What binoculars do you think have the most WOW factor! (3 Viewers)

brocknroller said:

Lowest price on an 8x32 SE is $679.95 on this side of the pond (B&H Photo), $728 at Amazon and Optics Planet. They were selling for $525-$550 two and a half years ago and that price had held steady for about 12 years in the US. This dollar/yen thing is pushing up prices.

The Habicht has always been around $899 here, same price as the 8x30 SLC, but the Habichts have always been much harder to find here than the SLCs and SEs even now that the SE's are "special order".

Did Gijs measure the light transmission of the Habicht and SE? Did he test the latest 8x32 SE (550xxx)? It appears brighter and has more contrast than my two previous samples, but I'm not sure if that translates to greater measured light transmission.

If the 8x30 Habicht out resolves the 8x32 SE by a full element, I'll eat my hat (Yankee's cap). "Sharper" is a murkier term, that's rather subjective and involves contrast, color saturation and CA control. But I mean if I go down to the Honey Creek Bill and Beak and Gordon and I test them both on a resolution chart while boosted 2.5x .

The ER is short on the Habicht. That's something they could improve but won't. I'm not a fan of tight focusers for birding bins, okay and even preferable for astro bins, and, of course, for hunting. However, close-in birding requires a more responsive focuser.

As long as it's not overly stiff and turns with the same resistance in both directions, it might be useable. As far as the ER, if I can see the entire FOV w/out having to dig my eyes deep into the eyecups, that would also be fine, I don't wear glasses with birding bins.

Ergonomically, the EII is more like the Habicht. So I will compare those too.

The real question is if the Habicht's focuser gets stiffer in cold weather like the Nikon porros'. One of the main purposes for buying a WP/FP bin for me would be to use in winter when the cold stiffens the focusers on my non-WP porros. I suspect only a roof will deliver that.

<B>

Click to expand...

I don't think "sharper on axis" is a murky term at all. I think most people understand that it means the ability to discern finer/more detail in the center of the fov.

Also I don't think color saturation has anything to do with how sharp (ability to resolve fine detail) a binocular is. I have several canon 8x30 porros that are unbelievably sharp (ability to resolve fine detail) but rarely use them for birding because the lack of color saturation makes the colors very flat.

I haven't done any boosted resolution testing lately due to time constraints but hope to in the near future. Experienced observers can tell a lot about the on axis sharpness of a binocular under the night sky by splitting difficult doubles and I've always found the binoculars that do the best on the night sky are the best performers on resolution charts also. I agree with Erik on the Cloudy Nights forum that the little Habicht 8x30 yields the most pinpoint stars and is the best 8x (out of a great many) for splitting the very difficult doubles. I'm certainly not "dissing" the SE or EII series as I own all of them and they are great binoculars, the Habicht 8x30 (at least mine) just happens to be a little sharper on axis.

Steve

Steve

henry link said:

Quibbles aside, it’s amusing for an old-timer like me to see these ancient binocular designs from the early 20th century, updated only with 21st century coatings, still capable of seducing you young whippersnappers with their good performance.

Click to expand...

I think that could be said of many classic/vintage porros Henry. The raw optical performance is there in many of these models. Updated coatings is really all it would take to make them competitive with many of the most popular and highest performing models today...at least for many of us.

I followed Steve@37's thoughts on the "design your perfect binocular" thread. A Nikon 7x35 wide field Action model with modern coatings would be a binocular to be reckoned with.

Yep, an original 7x35 Nikon Action would be very nice with modern coatings, but the old Porro I would most like to see executed with state of the art coatings is the CZJ 8x50 Nobilem "Super" (not to be confused with the later Octarem/Nobilem model). That was a spectacular binocular except to the inferior T3M multi-coating that Zeiss/Jena used in the 1980's. I owned a pair for a few years and then stupidly traded it for an unphase-corrected 10x40 Dialyt.

FrankD said:

I think that could be said of many classic/vintage porros Henry. The raw optical performance is there in many of these models. Updated coatings is really all it would take to make them competitive with many of the most popular and highest performing models today...at least for many of us.

I followed Steve@37's thoughts on the "design your perfect binocular" thread. A Nikon 7x35 wide field Action model with modern coatings would be a binocular to be reckoned with.

Click to expand...

Frank

I totally agree the raw optical performance is there in some of the vintage porros. When I mention my Habicht being the sharpest I usually do so with the caveat "of current production binoculars".

The binocular of mine that surpasses all others in on axis sharpness is my 9x35 J Pat. Nikon. I believe Henry's comments about the rather simple optical design of some of the old porros is one reason they are so good, sometimes simple is better. I personally think another factor is the very high quality of craftsmanship evident on many of the older porros.

Steve

henry link said:

Yep, an original 7x35 Nikon Action would be very nice with modern coatings, but the old Porro I would most like to see executed with state of the art coatings is the CZJ 8x50 Nobilem "Super" (not to be confused with the later Octarem/Nobilem model). That was a spectacular binocular except to the inferior T3M multi-coating that Zeiss/Jena used in the 1980's. I owned a pair for a few years and then stupidly traded it for an unphase-corrected 10x40 Dialyt.

Click to expand...

The Nobilem Super was indeed a splendid glass optically, but it was also a big lump, not waterproof, plus it was somewhat frail.The German Post Office wrecked one of mine just by tossing around the parcel containing it.
The Supers oversized prisms mandate a hefty structure, but even though it was a real handful, I think it could have used even more.

The most spectacular view I've ever saw with binoculars, was with an 8x60 Zeiss U-Boot Kommandantenglas. Such binoculars with state-of-the-art coatings would be simply breathtaking.

Steve

steve@37n84w said:

I don't think "sharper on axis" is a murky term at all. I think most people understand that it means the ability to discern finer/more detail in the center of the fov.

Also I don't think color saturation has anything to do with how sharp (ability to resolve fine detail) a binocular is. I have several canon 8x30 porros that are unbelievably sharp (ability to resolve fine detail) but rarely use them for birding because the lack of color saturation makes the colors very flat.

I haven't done any boosted resolution testing lately due to time constraints but hope to in the near future. Experienced observers can tell a lot about the on axis sharpness of a binocular under the night sky by splitting difficult doubles and I've always found the binoculars that do the best on the night sky are the best performers on resolution charts also. I agree with Erik on the Cloudy Nights forum that the little Habicht 8x30 yields the most pinpoint stars and is the best 8x (out of a great many) for splitting the very difficult doubles. I'm certainly not "dissing" the SE or EII series as I own all of them and they are great binoculars, the Habicht 8x30 (at least mine) just happens to be a little sharper on axis.

Steve

Steve

Click to expand...

Steve,

I don't equate the words "sharpness" with "resolution". To me, the former is subjective, the latter objective. CA control, brightness, color saturation, color bias, contrast (including color contrast) can all influence our subjective impression as to how "sharp" an image looks.

I hope Arthur chimes in here, he had a very good non-technical definition of "sharpness".

Here people do tend to intermingle the two terms, but in photography "resolution" and "sharpness" mean two different things (scroll down to the summary at the end of the first post).

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?71619-Sharpness-vs-Resolution-vs-MTF-vs-Diffraction

The problem of differentiating between resolution and perceived sharpness was solved with the introduction of the Modulation transfer function (MTF). I'm sure Ron (Surveyor) could tell us all about that and has on different threads. Hard to understand for those without a technical background, but it basically makes the distinction I made above.

As to the two binoculars in question, that's the first time I've read someone state that the Habicht was "sharper" on-axis than the SE, so I was curious to find out if you or someone else had verified the Habicht having greater resolution through testing.

Not that it surprises me it has high resolution because it's an old design, some classic porros have excellent on-axis resolution but, as you mentioned above with the Canons, fall short in terms of color saturation, and I would also add contrast, compared to roofs with the "latest and greatest" AR coatings. I've even seen this difference with the evolution of Nikon's coatings from the 501xxx 8x32 SE (1998-99) to the 505xxx 8x32 SE to the latest version 550xxx 8x32 SE with Eco-Glass.

As experts can attest, even in premium bins, resolution can vary from one barrel to the other. So given any two premium bins, the same side barrel of one can out resolve the same side barrel of the other bin, whereas the opposite barrel might better it. So resolution testing is the only way to verify that "what you see is what you get".

OTOH, I have argued that ultimately for any given user, your subjective impressions of "sharpness," "brightness," "clarity," "transparency," "color," and "contrast" are what count the most, because you're the one that uses the bin. What you see may not be what I see through the same bin, but that doesn't make it any less "real".

Anyway, thanks for clarifying that.

Brock

mooreorless said:

"But since I don't suffer from the dreaded Rolling Brock effect (thanks, Gijs, for this new term)"

I'm glad I didn't just take a drink of coffee.:-O Thanks!

Click to expand...

Gijs is new to these forums so he apparently isn't aware that the proper term for users who see RB is "rolling baller".

Not that I wouldn't be honored to have a perceptual effect named after me, but it sounds a bit too much like Rolling Rock, which is a beer sold in these parts, as you well know, being a big consumer of that beverage. B

<B>

Well Henry,
Some more things evolved since the introduction of the Porro binoculars by Zeiss in 1894 than you suggest in your post. Assuming that only improved coatings have been used to "upgrade" the porro's is simpy incorrect. New glass types in combination with top of the art coatings make these "old-fashioned" binoculars of a very good quality. I have investigated and measured quite a few porro's made in the period 1900-2000 and a steady progress can be observed in optical quality. A similar reasoning as you used for porro's could be used for roofs as well, since Hensoldt already produced excellent roofs around 1900-1910, but also with roofs new glass types and improved coatings have improved their performance. If you look into the use of military binoculars from 1900 up to now, you will hardly find any roofs and in that type of sport optimal quality both optically as mechanically was/is a must to survive on the battlefield.
Gijs

hinnark said:

The most spectacular view I've ever saw with binoculars, was with an 8x60 Zeiss U-Boot Kommandantenglas. Such binoculars with state-of-the-art coatings would be simply breathtaking.

Steve

Click to expand...

I think that some of our most august members have a fondness for the big Zeiss 8x56 because it is the nearest modern day equivalent to this superb glass.
The 8x60s are sometimes offered for sale, but the price for a good specimen is a bit rich for my blood, around $10,000 in recent auctions.

etudiant said:

I think that some of our most august members have a fondness for the big Zeiss 8x56 because it is the nearest modern day equivalent to this superb glass.
The 8x60s are sometimes offered for sale, but the price for a good specimen is a bit rich for my blood, around $10,000 in recent auctions.

Click to expand...

This 8x56 is certainly by no means a bad one. It may even raise at the top of recent 8x56 bins. But nevertheless, for me the view cannot compete with that of the 8x60 one. The AFOF of the latter appeared to my eyes so much wider and the fall off of sharpness towards the edges noticeable later and less. It provides to the eyes a great ease of view which one hardly find with today's bins. Construction is also quite different, being the 8x56 a roof and the U-Boot a porro one. Of course, the weight is quite different, too.

Steve

Gijs,

In high magnification star-tests and resolution measurements I can't say I've found any fundamental difference in the resolving power or the axial aberrations of old Porros using crown and flint cemented doublet achromats vs new Porros that use the same sort of objectives.

Roof prism binoculars are a different story. I never found any of them to be acceptable before phase correction was introduced.

Henry

brocknroller said:

Gijs is new to these forums so he apparently isn't aware that the proper term for users who see RB is "rolling baller".

Not that I wouldn't be honored to have a perceptual effect named after me, but it sounds a bit too much like Rolling Rock, which is a beer sold in these parts, as you well know, being a big consumer of that beverage. B

<B>

Click to expand...

Brock:

I think it was a while back, someone used the term: Brocknrollingballer.

Jerry

hinnark said:

This 8x56 is certainly by no means a bad one. It may even raise at the top of recent 8x56 bins. But nevertheless, for me the view cannot compete with that of the 8x60 one. The AFOF of the latter appeared to my eyes so much wider and the fall of of sharpness towards the edges noticeable later and less. It provide to the eyes a great ease of view which one hardly find with today's bins. Construction is also quite different, being the 8x56 a roof and the U-Boot a porro one. Of course, the weight is quite different, too.

Steve

Click to expand...

The Seeger monograph gives an 8.8* FoV for the 8x60, 154m@1000m.
That is wider even than the Zeiss 7x42BGA, which has 'only' 150m@1000m.
So your eyes were not deceived, it is a spectacularly good glass, combining massive eye relief, wide field of view and great sharpness.
Afaik, there is no glass offered anywhere with a comparable collection of virtues.

That 8x60 Uboat porro sounds like a very good glass. Does someone have any
pictures? How about some specs. and how is the handling and weight, is it usable or just a collectible?

Jerry

NDhunter said:

That 8x60 Uboat porro sounds like a very good glass. Does someone have any
pictures? How about some specs. and how is the handling and weight, is it usable or just a collectible?

Jerry

Click to expand...

Hi Jerry,

The Zeiss 8x60 came in several packages, from hand held to heavy armor cased deck mount. All are IF, but with internal focusing, so they could stay nicely sealed even in maritime environments.
They are big and heavy, about 11 inches long and weigh about 5 pounds, so not a glass to carry casually, but they are very robust. If you are rich enough to afford them and big enough to lug them, they are perfectly usable.
You can get some sense of what they look like here:
http://www.forslund.de/swedishservice.html

I do wonder whether current technology would allow for a small quantity of binoculars with comparable capabilities to be produced for the very high end market on an economically rational basis.
For a large Chinese producer seeking to gain market recognition, such a glass, sold as the best binocular in the world, might be an economically justifiable venture.

Frankly, I find nostalgia for optics of the past somewhat curious and their perception of quality as somewhat rosy. Prior to ~1972 most of the perscription optical components had to be hand ground and polished. To do this at any production quantity in Japan at least required lots of "hands" employed by dozens, maybe hundreds, of small subcontractor shops, all of which by necessity had various levels of skill. This would seem to infer that optical sample quality would vary even more than we see today with current mass production techniques, e.g. precision vacuum lens molding, automated precision grinding and polishing, etc.

Advances in automation and precision machinery, not to mention cheaper Asian labor, have put most of these small subs out of business.

Rick,

really no nostalgia on my side. Just a comparison of the views of different instruments. BTW, in optics automatic grinding and polishing processes dosn't necessarily lead to superior quality. I can't find it at the moment but didn't we had a youtube video here some time ago, where a NASA technician explained how they found a automatic solution to copy the perfect way human hands grind and polish the mirrors used for scientific telescopes? If memory serves me right, she said that summed up minor irregularities caused by the human hand lead at the end to a higher degree of precision compared with conventional automatic grinding. Perhaps, someone can give a link to that video. Additionally, I see another potential advantage of handmade instruments. Quality checks and corrections if needed, are possible at any time during the manufacturing process.

A discussion like 'Old vs. new methods - which one is better?' is certainly some kind of idle so a last word from my side. Sometimes I have the impression especially with some recent roof prism binoculars of the second and third tier, that the unquestionable advance of coating technology is used to superimpose weaknesses in aberration controll. In consequence, we have a bunch of binoculars that are brighter and more contrasty than ever, but this combined with poor resolution and image quality.

Steve

The best hand polished optics are superior to any of the commercial optics found today.
Machine polishing is just not good enough.

The 1955 16 x 56 Hensoldt roofprism binocular has superior resolution and smaller star images than any modern equivalent I have tried. I have not had an opportunity to compare it with the Swarovski 15 x 56, which may equal it but I doubt better it.

The Hensoldt loses 0.5 magnitude in faintest star visibility compared with a high transmission modern nequivalent.

The apparent field is 69 degrees and it is very lightweight.
It is rather long which explains some of the superiority.

It is clearly finished by hand to the highest standard.

I do not think modern binoculars outresolve the best old binoculars, rather the reverse.

The only advantage of the latest new binoculars is in very high transmission and very fine multicoating

Incidentally I would consider the 80% transmission of top roof prism of 20 years ago, and then 85%, then 90%, then 95% and the 97.5% of the best porroprism be thought of as...
A 20% light loss, 15%, 10%,5% and finally 2.5% light loss gives a more accurate impression of how bright modern binoculars appear.
Much of the 20% light loss etc. is light bouncing around the inside of the binocular often causing loss of contrast, ghosts and glare.
Not necessarily as fine design can minimise this.
Even an uncoated old 7 x50 Leitz can give wonderful images because of good design.

Thinking of % transmission and light loss transmission could give a better understanding of why some binocular images nowadays look spectacularly bright.
I have not yet thought of a way of combining these two methods of describing transmission and image brightness.

Binastro said:

The best hand polished optics are superior to any of the commercial optics found today. Machine polishing is just not good enough.

Click to expand...

FWIW, pretty much all refractive lenses made of crown or ED glass up to 155mm diameter are now precison vacuum molded to prescription cutting out the grinding step. Automated polishing to 1/8wave precision is now possible.

Prism precision continues to be the weak link in sports optics. Surface flatness and critcal angle variances combine to limit their precision to 1/6wave at best with 1/4wave being typical.