• 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.

ScopeViews reviews the 10x42 Noctivids (1 Viewer)

Canon said they use fluorite elements in their L-series lenses but I thought they meant all of them. Canon does use fluorite lens elements in SOME of their more expensive L-series lenses mainly camera lenses but not all of them. On the rest of their L-series lenses and the Canon 10x42 IS-L binocular they use the UD lenses as a less expensive alternative. Canon even has found a way to grow Calcium Fluorite crystal for their use which is interesting. I don't know where I got on this Fluorite Crystal line of thought when what I really mean is the Fluoride Lenses that Zeiss uses in their FL line and I believe some other manufacturers use it also and it is really just fluoride ions. There are telescope manufacturers that use the pure fluorite crystal in one or two of their lenses like Takahashi. I guess my point is using Fluorite Crystals and using Fluoride in optical systems can help transmission , as well as, CA according to the boys over at Cloudy Nights.



Dennis
 
Last edited:
As Kimmo said the difference in internal light transmittance between Caf2 and any very low dispersion glass is completely insignificant in the visual spectrum. Ohara FPL51's internal transmittance is 99.5% at 400nm and 99.8% at 700nm for a 10mm glass thickness. Even if Fluorite had 100% transmittance at those extremes the difference would be far too small to matter visually when applied to one or two thin lenses.
 
Last edited:
henry link said:
As Kimmo said the difference in internal light transmittance between Caf2 and any very low dispersion glass is completely insignificant in the visual spectrum. 10mm of Ohara FPL51 has .995% internal transmittance at 400nm and .998% at 700nm. Even if Fluorite had 100% transmittance at those extremes the difference would be far too small to matter visually.
Click to expand...
Why does Zeiss make such a big deal about their HT Schott glass used in the HT then? The HT has 95% transmission with the HT Schott glass but the SF has 93% transmission with normal HD glass. Glass types and grades must make a difference in transmission.

"SCHOTT has recently developed this HT optical glass that has significantly improved transmittance levels and which is especially suitable for digital projection and high end optical systems. They currently market eleven of these special versions that are labeled HT or HTultra and are said to be working hard to expand its offerings on an ongoing basis."

https://www.bestbinocularsreviews.com/blog/ht-glass-from-schott-06/
http://www.schott.com/advanced_opti...rials/optical-glass/ht-and-htultra/index.html
 
Last edited:
Hi Dennis,

The HT Binoculars have that 95% about TOTAL TRANSMISSION of the instrument, not by the fluoride (not fluorite) lenses but because of the Abbe-Koenig prism. The SF has the same HT glasses but use Schmidt-Pechan prism.

Have a good 2018!

PHA
 
PHA said:
Hi Dennis,

The HT Binoculars have that 95% about TOTAL TRANSMISSION of the instrument, not by the fluoride (not fluorite) lenses but because of the Abbe-Koenig prism. The SF has the same HT glasses but use Schmidt-Pechan prism.

Have a good 2018!

PHA
Click to expand...
My point is the type glass used in a binocular be it fluoride or HT has a significant effect on transmission. No doubt the AK prisms in the HT helped transmission but Zeiss claims the new Shott High Transmission Glass also played a big part in the 95% transmission. From Zeiss and Schott and a video from Tract on why they use Schott HT glass in their rifle scopes.

"The revolutionary light transmission of 95% and more enables hunting deep into the night. This unique experience is the result of an innovative optical design. It is the combination of extremely transparent SCHOTT HT high transmission lens elements and the enhanced ZEISS T* multi-coating."

Take the example of Zeiss optics: in their search for a better microscope, the team at SCHOTT glass came across the process to make glass that got 3% better light transmission than before. The result was HT (High Transmission) glass, which now is at the centerpiece of their new Victory binoculars and riflescopes.

"As part of its extensive portfolio of optical glass types, SCHOTT has been offering special glass variants that are known for their superior transmittance. These special glass types with significantly improved transmittance, all being identified with the suffix "HT" or "HTultra", are especially suitable for digital projection and high end optical systems.

https://www.tractoptics.com/videos/riflescopes/why-weve-used-schott-ht-glass
 
Last edited:
I used to have a mark.1 Canon 300 f2.8 S.S.C (1974-78), which was black and used to rack out for focusing. One of the front elements was a large fluorite crystal not a fluorite glass melt. The control of chromatic aberrations was noticeably better than the slower 300mm f4 or f4.5 lenses of that time and the lens shorter. These large crystals had a reputation of fracturing where the ring held the element down and for hazing over. Later Canon super telephoto lenses solved these use problems.
I sold it for spares or repair for a pittance but regret now not retrieving the crystal as a paperweight and curio !

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photograph...ses/fluorite300mmSSC/300mmFlouriteSteven9.jpg

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photograph...ses/fluorite300mmSSC/300mmFlouriteSteven6.jpg

Schott are the largest growers of synthetic calcium fluorite crystal and apparently have 80% of the World market these days.
 
Last edited:
[email protected];3665713 Glass types and grades must make a difference in transmission. [/QUOTE said:
They do but Henry and Kimmo have explained why your original assertion is mistaken. HT glass in Zeiss's HT binos makes a difference because it transmits more visible light and is used throughout the binos including the prisms which are quite large and so utilise a substantial quantity of glass.

Lee
Click to expand...
 
Troubador said:
HT glass in Zeiss's HT binos makes a difference because it transmits more visible light and is used throughout the binos including the prisms which are quite large and so utilise a substantial quantity of glass.
Click to expand...

It's the prisms that make the difference. Also AK prisms (like porro prisms) don't need dielectric coatings and the like.

Hermann
 

Attachments

  • 260B65BE6F64AA63C518177BA6FC3D05326418DA.jpg
    260B65BE6F64AA63C518177BA6FC3D05326418DA.jpg
    58.3 KB · Views: 28
  • 805859-1.jpg
    805859-1.jpg
    54.3 KB · Views: 37
Last edited:
Alexis Powell said:
In my considerable experience with the FL, it is a tricky glass. In casual/sloppy use, tossed to the eyes, the view with respect to resolution is easily bested by other binoculars. When used very carefully, with one's eyes perfectly aligned with the centers of its oculars, I've not found its equal in the center of the view, owing to low chromatic aberration. Unfortunately, when one's eyes are not perfectly aligned to the FL oculars, it exhibits a lot of astigmatic degradation of the view. Other bins are more forgiving. Even when used perfectly, the 8x32 FL and other FL bins exhibit more astigmatism off-axis than some other bins, which undermines the quality of their admirably flat field.

--AP
Click to expand...

Alexis, this is a great short analysis of FL (and probably HT) character. It explains why Zeiss had to move on and helps me understand why I always came to prefer the Ultravid counterparts. "Astigmatic degradation" says a lot, too.
 
kabsetz said:
(...)

As far as ghosting and flare, I also did not see any ghosting, and there was essentially zero flare, even in most difficult backlight conditions. These are the first binoculars with which I'd be seriously concerned about burning my eyes by inadvertently looking at the sun since there is no advance warning that you are getting that close.

(...)

With respect to the discussion in the article about the AFOV, since the Noctivid has very little AMD (very little compression of objects towards field edge), the same true field yields a wider apparent field which. This also holds for the Canon 10x42, which has a field that looks wider than its true field would lead one to expect when compared to designs like the SV or the SF.

Kimmo
Click to expand...

With regards to flare, I saw no peripheral "crescent" flares which would indicate the sun coming close to the FOV. But paradoxically quite a lot of veiling glare when viewing against the sun. Probably less than in Swarovision but more than in EDG. With the Ultravid it was sometimes almost vice versa, despite strong crescent flares image center was sometimes cleaner than in the Noctivid. This is the one big caveat with the Noctivid for me.

Your second remark is very much appreciated and casts light on modern trends - why flat field binoculars need wider FOVs...?!

Still I don´t quite get it.

- What does AMD mean?

- Compression of objects towards field edge... ??? Of course that would explain the impression of wider FOV and more dimensionality. But:

Normal distortion type is pincushion, that should magnify/widen objects towards the edges of the field, not compress them. Could that be counterbalanced by field curvature?? Where does the compression come from, from which aberrations?

Zeiss SF if I remember correctly has mustache distortion which would explain good dimensionality despite flat field. Barrel distortion would bulge out objects in the center and draw them away from the background. Pincushion should push objects in the middle further away from the foreground.

I started to hate the Canon 16-35/4, an almost perfect wide-angle zoom. It´s images look just way too flat. In binocular world, flat images, IMO that would be Swarovision and maybe Nikon EDG, but not the Noctivid, neither the SF.
 
james holdsworth said:
Compare the attached photo to the photo in the review, where he talks about edge sharpness / astigmatism....and tell me which one is sharper at 12 o'clock, 3 o'clock and 9 o' clock.
Click to expand...

This is a very low contrast image of an image and has nothing to do with the experience of using a great glass like a Noctivid - or HT ;) - or... digiscoping is totally useless for evaluating binoculars.
 
Tobias Mennle said:
This is a very low contrast image of an image and has nothing to do with the experience of using a great glass like a Noctivid - or HT ;) - or... digiscoping is totally useless for evaluating binoculars.
Click to expand...

Just talking apparent edge sharpness here - not anything else. Compare the two and let me know. I'm not pretending to know the answer here and I'm happy to be educated - is there any reason why the review picture of the NV seems to show such poor edge sharpness? I can take a similar photo with any number of my bins that do not show such degradation - and posted one as illustration.
 
Last edited:
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.

Similar threads

John A Roberts
Roger Vine’s review of an original Leitz Trivovid 7x35
2
Replies
35
Views
4K
Holger Merlitz
H
John A Roberts
Roger Vine's review of the Retrovid 8x40
Replies
3
Views
2K
tenex
tenex
S
Noctivid 8x42- wow!
2 3 4
Replies
70
Views
15K
hopster
hopster
S
IPD and folks who own the Trinovid HD in 8x32...
Replies
0
Views
668
sope0018
S
thisdudeisgood
Noctivid 10x42 Olive Green Edition
5 6 7
Replies
127
Views
17K
Scott98
S

Users who are viewing this thread

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