Big fan of Porro prism . (1 Viewer)

I can only repeat what I wrote before:

The only Habicht that can compete with high quality roofs is the 7x42 - provided you can live with the smallish field of view. BTW, the field of view is 114m/1000m, so it's still larger than that of a typical 10x40/10x42, but it sure does "feel" narrow. The 7x42 has no problems with veiling glare (in fact it's better than most roofs), slightly better eye relief than the 8x30 and the 10x40 (which makes a noticeable difference, at least to me), the stiffish focus isn't so bad in a 7x binocular due to the great depth of field at 7x. The optical quality, especially the clarity and the contrast, are quite amazing, the transmission is excellent, there are no colour casts. And it's very light.

That said, the Nikon SE, especially the 8x32, is a much more "friendly" binocular in some ways. But the optics aren't as good as those of the Habicht 7x42, and it's not waterproof. The Nikon EII .... Well, it leaks like a sieve, and the optics aren't up to scratch.

IMO, YMMV and all the rest of it.

Hermann

Well we all agree on one thing, neither are perfect and neither am I.

I use one or the other, depending on the weather and what I am likely to be looking at. I'm not sure if 'everyone' still regards Zeiss FLs as alphas, but if I am yumping across country, I am generally hot, none to steady hand holding and appreciate, the better for me, handling of porros. The EII has the smoother focussing action compared to the waterproof Hibicht, so gets used more.

Under more ideal conditions the FLs get used when I can hopefully see the difference.

I tend to regard binoculars much as the lenses for my cameras, you pick to optics for the job and since the cost of a pair of binoculars is on a par with a decent lens, I thankfully 'need' fewer of them.

The good news for me is that most of my bins are now a number of years old, meet my needs exactly and have no running costs - unlike most things I own.

Hi,

Agree about the glare issues of the 8x30 Habicht. The "worst", on THIS, in the Habicht series. I don't know much about the 7x42, but the 10x40 is VERY GOOD controlling the veiling glare! To me, I have said a few times, the best of the Habichts.

PHA

This Habicht Porro was recently reviewed by Henry who is one of the best long time optics enthusiasts and reviewers in Bird Forum - http://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=3446960&postcount=8

henry link said:

I suppose I should add something to this thread since I own both of these binoculars. My EII is about 10 years old and my 8x30 W Habicht was made in March of this year (I also have a 30 year old Habicht 8x30 "standard field").

I've gathered a great deal of information about the Habicht 8x30 W in the last few months, but I've nearly lost all interest in writing what would be a very long review of a binocular I don't like very much. So, here are the basic pros and cons as I see them.

Pros:

State of the art light transmission and color accuracy.

Moderate pincushion, enough to avoid the globe effect without calling attention to itself.

Waterproof

Cons:

Too much spherical and longitudinal chromatic aberrations in the field center. As a result the center field image is not quite completely sharp for my 20/15 eyesight acuity. This is most evident when I compare the Habicht to a very low aberration reference binocular like the Zeiss 8x56 FL

Off-axis astigmatism and field curvature are not very well corrected due to the use of an old modified Erfle eyepiece design with well known deficiencies.

Prisms are so undersized that a prism edge actually cuts into the exit pupil. That makes already poor resistance to glare from inadequate baffling of the objective cell even worse when bright side light arrives at an angle that reflects off the prism glass back to the eyepiece.

I could move on to nitpicks, but inadequacy in the optical basics is enough for me. I've asked myself repeatedly in the last few months how this binocular could have gathered such a cult following? My tentative answer is that nostalgia for the Golden Age of the Porro, and admittedly a superbly bright and color neutral image thanks to the latest Swarovski coatings, are enough to carry the day for its enthusiasts. Everything else is forgiven.

My Nikon 8x30 EII has lower axial aberrations, better off-axis corrections and better glare resistance than the Habicht. However, it is visibly dimmer with an obvious red color cast. Choose your poison.

Henry

Click to expand...

I didn't realize Henry had already provided a link to his review. Sorry I missed it.

Sancho said:

I tried to reproduce the glare a few more times with the Habicht...it was all too easy, looking anywhere towards a faint light source on an overcast day. Henry Link explained in a post some years ago why it happens. In any case, it doesn't happen with my SE, ever.

Click to expand...

I have to apologise in case I've misled anyone...the incidentbI described above where I got complete veiling-glare wipe-out in low light didn't happen with Habichts, but with a pair of SV 8x32. (My mind is a jumble of confused bino-memories). The glare I got with habichts was more like that described by Dennis; side or top-glare when looking anywhere towards brighter light.

Let me know if I'm asking this in the wrong place please, but I'm trying to get a feel for the difference between a porro with very high transmission and a roof prism with a larger diameter. In this case I'm looking at a Habicht 8x30w which has a 96% (maybe 98 I don't recall exactly) and a high end Zeiss or similar alpha bino with a 40 or 42 lens. Which would be brighter, the larger lens with lower transmission or the smaller lens with higher transmission?

Yes, I'm splitting hairs and would probably be happy with either, but now I'm curious. I have a late Zeiss Classic 10x40 that is much brighter than a 1960s Habicht 8x30, but that isn't a fair comparison given the age and coating differences. Anyhow, any knowledge you can share is, as always, appreciated. Cheers.

phlazm said:

Let me know if I'm asking this in the wrong place please, but I'm trying to get a feel for the difference between a porro with very high transmission and a roof prism with a larger diameter. In this case I'm looking at a Habicht 8x30w which has a 96% (maybe 98 I don't recall exactly) and a high end Zeiss or similar alpha bino with a 40 or 42 lens. Which would be brighter, the larger lens with lower transmission or the smaller lens with higher transmission?

Yes, I'm splitting hairs and would probably be happy with either, but now I'm curious. I have a late Zeiss Classic 10x40 that is much brighter than a 1960s Habicht 8x30, but that isn't a fair comparison given the age and coating differences. Anyhow, any knowledge you can share is, as always, appreciated. Cheers.

Click to expand...

Higher transmission or for that matter better coatings which can lead to higher transmission will never beat aperture when it comes to brightness. A 42mm will under most conditions be brighter than a 32mm especially under low light conditions. In full daylight you will not notice a huge difference between the two apertures. That is why if you bird mostly during the day a 32mm will work about as good as a 42mm. The 42mm will have easier eye placement due to the bigger 5mm exit pupil versus the 4mm exit pupil on the 32mm but there won't be an enormous difference in brightness. You will notice the difference when you look into the shadows that the 42mm will be a little brighter but that is about it. When it comes to brightness aperture rules. Transmission, coatings and glass quality make a difference but aperture rules.

I just read Henry's review, and With all respect, I am perplexed.

If Henry is finding Habicht centre of field sharpness inferior to an FL or even an E2, I would suggest sending that Habicht straight back to Swarovski as it is a lemon. A dud. This alone explains why Henry does not understand the Habicht cult following. A Habicht minus its stunning and effortless centrefield resolution would indeed be a very bizarre instrument to behold, and I can completely understand Henry's confusion surrounding the Habicht cult following. I would feel the same way. We know how legendary Swarovski CS is, so there should be no problem.

For reference, I have better than 20/15 vision, and I can say, having tested many many Habichts of differing specifications (not just a sample of one current Habicht), it's clarity and resolution on axis and centrefield are the very least of its issues.... it is indeed it's monstrous strength. It is as sharp as any bin I have ever used. In fact, if I want to gauge on axis resolution in any Swarovision or HT or SF, the first thing I'll do is compare it directly to a Habicht of similar spec to see if it can compete with it. Over some years, I have spent hours upon hours sitting and doing absolutely nothing but comparing many different Habicht and their centrefield and on axis resolution against other modern alpha binoculars, often attempting to resolve horrendous and for some otherwise superb binoculars, impossible targets, such as a single thread of caterpillar silk or a strand of spiders web in challenging light.
I'm the first to admit that this is somewhat silly and specialised 'hobby' viewing which has nothing to do with 'birding' day to day....nevertheless, I've yet to find a binocular which will out resolve a Habicht in these tests.
The Habicht is far from being the ideal or perfect binocular - I would recommend the excellent E2 before it for most bird viewing. But let there be no doubt or confusion about Habicht on axis and centrefield sharpness and resolution. This is my experience anyway.

Rathaus

Phlasm,

I think you might have a fairly common misunderstanding about the nature of binocular brightness. You will often see statements that an 8x42 with a 5.25mm exit pupil is brighter than an 8x30 with it's 3.75mm exit pupil, but for a large majority of the time it will make absolutly no difference of the level of light entering your eye. However, at some point, usually after sunset when the pupil of your eye dilates beyond 3.75mm the 8x42 will then have an advantage. Birders usually say there then might be 15 or 20 minutes longer viewing advantage.

The actual area of a 5.25mm EP is 96% bigger than 3.75mm, so will be potentially 96% brighter when your pupils dilate to 5.25mm or more. The difference in transmission between the Habicht and a good mid priced roof would be usually less than 5% these days and would scarcely make any practical difference on it's own, and trivial compared to the exit pupil, but differences in colour balance can also make one model seem brighter than another. That is quite a different consideration.

Rathaus

For what it's worth I've tried the Habicht several times over the years on the Swarovski stands at UK birding shows. I don't know if it was several different samples, or the same demo sample rolled out many times, but each time I'd put it second best to the ELSV 8x32 on discernable detail. I'd put both ahead of most, if not all, samples of the ELSV 8.5x42 I also tried at the same time. Might just be sample variation of course.

David

Rathaus said:

I just read Henry's review, and With all respect, I am perplexed.

If Henry is finding Habicht centre of field sharpness inferior to an FL or even an E2, I would suggest sending that Habicht straight back to Swarovski as it is a lemon. A dud.

Rathaus

Click to expand...

Hi Rathaus,

I always try to determine whether a binocular or scope is a lemon before I blame the design. In this case I found no significant sample defects, like astigmatism, coma, pinched optics, etc., in either side of my 2016 Habicht 8x30 or in either side my 1990 version. In a high magnification star-test both show high longitudinal chromatic aberration and high spherical aberration, approximately identical in all four telescopes. You may have already seen this, but here's a link to some photos I made comparing the image sharpness of the 8x30 Habicht to a Zeiss 8x56 FL (stopped down to 30mm).

http://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=3424981&postcount=17

In my experience, if the 8x30 Habicht is used without a lower aberration reference for comparison, its image can look "good enough", even to me and I'm accustomed to using a sharper, lower aberration binocular.

Henry

All, thanks for the info. Absolutely right on not understanding the difference between the objective lens and the transmission value. All good.

For now I'll be happy with my Zeiss Classics and the old Habicht. I should spend more time birding to make sure I really like it enough before justifying another set of binoculars (not that I have to try very hard). Cheers.

Rathaus said:

I just read Henry's review, and With all respect, I am perplexed.

If Henry is finding Habicht centre of field sharpness inferior to an FL or even an E2, I would suggest sending that Habicht straight back to Swarovski as it is a lemon. A dud. This alone explains why Henry does not understand the Habicht cult following. A Habicht minus its stunning and effortless centrefield resolution would indeed be a very bizarre instrument to behold, and I can completely understand Henry's confusion surrounding the Habicht cult following. I would feel the same way. We know how legendary Swarovski CS is, so there should be no problem.

For reference, I have better than 20/15 vision, and I can say, having tested many many Habichts of differing specifications (not just a sample of one current Habicht), it's clarity and resolution on axis and centrefield are the very least of its issues.... it is indeed it's monstrous strength. It is as sharp as any bin I have ever used. In fact, if I want to gauge on axis resolution in any Swarovision or HT or SF, the first thing I'll do is compare it directly to a Habicht of similar spec to see if it can compete with it. Over some years, I have spent hours upon hours sitting and doing absolutely nothing but comparing many different Habicht and their centrefield and on axis resolution against other modern alpha binoculars, often attempting to resolve horrendous and for some otherwise superb binoculars, impossible targets, such as a single thread of caterpillar silk or a strand of spiders web in challenging light.
I'm the first to admit that this is somewhat silly and specialised 'hobby' viewing which has nothing to do with 'birding' day to day....nevertheless, I've yet to find a binocular which will out resolve a Habicht in these tests.
The Habicht is far from being the ideal or perfect binocular - I would recommend the excellent E2 before it for most bird viewing. But let there be no doubt or confusion about Habicht on axis and centrefield sharpness and resolution. This is my experience anyway.

Rathaus

Click to expand...

Great analysis, 100% agreed.

Tobias Mennle said:

Great analysis, 100% agreed.

Click to expand...

Ditto. :cat:

Tobias Mennle said:

Great analysis, 100% agreed.

Click to expand...

In any case: Henry does have a point here: He has analysed 4 barrels of two different samples and found similar characteristics. A 'lemon' would feature an incorrectly placed lens, a flawed coating or unpolished prism - whatever, but it would be unlikely to affect both barrels in the same way and should generate additional side effects which would show up during testing.

If we assume for a moment that Henry's Habicht was OK, then the question arises why many users experience an exceptional sharpness with the Habicht, which is not verified during a booster test. Does the Habicht feature something that makes people perceive a kind of sharpness which evades the test procedure? I guess this case is interesting enough to ask for further consideration.

Cheers,
Holger

Holger Merlitz said:

Does the Habicht feature something that makes people perceive a kind of sharpness which evades the test procedure? I guess this case is interesting enough to ask for further consideration.

Cheers,
Holger

Click to expand...

Yes, this is entirely possible, and from my personal testing, most likely. The standard resolution test procedure is just one of countless possible tests....hence the amount of time I have spent devising other tests for the Habicht.

If Henry and others question the Habicht due to its results in a simple two dimensional black and white bubble jet printed resolution chart, then I must likewise question the performance of otherwise excellent alpha binoculars when they simply cannot resolve a single length of shaded translucent spider or worm thread, when the Habicht can. Can we devise a simple and repeatable version of this test in which others can likewise rank and file binocular performance?

Also, I must wonder if certain folk can be less compatible with a certain instrument. A highly complex interaction is taking place between human, binocular and target. If we want to become excessively analytical and reductionist, which is what happens sometimes with myself and others, then should we also be asking what biological profile the viewer has, including full eye function and all possible (and often unexpected) medications which can impact the viewing and brain/eye function (which can cycle in a 24hr basis)? I know about this first hand, from using myself as a guinea pig.

Perhaps we should also be asking if a two dimensional resolution chart is an appropriately challenging test? Is it just too overly simplistic compared to the inherent complexity of viewing in nature?

I still think Henry got a lemon


Cheers,
Rathaus

I don't feel it is exceptional sharpness you are seeing in the Habicht. I feel it is the high transmission that causes that perception. Many binoculars I have compared the Habicht to are sharper including many roof prisms. I feel Henry is right on in his judgement of the Habicht's. The Habicht's have a lot of deal breakers ,as far as, being a usable birding binocular. The biggest ones for me are the tight focus and the awful veiling glare.

My way of dealing with differing opinions of binoculars among different people is to consider my own contradictions and flip-flops over the years.

For example, I have a Fujinon FMTR-SX 8x30, and have commented here on its remarkable sharpness. Not too long ago, Henry tested it and several other similar size binoculars, and found it to come up the clear winner in optical precision over the others including at least one of his 8x30 Habichts. Stopped down slightly to (what he thought typifying daytime eye pupil contraction) 28mm, he found it "probably better than 1/4 wave" and a "gem". Astronomical telescope territory! Things were looking good for both my choice of 8x30 and my visual judgment.

But, for another example, I also have a Leica Trinovid BN 12x50. A few years back, soon after I got it, I said here that despite its many fine qualities, to my eye the image sharpness was not up to that of an 8x42 BA Trinovid I had owned, and which I had myself had tested to an impressive sub-3 arcsecond resolution. I concluded that 12x was simply more magnification than Leica could make with sufficient accuracy even at their lofty price point. But another 12x50 BN owner, RonE aka Surveyor of this forum and a guy most wise in such matters, disagreed, saying that he used his on a tripod for viewing distant eagles, and found the image most satisfactorily sharp. There the matter rested.

But lately, I have been using the superbrick 12x a lot, and what to my wondering eyes should appear but that if I merely spread the IPD about another mm or so from my usual setting, the view becomes wondrously sharp! Whether vignetting from a tad too wide IPD, avoiding a bad spot in my eyes or in the binocular (which has been mentioned by Henry as a common aid to sharper perceived images), is happening, or whether I have merely at last wandered on an IPD that better matches my anatomy, I cannot tell.

But man, have I reversed myself! Now I'd agree heartily with RonE and declare it a razor sharp 12x sonofagun. Not to say this is what's going on among the politely contentious Habicht owners. There must be many other things I'm not aware of that could be responsible for the differences.

I see why Henry reports only objective measurements: they are the only defensible thing. Making such measurements, however, is a pursuit in itself, and beyond the typical birder/sightseer. Moreover, ignoring the human part of the equation leaves a lot of room for individual vision and technique differences which could lead to honest, truthful and practically unresolvable differences of opinion. We might feel we're differing in opinion on "the instrument", while what is primarily different is really "we ourselves".

Ron

Rathaus said:

Yes, this is entirely possible, and from my personal testing, most likely. The standard resolution test procedure is just one of countless possible tests....hence the amount of time I have spent devising other tests for the Habicht.

If Henry and others question the Habicht due to its results in a simple two dimensional black and white bubble jet printed resolution chart, then I must likewise question the performance of otherwise excellent alpha binoculars when they simply cannot resolve a single length of shaded translucent spider or worm thread, when the Habicht can. Can we devise a simple and repeatable version of this test in which others can likewise rank and file binocular performance?

Also, I must wonder if certain folk can be less compatible with a certain instrument. A highly complex interaction is taking place between human, binocular and target. If we want to become excessively analytical and reductionist, which is what happens sometimes with myself and others, then should we also be asking what biological profile the viewer has, including full eye function and all possible (and often unexpected) medications which can impact the viewing and brain/eye function (which can cycle in a 24hr basis)? I know about this first hand, from using myself as a guinea pig.

Perhaps we should also be asking if a two dimensional resolution chart is an appropriately challenging test? Is it just too overly simplistic compared to the inherent complexity of viewing in nature?

I still think Henry got a lemon


Cheers,
Rathaus

Click to expand...

Your example of the spider worm thread is interesting, because it may well be unresolvable in our binocular. A similar case shows up with power lines, which are observed at a distance of several km: We can see them, even though their diameters remain well below the theoretical resolution limit. In this case, we do not receive an image of the power line itself, but rather its diffraction pattern. I have observed that some binoculars are capable of showing these lines at high contrast, as nicely black lines in front of the bright sky background, while others display them as very fine, yet grey lines. Are these differences consequences of different levels of aberration control, or rather rooted in different approaches to stray light control, or do they display different qualities of lens surface smoothness due to polishing, or even a tiny amount of stray light generated inside the glass elements? In the latter case, the coating technology (and hence the transmission value) may be of relevance, and we know that the Habicht is particularly strong in that discipline.

For optics used in astronomy, it is common to analyse the wavefront error of the system, which leads to the Strehl number. It essentially tells which fraction of light is shifted away from the primary maximum of the diffraction pattern into secondary (and further) maxima. Now, binocular optics are commonly so bad that they do not even show nice diffraction patterns, because those are blurred by their residual aberrations - few binoculars are actually diffraction limited at full aperture. Hard to say what is going on inside a binocular which happens to show those ultra thin, unresolved threads at a particularly high contrast. The question arises whether those regular black/white patterns used for the test charts do actually test such a feature accurately. Fourier optics is a delicate field, and regular patterns, due to their symmetry, may lead to phenomena that differ from the imaging characteristics of a single, unresolved line.

Cheers,
Holger

ronh said:

My way of dealing with differing opinions of binoculars among different people is to consider my own contradictions and flip-flops over the years.

For example, I have a Fujinon FMTR-SX 8x30, and have commented here on its remarkable sharpness. Not too long ago, Henry tested it and several other similar size binoculars, and found it to come up the clear winner in optical precision over the others including at least one of his 8x30 Habichts. Stopped down slightly to (what he thought typifying daytime eye pupil contraction) 28mm, he found it "probably better than 1/4 wave" and a "gem". Astronomical telescope territory! Things were looking good for both my choice of 8x30 and my visual judgment.

But, for another example, I also have a Leica Trinovid BN 12x50. A few years back, soon after I got it, I said here that despite its many fine qualities, to my eye the image sharpness was not up to that of an 8x42 BA Trinovid I had owned, and which I had myself had tested to an impressive sub-3 arcsecond resolution. I concluded that 12x was simply more magnification than Leica could make with sufficient accuracy even at their lofty price point. But another 12x50 BN owner, RonE aka Surveyor of this forum and a guy most wise in such matters, disagreed, saying that he used his on a tripod for viewing distant eagles, and found the image most satisfactorily sharp. There the matter rested.

But lately, I have been using the superbrick 12x a lot, and what to my wondering eyes should appear but that if I merely spread the IPD about another mm or so from my usual setting, the view becomes wondrously sharp! Whether vignetting from a tad too wide IPD, avoiding a bad spot in my eyes or in the binocular (which has been mentioned by Henry as a common aid to sharper perceived images), is happening, or whether I have merely at last wandered on an IPD that better matches my anatomy, I cannot tell.

But man, have I reversed myself! Now I'd agree heartily with RonE and declare it a razor sharp 12x sonofagun. Not to say this is what's going on among the politely contentious Habicht owners. There must be many other things I'm not aware of that could be responsible for the differences.

I see why Henry reports only objective measurements: they are the only defensible thing. Making such measurements, however, is a pursuit in itself, and beyond the typical birder/sightseer. Moreover, ignoring the human part of the equation leaves a lot of room for individual vision and technique differences which could lead to honest, truthful and practically unresolvable differences of opinion. We might feel we're differing in opinion on "the instrument", while what is primarily different is really "we ourselves".

Ron

Click to expand...

Ron,

I guess that this is a wisdom which each single tester should try to keep in mind. The human component of the image chain has always been underestimated, which is leading to endless discussions on boards as this one. In fact, following those discussions, we may often learn much more about the users than about the instruments. Henry's attempts to evaluate hard facts are extremely valuable to separate both contributions. Still, the correct interpretation of the test results, and their implications to real life observations have to be done with great care.

Cheers,
Holger