bin's I've borrowed and owned, it dawned on me that "non-HD" optics seem to deliver my preferred view. My two favorites as of right now are my Sightron Blue Sky II 8x32 and my 10x42 Nikon LX-L's. Now I'm not sure if the LX-L's are considered "HD" glass... maybe they are?

What I do know is that every pair I've owned and used that said "HD" or "ED" or whatever designation is used, I've sold. Why? Because the view just didn't look real to me, and in some cases, it was downright annoying.

Has anyone else noticed this or had this experience?
Click to expand...

HD is really determined by the rods and cones in the eye, levels of fatigue, stimulants (even water) in one’s system, thermal differences in the system, as well as humidity, and your ability to stare and let the focus come to you. [see Dick Suiter’s Wobbly Stack.]

It really doesn't matter that you find "regular" lenses as good or better, as long as the majority of observers are willing to believe everything they see in print and are willing to spend their money to attain PERCIEVED levels of performance, and are willing to believe that all facets of design and execution are of the same quality . . . even on commodity binos from every new start-up in Asia, it’s going to remain so.

The bottom line: don’t throw mud into the sandbox. But, if you can’t see it . . . it doesn’t exist—at least for you! P.T. Barnum did not say “There’s a sucker born every minute.” But, someone who worked for him did, and was correct in his assessment! :cat:

Bill
 
The main reason for incorporating HD (or ED) glass into modern optical designs is to reduce lateral chromatic aberration. Comparable instruments made with and without HD/ED glass, e.g., Leica (Roof), Swift (Porro), and other products, readily demonstrate the advantage. Otherwise notable binoculars, such Nikon's LX L series are fraught with CA issues, — although not everyone is equally sensitive to it.

Having "seen the light" with the Swift Audubon 804ED, I believe that a good argument could be made that HD/ED glass is actually underrated. In my opinion, the need for improved CA control was a byproduct of advanced multi-coating technology, which made inherent lateral CA more perceptible throughout the image.

Ed
 
elkcub said:
The main reason for incorporating HD (or ED) glass into modern optical designs is to reduce lateral chromatic aberration. Comparable instruments made with and without HD/ED glass, e.g., Leica (Roof), Swift (Porro), and other products, readily demonstrate the advantage. Otherwise notable binoculars, such Nikon's LX L series are fraught with CA issues, — although not everyone is equally sensitive to it.

Having "seen the light" with the Swift Audubon 804ED, I believe that a good argument could be made that HD/ED glass is actually underrated. In my opinion, the need for improved CA control was a byproduct of advanced multi-coating technology, which made inherent lateral CA more perceptible throughout the image.

Ed
Click to expand...
I agree, Ed, ED glass is a welcome addition to my eyes. Now, how much are those ED royalties worth, Ed?
 
I used just a few binoculars and while I don't know the extent of reality in these designations, in my eyes HD>UD>(Schott)ED>"Plain" glass.
 
Pileatus said:
I agree, Ed, ED glass is a welcome addition to my eyes. Now, how much are those ED royalties worth, Ed?
Click to expand...

If, and IF is a HUGE word, it is made to the designer's specs. I think I have looked through--and repaired--every 804 ever made. Still, manufacturers strive for profit, and it is a lot more economical to improve a product with words than grinding, polishing, matching, and testing.

Case in point:

Ed would you say Hop was a better driver at Swift than Allison?

Bill

Attitude determines altitude.
 
For me HD is less of an issue than how well they fit me. Honestly I couldn't care less whether it's ED/HD or not.
 
The main reason for incorporating HD (or ED) glass into modern optical designs is to reduce lateral chromatic aberration. Comparable instruments made with and without HD/ED glass, e.g., Leica (Roof), Swift (Porro), and other products, readily demonstrate the advantage. Otherwise notable binoculars, such Nikon's LX L series are fraught with CA issues, — although not everyone is equally sensitive to it.
Click to expand...

Clearly, I am not sensitive to it, as I prefer the view of my LX-L's to my SLC HD's and never quite got on with my Celestron Granite ED's or Vortex Viper ED's.

In my experience, every HD/ED glass I've looked through produced colors that weren't true to life. One thing I love about my Sightrons and LX-L's is that the colors are spot-on and the contrast is superb.
 
Well, all ED/HD glass is not created equal so to speak, so that is one major thing to take into account. Also, the fit/feel of a binocular can often be more of a determining factor as to how much you like it than any optical quality, as perterra mentioned.

But, for me, quality ED glass is very important - I can readily see CA in any pair of binoculars I've handled (including the Kowa Genesis, Swarovski Swarovision, and Zeiss Victory series, the 3 of which control it best), so it needs to be fairly well controlled to not distract or be detrimental to my view. If ED glass contains it to that outer 5% of the image, I'm much less bothered than if I see it in the central portion.

Justin
 
Hello all,

In the absence of an optical bench, I would not care to write anything definite, but I will make two observations

First, the desire to have compact binoculars has often meant the use of "fast," short focal length objectives, which are prone to chromatic aberrations. Colour fringing is the most obvious effect of chromatic aberrations, but there may still be reduction in sharpness even without perceiving color fringing. It may be that the ED glass compensated for the fast lenses. A slow objective, such as the Zeiss 7x42 Dialyt, with long AK prisms and barrels seems to handle chromatic aberrations well.

Another aspect of ED glass is the colour rendition, which is probably most improved in the blues.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur Pinewood :hi:
 
Last edited:
Another aspect of ED glass is the colour rendition, which is probably most improved in the blues.
Click to expand...

Interesting.

Maybe it's the blues I'm sensitive to? :D

I admit that image color fidelity is a high priority for my eyes. Most HD/ED images have been too much on the "cool" (blue) side for my tastes. Maybe they look "truer" to some, but to me they look washed out and artificial, hence my preference (I suppose) for the warmer more contrasty images produced by the current pairs I own and use.

Justin, I have read that you are sensitive to CA. I hesitate to ask what that is like since I don't want to expose myself by "seeing it" for the first time. :D I'll just happily proclaim that I'm not sensitive to it since I haven't quite figured out how to see it yet.
 
Justabirdwatcher,

Not sure if it will help but search "golden hue". That may explain your preferences for those two binoculars. If true I would be willing to bet you would also enjoy the original Zeiss Conquest 30 mm and the Leica Trinovid BN.
 
I think many, if not most, of the comments in these forums (fora?) are more a reflection of the differences in individual human eyesight than optical properties.

Optical properties are, however, the ones to which we can assign a number.
 
Maljunulo said:
I think many, if not most, of the comments in these forums (fora?) are more a reflection of the differences in individual human eyesight than optical properties.

Optical properties are, however, the ones to which we can assign a number.
Click to expand...
When Swarovski, or any other alpha manufacturer, sells a gazillion binoculars I'm sure they record it as a number. People count, in more ways than one.
 
From my experience I would say the short and simple answer is yes, HD / ED glass makes some difference, but it is overrated.
 
Ah...."downright annoying".
Painful, I would say.

I've had that experience with super-sharp, multicoated binoculars.
I blew the view up with a low-pwr monocular, and what I found
was a wicked purple-white glare/edge on some objects.
There is also a fine "edge-ringing" that can happen near field-edge with multi-multicoated.

It's the violet/UV polarized edge-glare well-known on a larger scale,
but around natural edges in finer detail. A few binoculars have a UV-type filter,
like some Olympus, but it's fallen victim to the ultra-transmission craze.
It's generated by the objects themselves, and passed right through most modern gear.
This is not chromatic aberration, it's polarized glare.
Many oldies take care of it.

Polarizing helps a lot, but the losses of sunglasses are severe.
Some camera haze filters can be tacked onto binoculars, especially 8x42 or 10x42.
Mostly I stick with binoculars that have a "UVC" or "UV protection" front,
or color-corrected "amber" coatings of old....on sunny of bright snowy days.
 
They only consequence of decrowning ED glass would be that binocular makers will start marketing new forms of Extra High Dispersion, or Ultra High Dispersion, or Mega High Dispersion glasses, that will skyrocket alphas to over 3000 euros. Some people here will keep insisting that their "vintage" EDs, HDs, HTs, XDs, ELs, UDs etc are better but newcomers will think they are picturesque luddites of a past long gone. On the other hand one might find a preowned ED alpha glass for less when the Extra High Dispersion glass craze breaks, so keep on posting on the thread please.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 9 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.

Similar threads

J
New birder in GA trying to figure out where to buy binoculars where I can try them out.
Replies
11
Views
478
Trinovid
T
M
Replacement for M7 8x30
2
Replies
33
Views
2K
Dr. K
D
S
Best alpha binocular for ageing glasses wearer?
2 3
Replies
41
Views
5K
Maljunulo
M
Snuffleupagus
2nd Pair / Upgrade for Birder - Advise Needed
2 3
Replies
44
Views
3K
jring
J
S
8x32 advice?
2
Replies
36
Views
2K
coolhand68
C

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top