• 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.

Lead And Arsenic Is A Good Thing!! (1 Viewer)

AlanFrench said:
John,

An interesting read. I will be seeing some folks this weekend who make a living designing and making optics, and I will ask if they find the move toward lead and cadmium free glasses has hampered their efforts.

Clear skies, Alan
Click to expand...

John/Alan,

Apparently progress comes slowly, but it does come with dedicated R&D. (See Edmund Optics policy below.) Imposing debilitating rules before a technology is ready should certainly be resisted, which is what I make out of the article. What I don't make out of it is an implication (much less proof) that Nikon or any other binocular manufacturer has compromised its product line using eco-friendly glass. There also appears to be new glass products coming on line what will enhance future optical design opportunities. These guys are not just being whipped around by environmentalists. Far from it. They are grabbing for the brass ring.

http://www.edmundoptics.com/techSupport/DisplayArticle.cfm?articleid=259

ED
 
This is another example of how our dream of a risk free existence has morphed into a grotesque chimera that extends it's tentatcles into all aspects of western culture. The idea that the glass that is used in making binoculars is a biohazard that threatens out existence is so absurd it is laughable.
Bob
 
AlanFrench said:
It's not having the cadmium, lead, and arsenic in the glass that is the problem. It is getting it there.

Clear skies, Alan[/QUOTE

Alan,
Just as our lives cannot be made stress free, we cannot make them risk free. We make decisions all the time in our individual lives to determine whether a very large risk is worth the goal attempted for the benefits it wil bring or so small that we can ignore it and keep the benefits it brings. I think that the latter reasoning is pertinent to the case before us. Everybody knows that cadmium, lead and arsenic are poisonous in varied ways. The burden of proof is on those who would ban them in the instant applications to show they are dangerous in their use. They are certainly used in much greater concentrations in many other applications. If the binocular manufacturers don't want to bother with any potential political grief because of their use, they should advise us so and remind us that the increase in costs is soley because of our own timidity concerning our human condition.

Cordially,
Bob
Click to expand...
 
For those worried about the environmental impact of binocular production, here's the solution; only buy 1 pair !
Too late for me though. I'm doomed to environmental guilt as I choose which pair to take with me today.
 
ceasar said:
AlanFrench said:
It's not having the cadmium, lead, and arsenic in the glass that is the problem. It is getting it there.

Clear skies, Alan[/QUOTE

Alan,
Just as our lives cannot be made stress free, we cannot make them risk free. We make decisions all the time in our individual lives to determine whether a very large risk is worth the goal attempted for the benefits it wil bring or so small that we can ignore it and keep the benefits it brings. I think that the latter reasoning is pertinent to the case before us. Everybody knows that cadmium, lead and arsenic are poisonous in varied ways. The burden of proof is on those who would ban them in the instant applications to show they are dangerous in their use. They are certainly used in much greater concentrations in many other applications. If the binocular manufacturers don't want to bother with any potential political grief because of their use, they should advise us so and remind us that the increase in costs is soley because of our own timidity concerning our human condition.

Cordially,
Bob
Click to expand...

Bob,

I agree, and I am hardly in a position to say whether the move to eco-glass was environmentally necessary or not. I do feel that history has shown industy has not been very careful with what they do with their waste. Unfortunately, it is often difficult to get an unbiased view of what really should be done. Here in the United States decisions seem driven more by politics and money than reality.

Clear skies, Alan
Click to expand...
 
AlanFrench said:
Bob,

I agree, and I am hardly in a position to say whether the move to eco-glass was environmentally necessary or not. I do feel that history has shown industy has not been very careful with what they do with their waste. Unfortunately, it is often difficult to get an unbiased view of what really should be done. Here in the United States decisions seem driven more by politics and money than reality.

Clear skies, Alan
Click to expand...
I feel so humble that a post from a thick old sod like me has produced such a responce.
Spent the day at the Lizzard looking at the choughs and big movements of sea birds, in some challenging weather conditions, at no time did CA rear its ugly head I really am most impressed with the prefomance of these Nikon HG pre eco-glass binoculars.Whatever the reasons for such a well corrected binocular are I am just glad I have them. Another point to ponder over is Why do I find the image through silver coated prisms more satisfying than the new dielectrical coating. I did own a pair of Leica 8x42 ultravid for a week.
...............................................................................fiddler.
 
ceasar said:
AlanFrench said:
It's not having the cadmium, lead, and arsenic in the glass that is the problem. It is getting it there.

Clear skies, Alan[/QUOTE

... We make decisions all the time in our individual lives to determine whether a very large risk is worth the goal attempted for the benefits it wil bring or so small that we can ignore it and keep the benefits it brings.

... The burden of proof is on those who would ban them in the instant applications to show they are dangerous in their use.

... If the binocular manufacturers don't want to bother with any potential political grief because of their use, they should advise us so and remind us that the increase in costs is soley because of our own timidity concerning our human condition.
Click to expand...

Bob,

I think Alan stated the problem quite succinctly. Although I'm no expert on the extent of toxic contamination the traditional glass manufacturing industry puts into the environment world wide, I also don't know the extent of lung disease from traditional coal production methods, cancers caused by belching smoke from traditional chemical plants, ... but I have learned that traditional cigarette smoke is really bad for my health — even other people's smoke. These are not the kinds of risks that we can safely limit to ourselves, like gambling in Las Vegas. Risks to the public are at issue, and that includes future generations. If you'd like to see a case where expert opinion of the day was not considered sufficient "proof," visit Northern California and dine on mercury poisoned fish caught in our San Francisco Bay over 100 yrs. after the "Gold Rush." The stark truth is that the gold mining industry, like all industry, past, present and future, is not particularly concerned with social welfare — and never will be. Public debate is needed, of course, to develop rational rules and regulations. Some products may turn out being compromised, which I'm not convinced has happened here, but would anyone argue that CAFE standards led to major advances in automotive technology? That can also happen with optics.

Just my thoughts, of course.
ED
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I spent the weekend at the Northeast Astronomy Forum, an astronomy convention at Rockland Community College in Suffern, NY. The gathering drew more than 80 manufacturers and vendors of astronomical equipment.
(See http://www.rocklandastronomy.com/neaf.htm)
I had a chance to talk with two friends who design, make, and sell high end optics (refractors and eyepieces, mainly). I asked if the elimination of lead, cadmium, and arsenic and the move toward "eco-friendly" glasses had made their jobs more difficult, and both responded with a resounding "no." One added that he has more glass choices now than he ever had.

Clear skies, Alan
 
I sure hope none of those new choices of glass is causing any harm to our environment!
Facetiously yours,
Bob
 
Last edited:
Maybe find a better means to get to your birding site than your SUV, you will make a positive global impact more quickly that way than worrying about the materials locked in your lenses.
 
I'm dredging up an old thread here but...

Putting a lawyer's head on, did anyone else notice that in Nikon's press release, they didn't actually say that their new eco-glass was as good as the old glass? They said that at the start of the process, they "demanded" that it be as good as the old glass.

Demanding something is not the same as having it. I don't think the phraseology was accidental. Nikon were covering their backs.

It's all arguably irrelevant now, as the EUs and Californias of this world aren't about to go back to better paint, better glass, better petrol. Better in the sense of being better paint, glass, petrol, not necessarily in the sense of being demonstrably better for the environment.

Does anyone know, is some Chinese glass is still made with lead etc? Could this be one reason why Zen-Ray can hold up its head against alpha binoculars costing four times as much?
 
Last edited:
It is done now.

Whatever reasons Nikon may have had for removing Lead from their glass, I've accepted them. My 2 lead free LX L's are IMHO superb binoculars! I don't think Nikon made a mistake. Furthermore, I don't think that I could see much difference between the old and the new if I had a chance to compare them.

Cordially,
Bob
 
Last edited:
spitfiretriple said:
Does anyone know, is some Chinese glass is still made with lead etc? Could this be one reason why Zen-Ray can hold up its head against alpha binoculars costing four times as much?
Click to expand...

I don't know if any CHinese bins use leaded (or arsenic) containing glases but the reason the Zen Ray and similar Chinese ED bins are good is because they use extra-low dispersion fluorophosphate crown glass in the objective to control longitudinal CA and control lateral CA with an LaK element in the EP.

Again these fluorophosphate crown glasses come in lead free and the older lead containing versions. There is no difference in their optical properties.

The Big Four all use the lead and arsenic free FP glasses (replacing PbO with Ti02 and some other additives) along with CaF2 to add the fluoride ions. And they work fine.

I might point out to the "leaded is better" proponents that you are making a claim so you need to provide some proof. That proof is in the refractive index and dispersion of the glass: that's what affects it's performance. And those are the same as the unleaded versions so there is no reason to use the former (in the visible! There are some exceptions (for military and scientific equipment) which is primarily for use outside the visible spectrum or in measurement devices.

I'm not sure what drives this odd theory. A wish for the forbidden? Wanting to prove those lefty-eco-nuts wrong? Or to show how those tree huggers are impinging on hard won American freedoms? The latter two seems to be the case on the Shootin' and Huntin' forums.

All I can say is if you have a leaded bin sell it to an hunter for a price premium ;)
 
All the different flavors of chinese ED binoculars, Hawke, Zen-Ray, RSPB HD (Viking), Bushnell Legend HD use extra low dispersion glasses. I suspected they may all come from the same glass foundry. Nikon Monarch and Monarch X are also made in China, probably getting their non ED glasses from the same glass supplier.
 
I believe a handful of Japanese companies have the lions share of most of the world's optical quality glass with ED properties and I suspect are the suppliers of most of the ED glass used in Chinese-made bins (CDGM is the only Chinese optical glass mfg. that publishes an optical catalog needed to design an optical system. They make eco-friendly "H-" category glass). These companies all now have foundaries throughout SE Asia and Taiwan too. I am pretty sure the Chinese Kunming role is more of an assembler/packager and the production process is not vertically intergrated with design, parts manufacturing, assembly, and packaging performed by one single entity.

Rick
 
Last edited:
Rick,

Apparently CDGM is now the world's largest supplier of optical glass. According to Roland Christen CDGM's H-FK61(equivalent to Ohara FPL-51) is quite cheap, not much more expensive than ordinary crown glass. I imagine that's the stuff used in the Chinese ED binoculars.

Henry
 
Thanks Henry. Learn something new everyday here on BF! I'll have to look for Hoya's 2009 annual report to see if they still boast of being #1.

Rick
 
Warning! This thread is more than 3 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

D
Why do Leicas have more CA than Swarovski or Zeiss?
3 4 5
Replies
98
Views
5K
Scott98
S
D
Zeiss SFL 8x40 This Year's Best New Birding Binocular!
2
Replies
31
Views
5K
AlphaFan
A
J
What binoculars are as good as Nikon Superior E?
2 3
Replies
46
Views
4K
Jaywalk
J
hopster
Best current 7x42 roof option?
2 3 4
Replies
78
Views
4K
Paultricounty
P
Passakorn
How do other alphas compare to the Swarovski EL 8.5x42 and Zeiss Victory 8x25 Combo?
2
Replies
24
Views
2K
Rg548
R

Users who are viewing this thread

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