Kevin Conville
yardbirder
yawn
-
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.
Overall Best Binoculars (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter payj
- Start date
Just a note,
The quote in Dennis' post #16 above, from the astronomy forum, discusses differences between crystalline fluorite and "ED-glass" -types, as the fellow clearly states. It has no bearing on the potential similarities or differences between the Zeiss FL binoculars and the Chinese ED binoculars. As far as I know, crystalline fluorite is not used in any birding binocular model by any make. In spotting scopes, it is used by Kowa in the 823/4 and 883/4 models. For their binoculars, Zeiss states that in the FL series they use optical gass containing fluoride. Among "ED" glasses, there are several types available and being used, and manufacturers usually do not offer much if any information on just what glass types they use. Even if they did, we could hardly predict the final image quality very accurately from the data since there are so many factors influencing it. From what I have read on the net, the Chinese ED binoculars use an optical ED glass manufactured in China and available there for local optics makers for a very competitive price, thus the low pricing of these binoculars. But, I don't know what the optical properties of this glass are. If somebody does know, it would be interesting to hear it (Kevin P. perhaps?).
As far as benefits/lack thereof of using "ED" objectives in binoculars, I'm rather in agreement with Dennis. Of all the binoculars I have used, tested or tried (and even owned, although this last group is rather small compared to many who contribute on this forum) I have definitely most enjoyed the ones that attempt better-than-achromat color correction. The image I see in the couple of Hawke ED's I have tried does have a color purity similar to what the Zeiss FL offers to my eyes. But there are plenty of people who do not see or notice differences in chromatic aberration levels and seem to be entirely happy with non-ED binoculars.
Kimmo
The quote in Dennis' post #16 above, from the astronomy forum, discusses differences between crystalline fluorite and "ED-glass" -types, as the fellow clearly states. It has no bearing on the potential similarities or differences between the Zeiss FL binoculars and the Chinese ED binoculars. As far as I know, crystalline fluorite is not used in any birding binocular model by any make. In spotting scopes, it is used by Kowa in the 823/4 and 883/4 models. For their binoculars, Zeiss states that in the FL series they use optical gass containing fluoride. Among "ED" glasses, there are several types available and being used, and manufacturers usually do not offer much if any information on just what glass types they use. Even if they did, we could hardly predict the final image quality very accurately from the data since there are so many factors influencing it. From what I have read on the net, the Chinese ED binoculars use an optical ED glass manufactured in China and available there for local optics makers for a very competitive price, thus the low pricing of these binoculars. But, I don't know what the optical properties of this glass are. If somebody does know, it would be interesting to hear it (Kevin P. perhaps?).
As far as benefits/lack thereof of using "ED" objectives in binoculars, I'm rather in agreement with Dennis. Of all the binoculars I have used, tested or tried (and even owned, although this last group is rather small compared to many who contribute on this forum) I have definitely most enjoyed the ones that attempt better-than-achromat color correction. The image I see in the couple of Hawke ED's I have tried does have a color purity similar to what the Zeiss FL offers to my eyes. But there are plenty of people who do not see or notice differences in chromatic aberration levels and seem to be entirely happy with non-ED binoculars.
Kimmo
henry link
Well-known member
I see that this thread has been provided with a blizzard of cut and paste "information" with sketchy attribution and no links. Alas, much of it is marketing poop, speculatiion or irrelevant to the binoculars under discussion.
Kimmo, I think we can be pretty sure that the ED glass in the Chinese binoculars is FK61 (Vd=82), which is reported to be as cheap as normal glass and made in large quantities by the Chinese glass producer CDGM.
I recommend that those with an interest in "ED" glass types read a recent thread on the Refractor Forum at Astromart.com titled "More Schott FK61 Shennanigans" here:
http://www.astromart.com/forums/viewpost.asp?forum_post_id=649964&poll_id=&news_id=&page=5
Roland Christen of Astro-Physics has posted some excellent information there and on other threads has dealt with the Fluorite vs ED question and many other topics. I'm sorry to say new visitors may have to pay a $12 registration fee to view the forums. I believe Dennis is already a member.
When it comes to CA in binoculars we don't have to resort to speculation based on the little we know about glass types or design. The relative correction of longitudinal CA among binoculars is easily seen at boosted magnification (see the photos in post #1 of the thread below). Transverse CA is trickier, but can be evaluated in a controlled test with a target like the one seen in post #11 of the same thread.
http://birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=134310
Henry
Kimmo, I think we can be pretty sure that the ED glass in the Chinese binoculars is FK61 (Vd=82), which is reported to be as cheap as normal glass and made in large quantities by the Chinese glass producer CDGM.
I recommend that those with an interest in "ED" glass types read a recent thread on the Refractor Forum at Astromart.com titled "More Schott FK61 Shennanigans" here:
http://www.astromart.com/forums/viewpost.asp?forum_post_id=649964&poll_id=&news_id=&page=5
Roland Christen of Astro-Physics has posted some excellent information there and on other threads has dealt with the Fluorite vs ED question and many other topics. I'm sorry to say new visitors may have to pay a $12 registration fee to view the forums. I believe Dennis is already a member.
When it comes to CA in binoculars we don't have to resort to speculation based on the little we know about glass types or design. The relative correction of longitudinal CA among binoculars is easily seen at boosted magnification (see the photos in post #1 of the thread below). Transverse CA is trickier, but can be evaluated in a controlled test with a target like the one seen in post #11 of the same thread.
http://birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=134310
Henry
Last edited:
falcondude
Well-known member
Price?
I have compared ZEN with EL for color abberation. I will say they are very close and hard to tell them apart with my eyes.
Dennis, thanks for posting those information about ED vs fluorite. I got an impression that fluorite lens is better for color purity. But Kimmo said the Hawke ED is similar to Zeiss FL. Maybe I missed something there.
henry link
Well-known member
Falcondude,
It would be hard if not impossible to see the longitudinal CA in either at 8-8.5X, especially in daylight when the binoculars are stopped down to 20-30mm.
Fluorite is not "better" than an equivalent ED glass like Ohara FPL-53, which has virtually identical optical properties (Vd=95). In fact, even Takahashi has dropped Fluorite in favor of ED glass in its newest scopes, including the new versions of the FSQ (which I assume Dennis owns since it's the only 4 element Takahashi scope).
Henry
It would be hard if not impossible to see the longitudinal CA in either at 8-8.5X, especially in daylight when the binoculars are stopped down to 20-30mm.
Fluorite is not "better" than an equivalent ED glass like Ohara FPL-53, which has virtually identical optical properties (Vd=95). In fact, even Takahashi has dropped Fluorite in favor of ED glass in its newest scopes, including the new versions of the FSQ (which I assume Dennis owns since it's the only 4 element Takahashi scope).
Henry
Last edited:
falcondude
Well-known member
Henry, thank you so much for the explanation.
Without having to sign up to the Astromart forum what are the components of FK61. Does it specify this in the article? Does it say what type of ED glass has the best performance when dealing with CA. Does all ED glass contain some small percentage of fluorite crystals like the Zeiss FL or do they use something else in their chemistry. It sound like pure crystalline fluorite is one of the better performers when it comes to controlling CA in lenses from my Astromart article. An interesting topic and I am sure Roland Christen would know quite a bit about it. I would really be interested to see how the Chinese ED glass compares to say the glass used in AP telescopes.
Dennis
henry link
Well-known member
The FK designation might mean FK61 is a fluor-crown with some fluoride in the glass mix, but the Abbe number is only 82, so it doesn't have the same potential for color correction as pure CaF2 or FPL53 with Abbe numbers of 95. But, we are talking about 8x binoculars with f/4 objectives here, not highly corrected APO refractors. Astro-Physics has used different glass types (and Fluorite) in the past. The current scopes use FPL53, which I believe has only been available for about 8-9 years.
Last edited:
orbitaljump
Well-known member
In answer to the thread querry...
any decent pair you have with you when they are most useful.
any decent pair you have with you when they are most useful.
Now you have me wondering!
What if Nikon put ED objective lenses into their SE binoculars? Call them the SEII. Would they regain their superiority over the new Chinese Roof Prisms? Optically speaking, of course! It probably wouldn't add very much to their price.
Bob
What if Nikon put ED objective lenses into their SE binoculars? Call them the SEII. Would they regain their superiority over the new Chinese Roof Prisms? Optically speaking, of course! It probably wouldn't add very much to their price.
Bob
Last edited:
I'm sorry but I didn't really mean to infer that Zeiss FL's were 100% Fluorite. It would probably be to expensive and too hard to figure. I just wanted to define some of the differences in the materials. I guess it was confusing.
Dennis
Last edited:
Actually CaF2 has an Abbe number of 95 and FPL-53 has an Abbe number of 94.99. So theoretically CaF2 is still capable of better color correction. The major scope manufacturers have dropped using pure Fluorite because it is so labor intensive to figure. Alot of them stll use the term Fluorite glass term in their marketing although it is a blend.
Dennis
It would add the same advantages that it gives the roofs. Better color correction and less CA. The Nikon 8x32 SE's though are already pretty color corrected so there would probably be a small improvement. Swift makes an ED porro. It has twist-up eyecups and it is waterproof. Here is a link to it and a link to a review here on bird forum and Epinions(Non ED):
http://www.eagleoptics.com/binoculars/swift/swift-audubon-8-5x44-ed-porro-prism-binocular
http://www.birdforum.net/archive/index.php/t-9868.html
http://www.epinions.com/reviews/elec-Optics-Binoculars-All-Swift_Audubon_8_5x44
Dennis
Last edited:
I've often wondered the same thing caesar. An ED version of the SE with twist up eyecups would be amazing.
FWIW, fluorite is far too soft and easily scratched to be a practical objective material in a birding binocular.
I have to say, I think there may be a certain amount of kool-aid being drunk by the chinese ED binocular fandom (or "irrational exuberance" in another memorable phrase). They ARE very good binoculars, especially for the money. I had an evening with the Zens, and that pair was very sharp and well corrected, on a par with the Leupold golden ring HDs (and that's saying something). They aren't as bright as the dielectric coated bins I've looked through, or my a-k prism Zeisses. They are way heavier than the 8x32 SEs and if they have a brightness advantage in that comparison I couldn't see it. Although the accessories are almost junk, the bins themselves feel very good in the hand.
I am also among the luddite faction that harbors serious unease about supporting chinese industry with my dollars when other good options are available. Will they support your bins in 5 or 10 years? What are the labor standards in these plants? Is their manufacture government-subsidized to undercut non-chinese brands in the market? Questions like these don't necessarily affect my view of a bird, but they weigh on my mind later. The counter-argument that capitalism is transforming chinese society and that we support that transformation by buying quality chinese goods is perfectly valid. Everyone has their own comfort zone.
Different strokes for different folks. I've decided I'd rather have $1400 in one superb glass that I use all the time than to have it spread over 4, 5 or 6 glasses, only one of which I will use at a time and none of which will give me an alpha view. "Saving money" on a slew of midrange glass is an experiment I've given up on.
FWIW, fluorite is far too soft and easily scratched to be a practical objective material in a birding binocular.
I have to say, I think there may be a certain amount of kool-aid being drunk by the chinese ED binocular fandom (or "irrational exuberance" in another memorable phrase). They ARE very good binoculars, especially for the money. I had an evening with the Zens, and that pair was very sharp and well corrected, on a par with the Leupold golden ring HDs (and that's saying something). They aren't as bright as the dielectric coated bins I've looked through, or my a-k prism Zeisses. They are way heavier than the 8x32 SEs and if they have a brightness advantage in that comparison I couldn't see it. Although the accessories are almost junk, the bins themselves feel very good in the hand.
I am also among the luddite faction that harbors serious unease about supporting chinese industry with my dollars when other good options are available. Will they support your bins in 5 or 10 years? What are the labor standards in these plants? Is their manufacture government-subsidized to undercut non-chinese brands in the market? Questions like these don't necessarily affect my view of a bird, but they weigh on my mind later. The counter-argument that capitalism is transforming chinese society and that we support that transformation by buying quality chinese goods is perfectly valid. Everyone has their own comfort zone.
Different strokes for different folks. I've decided I'd rather have $1400 in one superb glass that I use all the time than to have it spread over 4, 5 or 6 glasses, only one of which I will use at a time and none of which will give me an alpha view. "Saving money" on a slew of midrange glass is an experiment I've given up on.
John M Robinson
Well-known member
Fire,
I get you in regards to the social and political implications of allowing the Chinese to completely dominate the world economy with their record on human rights, consumer safety, worker safety and ecological concerns, and those are valid issues for each of us to consider, but from a purely pragmatic standpoint, it seems like the Chinese ED binoculars are the real deal. We shouldn't bury our collective heads in the sand the way we did when the first Toyota's and Datsuns showed up on our shore.
There are too many people who's opinion I have learned to trust, on this forum and another optics forum I frequent, that sing loud praises on these new bins. I have read enough threads going back years to see that Dennis does get quite enthusiastic with his reviews of his latest and greatest bin, but to be fair, those bins really are that good, and he is very knowledgable about optics. Who here can argue with his opinion of the 8x32 SE, or at the time the 7x42BN? But there are other, very level headed guys who are saying the same things about these Chinese bins. I will definitely buy a pair just to see.
The point is you may not have to pay $1,400.00 for that one great, do-it-all bin, maybe you can get that same function for less than $400.00. When I joined this forum about 15 months ago to educate myself on this stuff, I quickly learned that the question wasn't which of the "alphas" was best, that is clearly an "eye of the beholder" thing, no, the more interesting question was, "which bin was that best buy option? There were a lot of good options at 1/2 to 2/3 the cost of the alphas that were well built, good optics and supported by good warranties. We still discuss the Meoptas, Kowas, Vortex, Swift, heck there is a whole list of them above, but I have two questions;
1) Have these Chinese EDs made that question moot? Are they better than all of those second tier bins regardless of cost, to the point that when you factor in their price, it's a no brainer? We have been discussing the pressure these bins are putting on the Alphas, how would you like to be Bushnell, Leupold or Minox?
2) Are these bins really as good as the Alpha's regardless of price? I think Dennis is the only one making that argument, but others like Steve and Kevin make the case that they are 99% as good, which to me is equal since, even among the top four there must be at least a 1% difference. Regardless, from all of the glowing reports, they are clearly a number of steps up from "midrange" glass.
Really the only remaining question is, how good will their warranty and product stand up over the test of time? Only time will tell, but for one fifth the cost it sure seems like a bet worth taking.
John
Last edited:
henry link
Well-known member
That's what is known as making a mountain out of a mole hill, Dennis. CaF2 and FPL53 make functionally identical telescopes, not only for visual use, but even for more critical uses like astronomical imaging using cameras with high sensitivity into the far violet.
Alexis Powell
Natural history enthusiast
From the testimonials here on Birdforum, the answer seems to be yes.
I'm not worried about those brands. They're just labels, and not really the drivers of new innovation in binos. They've got plenty of name recognition and distribution. By the time the rest of the world (outside us optics enthusiasts) learns about the "Chinese EDs" they'll have Bushnell, Minox and Leupold labels on them, or perhaps it's more accurate to say they won't hear about them until these brands have added these binos to their product lines.
Right now, everyone is making apologies for the slow focus and the stiff focus in the cold. I agree that these are problems that might be easy to fix, but until they are, these binos are not 99% as good overall birding binos, at least to me. The slow focus on the original Swarovski EL was really irritating (I know, I own one), no matter how many rationalizations/excuses (same as those repeated for the Zen ED) were floated. And if you bird in the cold a lot, stiff focus due to cold is unacceptable.
I've spent quite a bit in the past on binoculars (on a progression of alphas) in search of the "perfect" birding (and butterflying) binocular. For the few of us who are this committed to having a no-compromise birding binocular, even the $360 versus $2000 price difference is ultimately trivial (After all, a Zeiss 7x42 Classic is 99% as good or better than a Swaro 8.5x42 EL, and if you already own the former, you save about $1600 by deciding not to buy the latter! But buy them I did!). The appeal of top-end binos has always been more about the whole package than optical superiority. That's why I've always preferred optically inferior top-end roofs to say, the Swift Audubon 804ED or the Nikon 8x32 SE despite their (in the past, when they were first released) substantially lower costs. I am very excited about what the Chinese EDs offer for first-time "serious" bino buyers. However, I must say that I don't understand the thrill that some of my Birdforum colleagues, who have well established track records of spending (as I have) ridiculous amounts of money on binos in the quest for 1% increases in perfection, seem to be experiencing in now (after all that past spending) "saving" $1600 on a bino that's no better than many of the binos that they already own, or have owned but sold in favor of binos that were little better and no cheaper (actually, usually more expensive). My guess is that they just like to buy binoculars, good binos especially, and that they're thrilled that this purchase only required $400. Will they (these binocuholics), after a few months or years have gone by since their Zen ED purchase, be able to resist the next generation of Swarovski, Zeiss, or Leica bins (if they ever exist), even though they will cost $2500+? My guess is no.
--AP
Last edited:
John M Robinson
Well-known member
I totally agree with you on that. I'm not a birder per se, except in a casual way, as an addition to my general outdoors enjoyment, but I use my bins a lot and I really appreciate that whole package you speak of. Until recently my old Leitz 7x35 Trinovids were my most enjoyable bins from a "whole package" stand point. Now, even though I own the excellent 8x42 Ultravid BRs, my Nikon 8x32 SE have taken place as my new favorite whole package bin. I just enjoy them more. With the Ultravids and other high end roofs, I find myself analyzing the view rather than just looking and observing. The SEs just seem to be an extension of my eyes and mind.
If its raining hard I'll take the Leicas that day, otherwise the SEs are going to be hanging from my neck.
john
rjwims
Certified newbie
Why do so many people feel threatened?
I am just getting into birding.
My track record with other hobbies is that I usually end up buying some of the most expensive equipment that can be found and I do appreciate the differences and consider it money well spent.
On the other hand, I see the need for less costly equipment that in many peoples eyes and budgets, would be all that they will ever need.
For others, it is just another nice toy , but they can see the bang for the buck value.
And for others, they are just more low end junk.
There is no problem here. As long as there is something for everyone, then it's all good.
Especially in our current economy, I think that many can appreciate the need for mid to low priced bins that many experienced birders can give somewhat of a thumbs up to.
If these add a few more fairly serious birders to the community, then that is also a good thing.
I would personally rather see advances in bins than in many other areas that do a lot more harm to the world around us.
Both overexcitement and skepticism are just part of human nature....SOSDD
I'm just happy to be here and able to participate......B
JMO
Richard
I am just getting into birding.
My track record with other hobbies is that I usually end up buying some of the most expensive equipment that can be found and I do appreciate the differences and consider it money well spent.
On the other hand, I see the need for less costly equipment that in many peoples eyes and budgets, would be all that they will ever need.
For others, it is just another nice toy , but they can see the bang for the buck value.
And for others, they are just more low end junk.
There is no problem here. As long as there is something for everyone, then it's all good.
Especially in our current economy, I think that many can appreciate the need for mid to low priced bins that many experienced birders can give somewhat of a thumbs up to.
If these add a few more fairly serious birders to the community, then that is also a good thing.
I would personally rather see advances in bins than in many other areas that do a lot more harm to the world around us.
Both overexcitement and skepticism are just part of human nature....SOSDD
I'm just happy to be here and able to participate......B
JMO
Richard
Last edited:
