Holger's latest review : Classic 8x30 porros (1 Viewer)

Many thanks for the link.

Marked with IF or CF.

Carl Zeiss Jena Deltrentis 8x30 (IF)
Soviet(?) 8x30 military B8x30 (IF)
Chinese 8x30 military 62-8WYJ (current production copy) (IF)
Zeiss Oberkochen 8x30 (CF)
Leitz 8x30 Binuxit (CF)
Hensoldt DF (IF)
Hensoldt Fero-D (IF)

There is a some useful bino history mixed in e.g.

No doubt the Zeiss engineers were eager to set new standards of modern Porro binocular design, and when presenting this new line (which also included an 8x50 and 10x50 model), they did not only send a message to Jena but also to its arch rival, Ernst Leitz. Leitz did not attempt to answer with another improved line of Porro binoculars, but exclusively focused on the development of their roof-prism line.

Click to expand...

and

The Leitz Binuxit was introduced as early as 1927 and remained in production until 1962, when it was replaced with the 8x32 Trinovid roof prism.

Click to expand...

The review listed here is very nice. There were some improved versions of a few of these binoculars that were likely unavailable for this discussion. If we leave off the mil-spec comparison in the last category, then the Zeiss Oberkochen is clearly the better of the bunch. I use the ZO 8x30B as my standard of comparison for CF 8x30s. It is spectacular, although mine are "warmer-imaging" than this review might lead one to believe, and fully multicoated as well and so are likely from the last production.

The Kern/Leica 8x30 was a super multicoated version of the Leitz Binuxit and its performance was excellent or better. This binocular was available in a CF version for civilian use and an IF version for the Swiss military. This binocular is 98% as good as the ZO 8x30 (IMO) and the IF version offers the kind of mil-spec water and shock resistance you would expect in a bin used by the Swiss military in the most extreme conditions.

As well the Zeiss Jena Deltrintem went through a variety of improvements including full multicoating (including prisms) throughout it lifetime. It had redesigned eyepieces and a much wider field by the time the transition to Docter Optics came along. The current 8x30 Jenoptik IF is very similar, using the last version of the Deltrintem's eyepieces and multicoatings but with full mil-spec shock and waterproofing. Even the later Jenoptem 8x30W was excellent. In all the cases of Deltrintems or Jenoptems be sure to buy only the 1Q models for maximum performance.

It is peculiar that the 8x30 CF Baigish Russian binocular is not mentioned in this group as it is vastly superior to the "oldie-but-goody" 8x30 Russian binocular used for this test. The Baigish 8x30 is fully multicoated and is one of the sharpest binoculars ever made and is perhaps sharper than the ZO 8x30B, which could make it the sharpest CF bin ever. In fact the Russians developed their own military Xx30, the KOMZ 7x30 IF. Holger does in fact rate this bin as likely the sharpest binocular of any type that he has ever seen. The Baigish might only be the tiniest bit less sharp than the KOMZ 7x30, and the color balance of the Baigish is much better than the KOMZ.

Comments about color-neutral images
In many cases this class of binoculars is described as having a "warm" or even "yellowish" cast to the view, and while under perfect skies and light this is a possible disadvantage, in light haze (low contrast), or when blue caste light abounds (over snow or water or under very overcast skies), this "warmth" is an advantage. Some versions of marine binoculars use the "warm-view" to ease eye strain caused by excessive blue glare. The bins I've mentioned here with a slightly warm color balance include the Kerns, the Deltrintems/Jenoptems and both modern Russian models.

In only 2 cases have I ever seen a binocular with a purposeful blue caste and both binoculars were made for use in extreme desert conditions (the Pentax 7x50D CF and the Hensoldt 8x30 French/Algerian military porro CF binoculars). When everything is yellow and yellow dust and grit are constantly being blown around, these 2 binoculars seem to cut through the yellow haze to produce a slightly better balanced view. The Pentax models had objectives coated with pure gold to reduce IR, and the Hensoldt Algerians have a set of ND 2W warm neutral density filters to allow users to look up into the brilliant blue sky without the worst effects of the extra-blue view. Some other military people I've spoken to have commented that a blue tilted color balance is also excellent for viewing movement in the desert under full moonlight.

Finally, while this is an unfair comparison, I think the Nikon CF 8x30 E is better than any of the binoculars listed above although not water resistant.

ksbird/foxranch said:

The Kern/Leica 8x30 was a super multicoated version of the Leitz Binuxit

Click to expand...

Do you have any reference for that? I always thought that the Kern binoculars were developed in the pre-Leica time. As far as I know, Kern was taken over by Wild Heerbrugg AG which itself became part of the Wild-Leitz Group (microscopes etc.) later. Because of this, Kern binoculars are often related to Leica although they were developed in earlier times. See also Holger's review of the Kern 8x30: http://www.holgermerlitz.de/kern8x30.html.

ksbird/foxranch said:

Finally, while this is an unfair comparison, I think the Nikon CF 8x30 E is better than any of the binoculars listed above although not water resistant.

Click to expand...

Holger states the same in his new article. Also the Fujinon 8x30 FMTR-SX is optically superior to these binoculars. However, for the pure fun of using it, I often choose the Binuxit instead of the Fujinon in these days. It is a bit like using an oldfashioned rangefinder camera: a digital SLR can do everything much better but is not necessarily more fun to use.

Best,
Joachim

You're right, Joachim. The Leica/Kern 8x30 is optically identical to the old Kern 8x30 Armee-Modell which remained optically unchanged for decades, except for the addition of coating. None of these were multi-coated, but the later "Leica" version unfortunately has non-removable laser filters which severely cut light transmission and give the image a blue tint. The Leitz Binuxit is an unrelated binocular with a different eyepiece design.

Holger Merlitz mentioned that the Nikon 8x30 EII is his favorite 8x30. The original 8x30 E used a different eyepiece, inferior to the one used in the EII.

Henry

Thanks for the clarification, Henry.
Joachim

ksbird/foxranch said:

I use the ZO 8x30B as my standard of comparison for CF 8x30s. It is spectacular, although mine are "warmer-imaging" than this review might lead one to believe, and fully multicoated as well and so are likely from the last production.

Click to expand...

I also have a Zeiss 8x30B Porro. Many of these have acquired a warm image due to yellowing of the original Canada Balsam in the eyepiece cemented doublets. Alas, they were never multi-coated. Production ceased in 1978. T* coating was introduced in 1979.

Thank you Henry for the tip about the yellowing of my older ZO 8x30. Perhaps someday I can find someone to take apart one of the 2 pairs of ZO 8x30Bs that are now "warmer" compared to the other.

Also when I am in a hurry (like when I am rushing to throw in a the last line edit to my post) I shorten the name of the Nikon 8x30 EII I have to just 8x30E, sorry for the typo.

I was puzzled by the comments about the Kerns. The model of Kern that Holger Merlitz reviewed was the 1984 Kern model (his was made in 1987). Before the Leica Swiss Army model of 1992/93 (with laser reticle) there were 2 other multicoated Kern/or/Leica models, the Kern 8x30 Swiss Army Model (new model) 1991 which was made by Leica and only branded Kern. There was also a CF model supposedly for upper military Staff called the "Leica 8*30 "Zivil" new model (1992)" and this item had no laser protective reticles. And then these 2 models were followed by "Leica 8*30 flab "Swiss Army Model" 1064nm laser protection (after 1992)". On the Wild-Heerbrugg History site the binoculars I tested were called the Leica 1999 Zivil (Civilian), were fully multicoated and had no reticle. The multicoated New Army Model without reticle 1991 is also shown, and there are 2 late model Leica Army model 8x30s with reticle shown, the 1992/93 flab model I referred to and a 2003 model (which I think corrected the over-blue tint [or vice versa] because an over-blue view would just ruin your eyes in the mountain snow glare which already has way too much blue visual content because of the high altitude).

I tried out a pair of the 1991 multicoated Kern branded 8x30 Zivil models (probably made by Leica) for a business that was considering buying a few dozen to sell on the internet. I figured if there were that many around I'd see more but I never did. They were really excellent. Oddly enough the Wild History site is actually selling a pair of the 1992-2003 Kern bins, and I'll bet they would remove the reticle if you asked. The price is US$375.

I heard from the retailer I tested the bins for that the non-reticle multicoated Kern/Leica models from 1991 were just multicoated versions of a previous Leica porro and the Binuxit is the only 8x30 porro I could think of. Wild-Heerbrugg is also selling a pair of the CF versions of the binoculars Holger Merlitz tested for US$200, the Kern 8x30 AR. It would be good to know if the Leica New Army model Wild is selling has the blue tint view, or if the reticle could be removed in advance, but the Kern AR CF 8x30s are also very nice.

here is the Wild-Heerbrugg history link

http://www.wild-heerbrugg.com/b/index.html

Finally one pair of my ZO 8x30b bins was purchased at Photokina in 1980. They differed from the others 2 pairs I had because they had multicoatings (marked T*), and rather firm rubber eyecups with wider eye lenses that the other 2 pairs I had. ZO showed an IF rubberized version of the same bins at that show. The CF model was marked T* but for some reason the IF military waterproof version was not. The model of ZO 8x30B I had was similar to the Hensoldt Fero D-16 except with the original wide field of view. I didn't look at the rubberized version at that show closely enough to comment on it.

I bought the show samples (I always try to buy show samples of anything I like because the companies are often showing prototypes, or they are betting the company reputation on what they are showing). I always (incorrectly) assumed that the high quality porro 8x30 Leica makes for the Swiss Army would be for sale to compete with the Swaro 8x30 Habicht or that ZO would market a classic 8x30 porro alongside their 7x50 Marine (or even a civilian model of the Fero d-16). Sadly none of those things ever happened. Eventually I got the Nikon 8x30 EIIs and the Baigish 8x30s and the KOMZ 7x30s and I didn't use my 1980 ZO 8x30s for comparisons. I know who now has them and I should get a photo to show the odd eyecups that seemed to be twist-ups that wouldn't twist. These eyecups would barely bend unlike the soft eyecups many other companies market, and even the new model 7x50 Marine eyecup, but maybe the eyecups were taken from the Fero D-16.

I'd like to compare some of these 8x30ish bins to the Celestron Ultima 8x32s that have been talked about here recently. Porros rule!!!

ksbird,

Thanks for the link. Certainly the Leica/Kern 8x30 would only be acceptable for general use without the laser filters, but even if some were multi-coated they would IMO still be a pretty mediocre binoculars without an improved eyepiece. The one I bought from Deutsche Optik a few years ago was I believe dated 1996, but had the very same optics, including coatings, as my 1980 old style Kern Armee-Modell. They told me the filter layer was applied to a prism, not a reticle, and couldn't be removed.

A Zeiss CF 8x30B T* Porro from 1980 would have to be a prototype that was never put into production. What a shame! That has to be a very rare item and should be documented. I would be very interested to see some photos.

Henry

ksbird/foxranch said:

I'd like to compare some of these 8x30ish bins to the Celestron Ultima 8x32s that have been talked about here recently. Porros rule!!!

Click to expand...

I concur with both of those ideas.

I'd love to see where on the list the DX come compared to some of the classic 8x30s.

The DX is only $90 at Eagle Optics and you, ksbird/foxranch, have all the others in you collection. Join the dots

And porros still "just don't get no respect". But there is a movement here (post Yosemite?) that has come around to thinking that some of these bins were both an improvement on their predecessors and on a lot of their successors too.

Actually when I hang out with birders (which I don't often do) I gravitate to those with porros. They usually have a reason for their choice.

Hmmm, perhaps time for a set of "Porro and Proud" or "Proud Porro Birder" or similar sentiment. Take that Leica/Swaro/Zeiss users. I'm not the least bit jealous. Really.

I'm not sure I can understand Leica taking over a company like Kern, closing the factory and then continuing to make the same product, when they could just as easily use one of their own designs, unless they deemed the Kern product superior to their own. The Swiss military could just as easily buy the Fero-D-16 as the old design Kern. I'll try to email Wild to see if there actually were any design changes as the series went along.

http://www.wild-heerbrugg.com/binoculars.htm

This link shows that at least 2 of the Kern Leica model binoculars had multicoated eyepieces (probably 3). The model I tested had fully multicoated optics and the eye lenses were wide and very comfortable to use, besides being very sharp.

As for myself I have always loved the 8x30 porro format. In spite of dealing off the aforementioned 1980 ZO 8x30B and 2 pairs of Steiner 8x30s within the last year I still have the following and many more 8x30s

2 ZO 8x30B
2 Steiner 8x30 IF (Marine and Hunting)
Hensoldt DF IF
Hensoldt Algerian/French
CZJ Jenoptem 8x30W
CZJ Deltrintem
early Swaro Habicht (50s)
Nikon EII
Nikon Micron IF
Hertel & Reuss
Lisenfeld
Heine
new Tasco Marine IF (excellent, a small version of the Tasco 7x50 Marine)
Abercrombie & Fitch
Canon (60s)
Bushnell Birder (Rev Porros)
Fuji Meibo
2 Baigish
Dr Wohler
Luna
Deauville
2 Sans & Streiff
Herters Tropical

The ones I still want are
Celestron DX 8x32
Swaro Habicht late model
Nikon SE 8x32
Jenoptik
Xian Aries (highly regarded by troops in Afghanistan)
Fujinon FMTR
CZ Delactis
Pentax (70s)
Jason Statesman
Leupold Yosemite

Aside from the Celestrons I'll wait until the right trades come along. Of course there are 7/8x40 porros I also want for my collection. I have always enjoyed the ease of use and wide spread of the 8x30 porro since my hands feel most comfortable about 8 inches or more apart with my elbows up enough to be out of the way of my loaded hunting, fishing or photo vests or coats. The 2 different Zeiss 8x30 roofers I have are very nice, but the Diafuns are mostly to loan to children and the B MC GAT*Ps are little used except by visiting friends who are 5'9" or shorter because for some reason they find the "elbows in" position of holding binoculars to be comfortable.

8x40s might be a bit brighter, but usually at the expense of much larger size and noticeable increases in weight except one model recently added to my collection, the Brookstone 8x42. This binocular has a magnesium chassis and everything about it is super-compact except the objective lenses. Fully multicoated (incl the prisms) it is a really nice item and I've been carrying it in my rough-wear coat large pockets allot recently. It isn't water resistant so I don't take it trekking or for trail walks along the steep creekside canyons leading to the Missouri River, but it is a really fine binocular now that I've replaced the eyecups. Sitting on the "down-facing" objective lenses nexxt to almost any 8x30 in my collection they are as small as most and smaller than some of them.

For "nose-bleed" seats in a stadium for soccer matches I like the Hensoldt DF because of the excellent DOF and very wide angle view, plus water resistance, so you just focus once and use them all match. For birding out on my decks on the ranch, I like the ZO 8x30Bs or the FMC Deltrintems. If the conditions are really bad, I take the Steiners outside (although I might try the Tasco 8x30 IF Marines this year in the snow). I got a test sample from Tasco for $40 (incl shipping) and then kept them. At that price I won't care if they get destroyed should I take a dive in the ice and snow during winter.

I guess the Nikon SE is an example of how to make a porro bin so well that no roofers can match their performance.

The American market currently rules the binocular world in one respect, if Americans won't buy it, then manufacturers won't make a product or if they do, they won't make many of them. A recent translated interview with a Zeiss Sports Optics marketing manager says that for the present, Americans aren't buying porros at all, no matter how well made they are, so there is no incentive for manufacturers to make them. Nikon has a reasonable sized market in Japan that allows the SE series to keep one production line going. Perhaps this is why Yukon can still make porros in 7x50, 10x50, 12x50, 16x50 and 20x50 (pretty much the way Pentax does). But in spite of the fact that Swaro, Tasco and others make CF waterproof bins, there really weren't many new porros being made until Leupold came along (Go Leupold). Even so, Leupold's best quality bins are HD roofers. It's really a shame.

ksbird/foxranch said:

I'm not sure I can understand Leica taking over a company like Kern, closing the factory and then continuing to make the same product, when they could just as easily use one of their own designs, unless they deemed the Kern product superior to their own. The Swiss military could just as easily buy the Fero-D-16 as the old design Kern. I'll try to email Wild to see if there actually were any design changes as the series went along.

Click to expand...

The company histories of the various Leica entities in the link are bewilderingly complex. My simplified reading is that the original firm, Leitz Wetzlar, ceased to exist as an independent company when it was acquired by Wild in 1986, becoming part of the Wild Leitz Group. The Wild Leitz Group then acquired Kern in 1988. A merger with Cambridge Instruments in 1990 resulted in the formation of the Leica Group, with the Leitz remnant, Leica Camera GmbH, as one part. After that (perhaps before) the Leica brand name, with its considerable prestige, was applied to various products of the Leica Group regardless of which company in the Group was the actual maker. There were many other acquisitions, splits and organizational changes in the 90's which further obscured the meaning of the Leica badge. The company we now know as Leica Camera AG (maker of the Trinovid and Ultravid binoculars) resulted from an IPO in 1996 and is now one of three independent companies that use the Leica brand name. I can find no evidence that Leica Camera made or had any hand in making the Leica/Kern 8x30. The Wild successor company, Leica Geosystems located in Heerbrugg, Switzerland, appears to be the more likely maker.

I couldn't find any information on coatings in the link, but the bluish color of the eyepiece coatings in the photo of the Leica 8x30 (second from the bottom) looks just like the single layer coatings on my Kern 8x30 from 1980.

ksbird/foxranch said:

I'm not sure I can understand Leica taking over a company like Kern, closing the factory and then continuing to make the same product, when they could just as easily use one of their own designs, unless they deemed the Kern product superior to their own. The Swiss military could just as easily buy the Fero-D-16 as the old design Kern.

Click to expand...

The military contract is for those specific bins then they'ed have to do a RFP for a new design and everyone could submit. So you buy a company with a nice secure revenue stream and take the income. And as Holger comments they seem to be making them in Swizterland which has got to keep the Swiss happy.

ksbird/foxranch said:

As for myself I have always loved the 8x30 porro format. [...]

The ones I still want are
Celestron DX 8x32
Swaro Habicht late model
Nikon SE 8x32
Jenoptik
Xian Aries (highly regarded by troops in Afghanistan)
Fujinon FMTR
CZ Delactis
Pentax (70s)
Jason Statesman
Leupold Yosemite

Aside from the Celestrons I'll wait until the right trades come along.

Click to expand...

I doubt you'll find many Yosemite second hand. People really seem to think of them as keepers (thoigse that like bins) and the others are hanging in a kids closet someplace.

Two decent bins for an outlay of $180 is not bad

The Xi'an Vision products seem to be quite well regarded. Where did you here the reports about the Xian Ares being used an Afghanistan? If only it had center focus (or a civvie CF version).

http://www.holgermerlitz.de/ares8x30.html
http://www.aoi.com.cn/5e.htm

ksbird/foxranch said:

The American market currently rules the binocular world in one respect, if Americans won't buy it, then manufacturers won't make a product or if they do, they won't make many of them. A recent translated interview with a Zeiss Sports Optics marketing manager says that for the present, Americans aren't buying porros at all, no matter how well made they are, so there is no incentive for manufacturers to make them. Nikon has a reasonable sized market in Japan that allows the SE series to keep one production line going. Perhaps this is why Yukon can still make porros in 7x50, 10x50, 12x50, 16x50 and 20x50 (pretty much the way Pentax does). But in spite of the fact that Swaro, Tasco and others make CF waterproof bins, there really weren't many new porros being made until Leupold came along (Go Leupold). Even so, Leupold's best quality bins are HD roofers. It's really a shame.

Click to expand...

Interesting.

That also accounts for the lack of low magnification bins too, I suppose. After all the "American Way"(tm) is for bigger numbers. Low numbers are for the French! <grunt> <grunt> And the quality stuff is so ... European.

But it is odd that the biggest innovation (the Yosemite) has come out of an American (nay, Oregonian!) company.

I guess I wonder why the 2003 Leica version of the Swiss military binocular has different eyepieces (obviously) compared to earlier Kern models (with the old Kerns having much wider eyepiece lenses), and why Leica would rebid an obvious loser binocular if they could just have their own design made in Switzerland, although did I read it wrong, didn't someone else in this thread say that the Kern facility was completely closed in the late 80s and not re-opened?

The Zivil version of the 1992 bin was very good and a CF model to boot. It was probably a rebadged Leica but even so.

Build them, and we will come

ksbird/foxranch said:

.....
The American market currently rules the binocular world in one respect, if Americans won't buy it, then manufacturers won't make a product or if they do, they won't make many of them. A recent translated interview with a Zeiss Sports Optics marketing manager says that for the present, Americans aren't buying porros at all, no matter how well made they are, so there is no incentive for manufacturers to make them. Nikon has a reasonable sized market in Japan that allows the SE series to keep one production line going. Perhaps this is why Yukon can still make porros in 7x50, 10x50, 12x50, 16x50 and 20x50 (pretty much the way Pentax does). But in spite of the fact that Swaro, Tasco and others make CF waterproof bins, there really weren't many new porros being made until Leupold came along (Go Leupold). Even so, Leupold's best quality bins are HD roofers. It's really a shame.

Click to expand...

The Zeiss manager's comments constitute a circular argument. There is no incentive for buyers to buy them, because there are so few, high quality porro prism binoculars made today.

I am a porro fan, so are many of the birders, hunters, and stargazers I know. But for the most part, we have been relegated to becoming "collectors" because most manufacturers are putting their latest innovations and highest quality optics into roofs.

The only innovations I've seen in the porro design in the past 10 years have been updates with WP/FPing, twist-up eyecups, closer focus, and the internal focusers of the Minox BD BPs and Leupold Cascades.

The one update I was most looking forward to, the Swift 820 Audubon, was disappointing. Sharp optics, but low ER, hard, oversized eyecups, flexy focuser rack, shoddy paint and construction, basically, not up to par with the 804s).

So it's not just a matter of updating older designs, you also need to keep the older model's mechanical quality -- and overall QC at the Japanese level.

There are only a couple handfuls of high quality center focusing porros available today (and I own one of them - 8x32 SE, most of the others have been discontinued, and I own some of those too - 8x30 E2, 804 Audubon, CZJ 8x50).

Please translate this into German and send it to the Zeiss SO manager:

Build a new line of porros on par with the Zeiss B/GA line with center focusing, updated coatings, comfortable twist-up cups, and lighter weight magnesium frames.

Keep the prices reasonable (no more than half of what top roofs cost), launch a marketing campaign to re-introduce the porro design to America, and the porros will sell so fast, you won't be able to keep up with the demand!

Build them, and we will come.

N.B. You might want to hold off on production until the American economy recovers from its "perfect storm" of financial crises.

Cc: Nikon, Bushnell, Pentax, Celestron, et al.

Other "new" porros I'd like to see:

WP 8x30, 10x35, and 7x35 E3s (make them more robust than the E2).

WP 8x32, 10x42, and 12x50 SE IIs (fix the blackout problem and add a 8x42 and a 10x50 to the line-up)

WP 8-12x50 XL Zoom, on par with the 8-16x40 premium LX zooms, which had too small exit pupils at high powers, but otherwise were the best zoom bins ever made.

If there is no 7x35 E3, build a Prostar-level 7x42, based on the Prostar 7x50 design, but for terrestrial use, with center focusing, good close focus, lighter weight, and better ergonomics.

WP B & L Zephyrs (Bushnell) in a variety of configurations with the latest coatings, and updates listed above.

Pentax porros with the high quality optics of the PIF series, but much lighter and w/ center focusing. More configurations and closer focus.

The PCF Vs were very good, but Pentax needs to redesign the EPs to make wider FOV designs. Both their porros and roofs could use a wider fields of view.

A new Swift Audubon ED (see comments above). Also add an 8x32 like the earlier SP line and bring back the 10x50 Audubon/Kestrel with updates.

The Swaro Habicht line could use an update every 20 years or so, don't you think? You've read the criticisms of the line on BF, address those, update the ergonomics and the coatings, and you will have new fans.

Fujinon FMT-level porros with center focusing and lighter weight. We're not using these in battle, they don't need to be bomb proof, just well built. Drop 20 oz. off the 10x50 and make the close focus ~16 ft.

The Docter Nobilems are fine as they are, but they are hard to find. Get more distributors in the US, and not just hunting suppliers, and do some promoting! Docter could add some smaller porros such as 8x32, 7x42, and 8x42.

I'm sure there are others, but I'm too tired to think of them! Add your own. Don't limit yourself to old designs. Make up new ones.

Brock

P.S. Thanks Norm for posting that link. I recently saw those reviews when I went to his page looking for the review of the Docter 10x50. Kudos to Holger for his great reviews, and for chronicling what is about to become history -- high quality porro binoculars.

ksbird, baigish multicoated

The Baigish 8x30 is fully multicoated and is one of the sharpest binoculars ever made and is perhaps sharper than the ZO 8x30B, which could make it the sharpest CF bin ever.]

ksbird, where did buy Russian Baigish 8x30 that is multicoated? I have never seen Russian BPC 8x30 that is multicoated?

Regards, buff.

Holger quotes the Hupra website here

http://www.hupra.com/BPC6_8_30_40_45_inf_EN.htm

and BPO claims their 8x30 Baigish bins are

"The lenses of BAIGISH are fully multicoated to ensure high light gathering capabilities as well as providing exceptional contact and resolution"

Mine show magenta/green/&/blue coatings that are visible but the use of "water-white" zirconium oxide coatings would be possible as well and very efficient to make the glass surface smoother while allowing a wider bandpass of light frequencies to transmit through the glass.

I've also raved about the BPC-2 10x40s showing in this Hupra web page. They seem to have more purple coatings on the air-glass surfaces, but may be this is just inconsistent QC.

The 12x45 showing in the Hupra webpage seems discontinued and was usually sold as the "Navy" model (unsure why). The newer Baigish 12x50 is more cheaply made than either the 8x30 or 10x40 I have, and seems dimmer, but is definitely multicoated on some glass surfaces.

But for certain the BPO factory seems able to make a decent binocular for an extremely low price, and some very good binoculars (including the 7x30 IF not shown on this page) at reasonable prices. On more than one occasion I've bought a pair of 8x30 Baigish bins from someone gathering money to buy "something better", only to be less happy with the newer bins and want to buy back the Baigish bins. Aside from the fact that the Baigish bins are "water resistant" (no spec as to what that means), and I've seen a few with internal raindrops, I have 3 pairs of them now and all work great. As much maligned as Russian/Ukrainian binoculars seem to be, I have 12 pairs not counting monoculars, opera glasses and mini-bins, and they all have worked great for me.

I don't think they are multicoated, I currently own BPC5 8x30 (bought it from russian optics) and military bpo 8x30 with ranging scale, bought it from some website i think it was called keepshooting;this bin is reviewed by Holger. BPC5 is only coated it is not even fully coated. Objective doesn't have any coatings. BPO appeares to be multicoated but BPC5 gives better image that is sharper and by comparison to BPO it gives almost neutral image.
I generaly don't believe adds claiming that cheap bin is multicoated I had some bad experiances in the past.
In the past I had BPC5 8x30, acquired it from binocularsmart.com, and BPO 8x30, got it from USSR company, which is advertised through snipercountry. com under bino reviews. These two bins were also not multicoated. This BPC5 was also only coated and BPO was fuly coated. I remembar that that BPC was better than the one I currently own and that BPO was better than that BPC and that makes it best russian 8x30 I owned. BPO's image was realy sharp but at the time I did't wear contact lenses so I got rid of them and today I really feel sorry for giving that BPO away.
There is a BPC4 8x30 at my mothers house which we got from my uncle, it was fully coated and I compered it with my Pentax WP/FP 8x42 and I couldn't notice any difrenece in image quality and especialy in sharpnes. I tested it in the middle of the the cold december day with some haze.
So I guess KOMZ has issues with quality control and I can't trust them that BPC's are multicoated and it obviously bin doesn't have to be multicoted to produce good image. My current BPO confirms that, as it is the worst russian 8x30 I owned.

I'm wondering how you are sure the Baigish bins you had were not coated or multicoated. Does the literature with the binoculars specifically say that the binoculars you mention are not coated or multicoated?

I have a Russian Maksutov Newtonian telescope of very high quality and the lenses all look water white. But that isn't a good measure of whether the telescope lenses are coated or multicoated, because this telescope has lenses multicoated with zirconium oxide. Zirconium Oxide is about the best coating material there is, but it is expensive. It is also perfectly water-white and shows none of the narrow-band color blocking that cheaper coatings show.

The green or blue or yellow or brown or magenta or red colors we see reflected in most multicoated lenses are narrow band color rejections from the coating on the top (or bottom) of the layers of the multicoatings. This is actually a defect affecting the true-ness of the color rendition, so companies like Zeiss often use a variety of colored multicoatings (especially in the Zeiss lenses made for Hasselblad) to try to get back to a more neutral color rendition.

But the Russians have been making the best quality of zirconium oxide for years and years and this has always been why the best CZs came from Russia. This same zirconium oxide when applied in layers produces all the best features of other multicoatings with none of the narrow band color blocking that skews the overall color neutrality. Perhaps some of the binoculars made by Baigish used zirconium oxide coatings and multicoatings and so even though these coatings weren't obvious to the eye, they were there functioning properly.

I know that the new (and very cheap) Baigish 12x50 binoculars have heavily coated (or multicoated) lenses. Coatings in an of themselves don't guaranty quality, but in this case they were obvious (except not on the prisms). More expensive bins like the 8x30 and 10x40 might well have used the zirconium oxide coatings that aren't visible to the naked eye. At one time Bausch and Lomb were using zirconium oxide coatings on the telescopes they made to compete with Celestron and Meade. Unlike like these 2 companies they decided to make all non-standard thread sizes on accessories and basically shot themselves in the foot. They made a fully multicoated binocular for a military test that was rather astounding and it used zirconium oxide multicoatings. Shortly afterwards B&L's supply of Russian zirconium oxide dried up, and the military went with non-USA-made binoculars used by NATO and I never saw a zirconium oxide coating on B&L stuff afterwards.

But the Russians have always had a cheap, constant supply of this material, and they have always used it on their military bins. Perhaps this is why some of the Baigish bins giving you the best views don't seem to have coatings, since zirconium oxide coatings aren't visible to a casual viewer's eyes, unless test equipment is used. I think the BPO military 7x30 I have is very obviously multicoated, and I don't see why the 8x30 and 10x40 wouldn't be too (the 12x45 seems to have been discontinued).

henry link said:

I also have a Zeiss 8x30B Porro. Many of these have acquired a warm image due to yellowing of the original Canada Balsam in the eyepiece cemented doublets. Alas, they were never multi-coated. Production ceased in 1978. T* coating was introduced in 1979.

Click to expand...

Hello Henry,

Same problem in one of my two Binuxit binocualrs. The older one, circa 1951, shows the yellowing, while the 1956 unit has yet to show the problem.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur :egghead: