• 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.

What causes Habicht 8x30 W veiling glare ? (1 Viewer)

maico

Well-known member
A while back I remember reading a detailed explanation from one of the forum experten on this but can't find the posts.

What would the solution be and why do Swarovski ignore updates ?

Bellow are diagrams to visualize general porro layout in 2 Zeiss and a Habicht 10x
 

Attachments

  • Lornetka-SWAROVSKI-Habicht-7x42-W.3462.jpg
    Lornetka-SWAROVSKI-Habicht-7x42-W.3462.jpg
    77.7 KB · Views: 204
  • 172159_nbigmini_del8x30a.jpg
    172159_nbigmini_del8x30a.jpg
    86.8 KB · Views: 192
  • 151045_nbigmini_art02.jpg
    151045_nbigmini_art02.jpg
    66.1 KB · Views: 214
Last edited:
Henry:

There was a short term rage over the Habicht 8x30 porro some time ago.

What do you like about it, and compare it to the best Nikon porro models, like
the E or EII and SE.

Jerry
 
Jerry,

The only things I really like about the current 8x30 Habicht are the state of the art light transmission and color accuracy.

No 8x30/32 is my cup of tea. The axial image quality and ease of view of every one I've seen is obviously inferior to the 8x56 I normally use, but if the comparison is limited to just the ones you listed I would say the Swarovski is superior to my copies of the three Nikons only for light transmission and color accuracy. I haven't seen a current production 8x30 EII with the latest Nikon coatings, so I don't know how that would compare to the Habicht.

All three of my Nikons have a bit sharper axial images than the Habicht because their axial aberrations, both spherical and chromatic, are lower. Off-axis the E is similar to the Habicht, the EII is better and the SE is much better. All three Nikons also have better glare resistance.

In spite of all that I wouldn't want to part with the Habicht because I like having a reference standard for light transmission and color accuracy around and it's a kind of sentimental favorite. A Habicht 8x30 W GA was one of the first binoculars I bought way back in 1986.

Henry
 
What the links do not explain is how and why the 10x Habicht show nearly none (or very minimal amounts) of this veiling glare.

To be congruent, (just like the majority of binoculars) the entire current flagship of the 'Swarovision' line are terrible performers when it comes to veiling glare. Compare any current Swarovision to a 10x Canon or 7x Fujinon, or a 10x Habicht(!) and prepare to be gobsmacked by the difference. I've done every imaginable direct comparison.

This merely highlights the fact that no pair of binoculars are perfect.

Pay your price, and choose your shortcoming :)
 
Last edited:
Hello,

About veiling glare, that "milky" veil looking close toward the sun, my Sw Habicht 10x40 is, clearly, better than the Zeiss HT 10x42. VERY clear! I would like to compare my former Zeiss FL 10x42 with my present HT. If I remember well, that FL was better...
And, by the way, my HT 8x42 is better in this than the 10x42.
 
What the links do not explain is how and why the 10x Habicht show nearly none (or very minimal amounts) of this veiling glare.

To be congruent, (just like the majority of binoculars) the entire current flagship of the 'Swarovision' line are terrible performers when it comes to veiling glare. Compare any current Swarovision to a 10x Canon or 7x Fujinon, or a 10x Habicht(!) and prepare to be gobsmacked by the difference. I've done every imaginable direct comparison.

This merely highlights the fact that no pair of binoculars are perfect.

Pay your price, and choose your shortcoming :)

I can offer a few suggestions for why the 10x40 Habicht might have less veiling glare than the 8x30.

Firstly, reflections at the edge of the 10x40's larger exit pupil would be a little less likely to enter the pupil of the eye under daylight conditions.

Secondly, both binoculars use the same eyepiece and prism housing, but the focal ratio of the 10x40 objective is about 6% lower than the focal ratio of the 8x30 objective. That means that, compared to the apparent size of the first prism shelf aperture as viewed through the eyepiece, the apparent size of the 10x40 objective lens appears to be about 6% larger than the apparent size of the 8x30 objective lens. That alone would allow the prism shelf aperture to more effectively mask any objective cell reflections in the 10x40.

Finally, I assume the ribbed baffling cone in the 10x40 is a different one from the 8x30 cone. It may be sized more appropriately so that it does a better job of masking objective cell reflections.

If you have both the 8x30 and the 10x40 available you should be able to examine the interiors with a magnifier under conditions that cause glare in the 8x30 and determine what is different about the interior of the 10x40.

Henry
 
Last edited:
I can offer a few suggestions for why the 10x40 Habicht might have less veiling glare than the 8x30.

Firstly, reflections at the edge of the 10x40's larger exit pupil would be a little less likely to enter the pupil of the eye under daylight conditions.

Secondly, both binoculars use the same eyepiece and prism housing, but the focal ratio of the 10x40 objective is about 6% lower than the focal ratio of the 8x30 objective. That means that, compared to the apparent size of the first prism shelf aperture as viewed through the eyepiece, the apparent size of the 10x40 objective lens appears to be about 6% larger than the apparent size of the 8x30 objective lens. That alone would allow the prism shelf aperture to more effectively mask any objective cell reflections in the 10x40.

Finally, I assume the ribbed baffling cone in the 10x40 is a different one from the 8x30 cone. It may be sized more appropriately so that it does a better job of masking objective cell reflections.

If you have both the 8x30 and the 10x40 available you should be able to examine the interiors with a magnifier under conditions that cause glare in the 8x30 and determine what is different about the interior of the 10x40.

Henry

Henry

Some interesting points you've noted here. However, viewing through both bins in glare conditions, the difference would appear to be far far greater than the sum of the relatively small differences in specification (which you note) between the two binoculars. Re glare control, The 8x30 Habicht would be down the 'poor' end of the performance spectrum, and the 10x Habicht would be right up at the 'excellent' end of glare control spectrum. Quite bizarre.

....yet, if the 8x30 is indeed on the absolute threshold of various parameters such as focal length, prism shelf aperture and exit pupil, then perhaps the very small differences in spec could account for the dramatic difference in glare control.

I'll make a point of checking the baffling in both.
 
....yet, if the 8x30 is indeed on the absolute threshold of various parameters such as focal length, prism shelf aperture and exit pupil, then perhaps the very small differences in spec could account for the dramatic difference in glare control.

That's right. The baffling of the 8x30 is just a little bit off, but that little bit is enough to allow reflections from the shiny objective lens cell to reach the eyepiece and then the eye. In the photo I linked to you can see that the problem is a confined to very narrow ring of bright reflection, which appears to the viewer to be just outside the edge of the exit pupil. A slightly smaller baffle (or the same one placed a little closer to the objective lens) would fix the whole problem.
 
To start with, here's the objective side of a current 10x40 Habicht

Edit...oh dear...the image is too large.


Henry,
Where shall I direct the light and camera to ensure the most revealing/strategic photos of the innards of each Habicht? (I have a couple of Loups 8x and 10x but not sure if these are necessary)
I'm terrible with a camera but I'll give it a go.
 
Last edited:
A photo made from the objective side won't tell us anything about internal surfaces that reflect toward the eyepiece. Only the reflections visible from the eyepiece end cause glare.
 
A photo made from the objective side won't tell us anything about internal surfaces that reflect toward the eyepiece. Only the reflections visible from the eyepiece end cause glare.

Henry,
You wrote -

"If you have both the 8x30 and the 10x40 available you should be able to examine the interiors with a magnifier under conditions that cause glare in the 8x30 and determine what is different about the interior of the 10x40"


...do you have any suggestions re how to go about this...and how to take a meaningful photo of this?
 
Last edited:
Rathaus,

See if the description of how the photos in this post were made is helpful. I use a DSLR at the closest focus of the longest zoom setting on the kit lens (55mm). I don't know how well a phone camera will work.

http://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=3251084&postcount=1

Even if you can't photograph the binocular interiors you can certainly examine them with one of your magnifiers by just positioning the magnifier behind the binocular eyepiece under lighting conditions that cause glare in the 8x30. Move the magnifier back and forth until the interior comes into focus. Tripod mounting the binocular makes it easier.

Henry
 
Last edited:
From what I've seen there are rather clearcut differences between the three Habicht porros:

  • The 8x30 is the one with the most problems and very obvious veiling glare in most conditions. IMO it's even worse than the Svarovision 8x32.
  • The 10x40 is quite a bit better, though not quite perfect. It's somewhat better than many roofs though.
  • The best by far is the 7x42 with its tiny field of view. I can't see any veiling glare at all, and even with strong light sources just outside the field of view it behaves very well indeed.

All observations based on extensive experience with the 7x42 and the 10x40, and rather less with the 8x30.

Hermann
 
why do Swarovski ignore updates ?

You get a lot of value for money with a Habicht, because all investments have long since been written off and the all-important coatings have been updated regularly. A redesign will add considerably to the price and then it would be an Expensive porro trying to compete with roofs.

Like every other binocular the Habicht, any Habicht, has shortcomings. Its a compromise. Nothing is perfect. Its still an excellent choice even with the veiling glare which, as usual, is greatly exagerated. Like RB with a modern Swaro or the blueish colours of a Zeiss. Nitpicking at a very high level.
 
The veiling glare of the Habicht 8x30 W for me was a deal breaker. It was the worst binocular I have ever used in this regard. It was totally unusable under sunny conditions trying to look up a vertical slope in a mountain canyon too observe mountain goats. I sold mine the next day.
 
It was totally unusable under sunny conditions trying to look up a vertical slope in a mountain canyon too observe mountain goats. I sold mine the next day.

I hear what you're saying....however, regarding the critical observation of sunbathed 'goats on slopes' from deep canyons...it sounds mighty interesting, but I'm not sure I can see it happening for myself any time soon.
 
I hear what you're saying....however, regarding the critical observation of sunbathed 'goats on slopes' from deep canyons...it sounds mighty interesting, but I'm not sure I can see it happening for myself any time soon.
The veiling glare happens anytime you observe at a steep angle so if you are looking at a bird high up in a tree or trying to see hawks high among cliffs it is there. It is the worst veiling glare I have ever seen in any binocular even cheap ones. It is not just glare that is bothersome it totally covers your FOV. I personally would never buy another pair of Habicht's 8x30 W. It is kind of like the Taylor Swift song " We are never, ever, ever, getting back together".
 
Warning! This thread is more than 6 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.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top