[payj]

Looking for a pair of great binoculars. I will be using them for general viewing purposes.

-Looking for overall best quality in lense and overall construction.

-Magnification will be decided once manufacture is chosen (suggestions on the other hand are more than welcome.)

-Price $800-$1200

Thank you

[denco@comcast.n]

Originally Posted by payj

Looking for a pair of great binoculars. I will be using them for general viewing purposes.

-Looking for overall best quality in lense and overall construction.

-Magnification will be decided once manufacture is chosen (suggestions on the other hand are more than welcome.)

-Price $800-$1200

Thank you

Zen Ray 8x43 ED.

-Price $360.00 shipped

http://www.zen-ray.com/zen.shtml

If you really need to spend $800.00 you can send me the difference.

Dennis

[bcl05]

I was in the same boat a few months ago. I was new to birding and had saved up $1000. I (in-store) tested everything on the market I could get my hands on. I ended up with two binoculars, a Leupold Yosemite 6x30 (price ~$100) and a Zen-Ray 8x43 ED (price ~360). They are both great. Both have a HUGE FOV (very important to me) and are very intuitive, easy to use ergonomically. Most important, the view through both is better than anything else at their price point. The ZR is better (to my eyes, for whatever they're worth) than anything else I tried. The best thing is that I have ~500 left over in my "bird budget" to either put towards a scope or a library expansion....

[brunop]

i like the Pentax DCF WP II 8x42. i paid around 350 dollars.

[ceasar]

Stick with the old tried and true brands for your purpose. Especially in your price range. Swarovski, Zeiss, Nikon, Leica, Pentax, Leupold. No one knows what warranty service will be like with the new entries and their construction and quality control have yet to be tested.
Bob

[falcondude]

For general viewing, an 8x is probably what you want to go after. In your price range, the only thing I can think of is Pentax SP ED 8x43 for about $1000. If you have Alpha binoculars in mind, then you need to add another $500 in your budget.

[John M Robinson]

Originally Posted by ceasar

Stick with the old tried and true brands for your purpose. Especially in your price range. Swarovski, Zeiss, Nikon, Leica, Pentax, Leupold. No one knows what warranty service will be like with the new entries and their construction and quality control have yet to be tested.
Bob

I don't know; for about $370.00 the new Zen Ray EDs are getting rave reviews, even if their lifetime warranty doesn't pan out it seems like a good risk-reward ratio. I already own the 8x42 Leica Ultravid, but the reviews of these Zen Rays are so good, and the price so low, I'm tempted to get them as back ups, and maybe Dennis is right they might beat my Ultravid BRs head to head. Actually I'm waiting for an 8x32 or 7x32 Zen Ray ED. Of course Bob is right, all of those other companies are known quantities with proven records.
John

[denco@comcast.n]

Originally Posted by John M Robinson

I don't know; for about $370.00 the new Zen Ray EDs are getting rave reviews, even if their lifetime warranty doesn't pan out it seems like a good risk-reward ratio. I already own the 8x42 Leica Ultravid, but the reviews of these Zen Rays are so good, and the price so low, I'm tempted to get them as back ups, and maybe Dennis is right they might beat my Ultravid BRs head to head. Actually I'm waiting for an 8x32 or 7x32 Zen Ray ED. Of course Bob is right, all of those other companies are known quantities with proven records.
John

Yes. You could buy two pairs of Zen Ray 8x43 ED for $720.00 then if something happens to one you have a spare. I am sorry I am just really impressed with the view of the Zen Rays. I don't think I would buy a non ED binocular when I see what nice images those ED lenses create. John get the 8x43 ED now and then get the mid-size Zen Rays when they come out. You can sell your Ultravid and buy them both and have money left over to go to Costa Rica on a birding trip. I will bet that unless you have the Ultravid HD's you will like the view of the Zen Rays better.

Dennis

[ceasar]

I remember one of our optics experts stating not long ago (It might have been Henry Link but I won't put the onus on him here.) that ED glass is not really needed for telescopes with the short focal length ratios of f4 or so like those commonly found in binoculars. I can't remember the reasons given. Perhaps it was a cost/benefit reason?

I wonder if proper workmanship including the blackening and finishing of the interior; expertly designed baffling and modern coatings on the oculars and objectives isn't more important than using exotic glass in the manufacture of the lens?

Bob

[Kevin Conville]

Originally Posted by ceasar

I remember one of our optics experts stating not long ago (It might have been Henry Link but I won't put the onus on him here.) that ED glass is not really needed for telescopes with the short focal length ratios of f4 or so like those commonly found in binoculars. I can't remember the reasons given. Perhaps it was a cost/benefit reason?

Bob

Actually short focal ratios exacerbate CA, as do large objectives and high magnification. It doesn't seem there would be much to be gained from "ED" glass (or one of it's other monikers) in lower powered, smaller sizes.

It does seem to be a great sales tool though.

[payj]

I heard that zeiss has gone down in quality ever since they sold out a few years back. Is that true?

[denco@comcast.n]

Originally Posted by ceasar

I remember one of our optics experts stating not long ago (It might have been Henry Link but I won't put the onus on him here.) that ED glass is not really needed for telescopes with the short focal length ratios of f4 or so like those commonly found in binoculars. I can't remember the reasons given. Perhaps it was a cost/benefit reason?

I wonder if proper workmanship including the blackening and finishing of the interior; expertly designed baffling and modern coatings on the oculars and objectives isn't more important than using exotic glass in the manufacture of the lens?

Bob

If ED glass isn't needed then why are all the manufacturers using it on their new binoculars? Zeiss, Leica, Pentax, Minox and now Nikon. I say that is baloney. Why are Zeiss FL's consistently ranked the best optically binocular. It's because the FL glass gets rid of the CA ,as well as, sharpening the image. It works on telescopes and it works on binoculars. Short focal length optical instruments should benefit more from ED glass than longer focal length instruments. I know that some say low magnification instruments don't benefit from ED glass but it is not true. The optical engineers at these major manufacturers wouldn't use ED glass if it didn't improve the image and I think they know more than Henry Link does! After seeing what ED glass does for the image on these Zen Rays and knowing what it does for the image on APO telescopes I know it is a major advancement in binoculars. Here is an article explaining the benefits of Ed glass on telescopes,spotting scopes and binoculars:

"The experience gathered over decades in the production of top quality optical systems has brought forth MINOX products with a performance reaching the limits of technical feasibility. The profound knowledge in the production of top-class lenses led to stringent quality standards which apply to MINOX binoculars and telescopes as well. Continuous innovation at MINOX means a clear advantage for the observer in image sharpness and brightness. With ED glass (also called FL for fluoride glass and APO for apochromatically corrected) MINOX is setting new standards in nature observation.

What are the advantages of ED glass in telescopes?
White light is split into its component colors when it passes through a prism or a lens. The reason for this, as with other transparent materials, is the change in the refractive index for the different colors, known as the dispersion of the glass in question. The amount of dispersion in the different types of optical glass depends on the glass composition, i.e. dispersion is a material constant of the glass used.
This color dispersion of incident light means that the image of an object imaged by a simple lens is split into many colored partial images which are not only positioned at different locations behind the lens, but also differ in size. If you pick up such an image on a screen or look at it with a magnifying glass, which is what the eyepiece represents, instead of sharp details and contours you will see, depending on the focusing, a more or less sharp core in one color, e.g. blue-green, which is surrounded by a more or less blurred corona in a different color, e.g. red. Altogether the image is unsharp due to this chromatic aberration which, in principle, cannot be eliminated by a single lens. As the specific dispersion of the various types of optical glass materials are - fortunately - different, by combining at least 2 lenses of different glass types it is possible to correct their chromatic aberration. Every optical system of any real use, whether a photo lens or binoculars, therefore features at least 2 lenses of different glass types.

By designing the correct radius of the lens elements and selecting the right types of glass materials, the optics engineer can position at least two of the colored partial images at the same place and match their size. The remaining residual aberration for the other colors is usually so slight that the image already appears free from chromatic error. This is then referred to as a chromatically corrected or achromatic system.

The remaining residual aberration of an achromatic lens, however small, will show up if the intermediate image is subsequently magnified or looked at through a strong magnifying glass, i.e. eyepiece. Particular attention must be paid in photo lenses with long focal lengths or binoculars with high magnification > 10x and spotting scopes to ensure that the residual aberration is reduced as much as possible.

Fortunately, chemists and glass manufacturers have been able to melt special glass types containing fluoride which either feature particularly low dispersion, known as Extra-Low Dispersion glass types, or glass where the refractive index changes in a different way to the majority of "normal" optical glass, these being referred to as glass types with anomalous partial dispersion. For the sake of simplicity, these two types are usually referred to in combined form as ED glass. This glass type was first used in the photographic sector for telephoto lenses with long focal lengths and high speeds, for a particularly extensive color correction.

By using this type of glass it is possible to position the color partial images at the same place for the entire visible light (across the visible spectrum) and perfectly match their size. Unwanted color contours are thus effectively eliminated. This is then referred to as apochromatic color correction.

The use of special glass containing fluoride in the new MINOX binoculars with high magnification and MINOX spotting scopes, has successfully passed on this proven technology from extreme photo lenses to binoculars. In spite of the high magnification and light gathering power of the lenses, the residual chromatic aberrations have been significantly reduced by these means. The image provided by the new MINOX binoculars and MINOX spotting scopes with ED glass is free from any disturbing color fringes or glare, i.e. it is rich in contrast with pin-sharp definition.

There are, however, some negative aspects with ED glass types, which should not remain unmentioned: They are considerably more expensive than normal glass types, the processing method is more difficult and is therefore more costly, the specific gravity and consequently the weight of the lenses is frequently higher. Nevertheless, this excess in expenditure does pay off. With ED glass the optical performance of the MINOX binoculars and MINOX spotting scopes with high magnification is improved significantly. This glass provides a plastic image exceptionally rich in detail and with high color rendition throughout the visual field. The observer is able to see a true-to-life image, even under critical light conditions."

Here is another thread on an astronomy forum talking about the advantages of ED glass in binoculars:

"Using a RAF chart, the ED matched the Nikon 10x42 SE in resolution. But
what sets this binocular apart from the SE and other non-ED bins is its
greater color saturation.
With the Nikon SE, I can see remarkable detail, however, the SE reveals
only a few subtle COLOR variations in a male Cardinal's bird feathers
(which other than the wings appears solid red at first glance). The 10x50
ED shows a wide range of color variation and some subtle colored details
not visible with the SE.
Yesterday, I spotted two cedar waxwing families, who have taken up
winter residence in my backyard "wildlife habitat" . I watched them for
about a half hour with my 8x32 SE, Swift 8.5X44 Audubon, and 10x50 ED.
All three bins are very close in resolution, despite their different powers
and objective sizes. The colors looked somewhat "flat" in the first two bins
(more contrast with the SE) whereas the red wing tips and yellow-tipped
tail feathers popped out with the ED binoculars and showed subtle
variations in color.
Given that COLOR variation is a key field mark identifier for birdwatchers,
particularly when trying to discern different species in the same genus, I'm
surprised there are so few ED binoculars made.
Cost is obviously NOT the reason since Celestron and Eagle Optics priced
their ED bins between $300 and $400, and now WO has a ED bin for under
$300.
I agree with Brock about the Eagle Optics 10x50 ED showing more color
saturation than all the Nikon SE's,that would be 8,10 and 12 SE.We were
using the Edmund's USAF Resolving Power Chart and this chart has red,
green,yellow,blue and black USAF targets in a x shape.I really was kind of
surprised to say the least and WOULD NOT BELIEVE IT IF I DIDN'T SEE IT
WITH MY OWN EYES."
Steve M

As far as the durability and the quality of Zen Ray's they appear to me to be built quite well. I don't think they are going to fall apart in one year. Another thing is with the advancement in technology in binoculars do you really want to keep your binoculars for ten years anyway? I think ten year old binoculars well be like a ten year old car "Old Technology". I think in the future you will be able to buy superior binoculars for less money. I can already see it coming with these Chinese ED binoculars. For less than $400.00 they are 99% as good as binoculars costing five times as much. We need some new aggressive manufacturers like this to give the big three some competition and push them a little bit. It will be good for us as consumers because it will likely drive prices down and performance up.

Dennis

[rjwims]

Hey Dennis

Should it be mentioned that the ED glass in ZR's and other chinese bins do not contain flouride?

I thought that FL glass was what gave alphas an edge as far as IQ is concerned.

If I recall correctly, the ZR's have silver coated roof prisms. I also just read that the Minox APO-HG bins are also using silver coated roof prisms??

Is this also true for other alphas?

Thanks

Richard

[josika]

Hi Richard
T Zrs have silver coatings on one of the roof prisms. The ultravids, ELs and nikon EDGs have dielectric coatings while the large FLs rely on total internal reflection. It has nothing to do with ED glass in the objectives.

[rjwims]

Originally Posted by josika

Hi Richard
T Zrs have silver coatings on one of the roof prisms. The ultravids, ELs and nikon EDGs have dielectric coatings while the large FLs rely on total internal reflection. It has nothing to do with ED glass in the objectives.

Thanks

I think i have a slightly better understanding.

What differences are in the ED glass of chinese bins and the pricier others

[denco@comcast.n]

Originally Posted by rjwims

Hey Dennis

Should it be mentioned that the ED glass in ZR's and other chinese bins do not contain flouride?

I thought that FL glass was what gave alphas an edge as far as IQ is concerned.

If I recall correctly, the ZR's have silver coated roof prisms. I also just read that the Minox APO-HG bins are also using silver coated roof prisms??

Is this also true for other alphas?

Thanks

Richard

Zen Rays use a silver coated roof prism versus some Alphas like Zeiss use a Dielectric roof prism coating. That is just the type of coating they use on their roof prisms. Zen Rays and other newer ED binoculars use ED glass whereas Zeiss FL's uses fluorite glass in at least one of their lenses to achieve similar results. Less CA and a sharper image. There are differences in the two types of glasses and advantages and disadvantages to both. Here is a good description of these two types of glass used(From an astronomy website):

"Here's the lowdown on the two materials. I'll start off with the market speak first.

From Nikons website...
ED
ED glass — an essential element of NIKKOR telephoto lenses
Nikon developed ED (Extra-low Dispersion) glass to enable the production of lenses that offer superior sharpness and color correction by minimizing chromatic aberration.
Put simply, chromatic aberration is a type of image and color dispersion that occurs when light rays of varying wavelengths pass through optical glass. In the past, correcting this problem for telephoto lenses required special optical elements that offer anomalous dispersion characteristics — specifically calcium fluoride crystals. However, fluorite easily cracks and is sensitive to temperature changes that can adversely affect focusing by altering the lens’ refractive index.
So Nikon designers and engineers put their heads together and came up with ED glass, which offers all the benefits, yet none of the drawbacks of calcium fluorite-based glass. With this innovation, Nikon developed several types of ED glass suitable for various lenses.
They deliver stunning sharpness and contrast even at their largest apertures. In this way, NIKKOR’s ED-series lenses exemplify Nikon’s preeminence in lens innovation and performance.

SOME Advantage of ED glass..
1. Thermally more stable (slightly though) than crystalline fluorite. Remember that it's a mix of optical glass AND fluorite.

2. Slightly more environmentally resistant.

3. Easier to grind and work with - it's a glass mix!

SOME Disadvantages of ED glass
1. Melt data from batch to batch of ED glass isn't consistent. This is CRITICAL to manufacturing lenses, otherwise the color correction and refractive properties will be off by a significant amount.

2. Internal light scatter. Remember it's a glass mix. Shine a green laser through a ED glass and you'll pick up the reflections as well as the green laser bouncing in and out of the glass.

3. Size limited. 6 inch diameters are about the maximum without repressing and recasting (not a good idea) of the ED glass.

4. Color correction - below 460nm it's not effective as Fluorite.


Some advantages of Fluorite
1. ZERO SCATTER throughout the element.

2. Exceptional color correction down to 400nm. The germans noticed this too when they were using fluorite as microscope objectives back in the 1800s.

3. Melt data CONSISTENT from batch to batch. No need to come up with new master tools for grinding out lenses.

4. Size isn't limited to 6 inches in diameter. Largest production melt is around 12 inches in diameter. The Canon 1200mm f/5.6 uses a fluorite crystal about 10 inches in diameter.

Some disadvantages of Fluorite crystal
1. More expensive!

2. Material is much softer than ED glass - causing problems when grinding. Fluorite has to be SLOWLY and carefully ground and polished. ED glass you can *almost* rapid polish.

3. In the old days, (10 years ago), fluorite couldn't be multicoated due to the processes of high temperatures. Today they can multi coat them due to different techniques.

4. Thermally sensitive. From cold to hot, it's fine. From severe hot to severe cold, it will crack. But then again, so will ED glass since ED glass is partially fluorite.

ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL, fluorite will have better color correction throughout the visible spectrum. This is if you take into consideration the mating glass. Just having "ED GLASS" all over marketing specs doesn't make it highly corrected. ALSO, fluorite has a much higher light transmission than ED glass due to zero scatter within fluorite.

This is also why my Takahashi scope (two elements fluorite crystal with 2 elements mating glass) has a higher contrast, better color correction than my Astro Physics (ED glass) telescope. Both are considered TOP NAMES in the scientific and optical community.

With the ED (astro physics), the color correction ranges .3mm, which isn't bad at all. The Takahashi that I use, the color error is less than 0.11mm.


Dennis

[rjwims]

canon and last 2 links not working for me????

Thanks

[ThoLa]

Originally Posted by rjwims

What differences are in the ED glass of chinese bins and the pricier others

Quality.

[denco@comcast.n]

Originally Posted by Kevin Conville

Actually short focal ratios exacerbate CA, as do large objectives and high magnification. It doesn't seem there would be much to be gained from "ED" glass (or one of it's other monikers) in lower powered, smaller sizes.

It does seem to be a great sales tool though.

If there is nothing to be gained why does everybody that tries the Zeiss FL's with fluorite glass say there is almost no CA? It is the fluorite glass that is removing the CA and improving the sharpness of the binoculars. Same with Pentax ED's. The ED lenses do improve the image and get rid of CA. It is not just marketing fluff.

Dennis

[denco@comcast.n]

Originally Posted by ThoLa

Quality.

Probably little difference. The view of the Zen Ray is similar to the alphas so I would say the ED lenses are as good. They are probably ALL made in China. Everything pretty much is anymore!

Dennis

[Kevin Conville]

yawn

[kabsetz]

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

[henry link]

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/view...ews_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

[falcondude]

Originally Posted by rjwims

What differences are in the ED glass of chinese bins and the pricier others

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]

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