[Pileatus]

People are excited because they removed so much CA from the image. Yes, it's really that simple...and a superb achievement in a $400 bin. It sets a new standard in performance.

Unfortunately, they used traditional housings, which is why people are reporting non-trivial problems.

John

PS
The 8X43 almost got it right.
The 7X36 did not.

[kristoffer]

36 mm got diff. house?

[Steve C]

This glare thing has me as perplexed as I have ever been. I am like Frank. I do not see this glare. I have done everything short of standing on my head and wiggling my ears. I have to have the alignment so totally fouled up that it is a position I would never possibly use before I can see what I think is a hint of what people are seeing. I have no idea why some people seem to be so bothered by it while others are not. FWIW, I do not wear glasses using binoculars. But I don't see it with reading glasses on either.

What these do offer is a very nice combination of a wide fov, with excellent depth of field, great resolution, and outstanding color. CA is for all practical purposed non-existent. Now I am not CA sensitive, so this last item has nothing to do with why I like the binocular.

It seems to me the issue will bother you or not. So I guess it is try it and see. Return it if it does not work. I bet the significant majority will not get sent back. What matters is if the user sees the issue, not whether Frank and I don't or Fireform does. Whatever the deal, I do not think people are reporting anything other than what they see.

[Pinewood]

Originally Posted by Steve C

Now I am not CA sensitive, so this last item has nothing to do with why I like the binocular.

Hello Steve,

Even if you not perceive colour fringing, lack of chromatic aberration will provide both higher resolution and better edge contrast. That is sharpness. Remember black and white photography may suffer from CA, but one perceives it as loss of sharpness not colour fringing.
Curiously, if have some colours are brighter when looking through the Zen.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur

[Bob A (SD)]

Originally Posted by APSmith

...it seems odd that little has yet been mentioned of the two big advantages hoped for with this 7x36: WIDE FOV and EASY VIEW. Can anyone reflect on the "wow factor", if there is one?

APS,

Perhaps my earlier comments as a wide FOV junkie and in comparison to my Swaro 7x42 SLCs didn't clearly address these two issues. So first with regard to the wide FOV....I have not found the edges to be distracting at all and while the 477' 9.1° FOV isn't as wide as either my vintage 7x35 or Russian porros, it is extremely satisfying. I too am one who eschews using bins in a riflescope mode and prefer to allow my eyes to dart around the field of view, so this is a big plus. As for the easy view, anytime you have optics where the image "pops" into focus and that focus is glorious in its clarity and color, you have a winner. If that means a "wow" factor, these have it. They are just so relaxing and enjoyable to use.

In another post I indicated that my heavier, more restrictive FOV, and less close focus capable Swaros are now in a drawer while these ED2s are doing the dancing :) Privately I shared with another member that my uber wide FOV porros are also being challenged for what they do best. Certainly their fields are wider but neither their overall image quality nor edges match the ED2s.

That help any?

[kristoffer]

amazing how different the opinions are about this one. I Hope i get my 36 tomorrow so i can test for my self.

[FrankD]

If it lets you down when it matters most, then it's a deal-breaker. Let's face it, for birders, hunters, naturalist, etc, the best time is often that challenging first light/last light time.

AP,

You know me....I wouldn't BS you about this type of issue. I call it as I see it. The interesting part about the comment I quoted above is I don't see the crescent in that situation either.

I consider myself gifted in that sense. Some things to ponder though.....

1. This reminds me of being similar to the "blackout issue" with the Nikon SE 8x32s. I don't see the blackout issue with those either and I believe that had to do with how the bins are used/the level of eye relief/facial dimensions.

2. I cannot use the Nikon E2 8x30 because of the same issue...facial features, eye relief and IPD adjustment.....without removing the rubber eyecups.

3....and here is an interesting point for discussion. The 8x43 Zen ED Gen 1's have been around for a good 8 months now. The Promaster EDs have been around for about a year. The Hawke Frontier EDs have been around for close to 10 months or better. The Atlas Optics Intrepid EDs have been around for about two months. In all of that time and with all of the several thousand (I am guessing) units that have been sold do you remember seeing anything mentioned about this type of issue with any of these bins except maybe in a passing remark about stray light here and there?

It is funny. You would think it would have popped up sooner if it was that significant.

As for talking about the wide field of view and easy of view....good question. Truth be told I find a bit more "wow factor" with the 8x43s though chalk that up to my preferring larger objective combinations (slightly brighter image and better edge sharpness in this comparison). If I wasn't comparing the 7x36 directly to the 8x43 I have to believe that I would be getting more of a wow factor from it. It does not quite give me the 'wow...wide field" of something like your Nikon E2 if that is what you are after. I believe that is probably because of the level and type of edge "distortion" that is present. Yes, the E2 has edge distortion but the two are not the same.

I certainly cannot find fault with the image it provides. I really have not given it enough of a workout at this point to form a full opinion of it. I have been swamped with reviews/comparisons in the last week and a half....Atlas Optics models, Celestron 80 mm F-ED scope, various eyepieces with it, the Kruger Optical Malheur scope and the little Meopta Meostar 8x32s.

I will spend more intensive time with them over the next day or two and post something this weekend.

[Surveyor]

Originally Posted by Pinewood

Hello Steve,

Even if you not perceive colour fringing, lack of chromatic aberration will provide both higher resolution and better edge contrast. That is sharpness. Remember black and white photography may suffer from CA, but one perceives it as loss of sharpness not colour fringing.
Curiously, if have some colours are brighter when looking through the Zen.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur

Steve C, Pinewood,

I did not mention it in my tech notes but CA was addressed indirectly. If you blow up the left tube image, on the left side you will see a minor amount of CA (I am like Steve C, I do not see it so I never think to mention it) blue on the inside of the lines and red on the outside. I saw even less on the right side of the right image. Of course some of this could have come from some of the other lenses involved, but most of the time I have found it to be mostly attributable to the objective lenses under test.

The unfiltered star tests also indicate the level of CA but unless you do a lot of these, it is very hard to quantify. You can get an idea of the level though by looking at the in-focus image and the intra-focal image, both of which show the main error to be on the blue side. These are at 56x.

Best
Ron

[Steve C]

Originally Posted by Pinewood

Hello Steve,

Even if you not perceive colour fringing, lack of chromatic aberration will provide both higher resolution and better edge contrast. That is sharpness. Remember black and white photography may suffer from CA, but one perceives it as loss of sharpness not colour fringing.
Curiously, if have some colours are brighter when looking through the Zen.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur

Good point. I have no doubt you are correct. I can see it if I look under extreme conditions, but in normal use, it is a non issue for me. I give thanks often for my insensitivity to the issue.

On another point, I agree with Frank. If this was an issue why is it only showing up now? Nothing changed except coatings.

[NDhunter]

Originally Posted by Steve C

Good point. I have no doubt you are correct. I can see it if I look under extreme conditions, but in normal use, it is a non issue for me. I give thanks often for my insensitivity to the issue.

On another point, I agree with Frank. If this was an issue why is it only showing up now? Nothing changed except coatings.

One reason is the 7x36 is the new design, only out for less than a week, and it seems to be the ones that some of us are complaining about. Wider FOV than the others, etc.
Also EdZ over on Cloudy nites, reports with his extensive review on 2 samples of the 8x43 with the glare, cloudy crescent edge, etc. So this has been only widely talked about in the past few weeks.

[falcondude]

After reading Alexis and Ron's reviews, I could not resist and ended up putting myself on the 7x36 backorder list. I don't see the often discussed issue on my 43mm ED1. I probably will not notice it either on this. Having been waiting to have 9x36 if they ever come out. But since I already have 8.5x EL, the small increase of 0.5x does not justify another pair. But the reported large DOF with 7x finally convinced me to hit the confirm button.

[Fireform]

I had the 8x43 ED1 and was not disturbed by stray light in that one. I tested it under similar circumstances, too. If the ED2 version of that bin was built to the same general specs and standards, as I suppose it should be, I don't think I would have a problem with it either.

The 7x36 is a new design with different geometry, and it needs some debugging. Most of the time it delivers a great wow factor and the defects are minor and tolerable, like any very good bin. But it's "personality," as Alexis puts it, is schizophrenic--it has an 80's vintage Tasco lurking inside, waiting to assert itself when least desired.

[falcondude]

it may sound a bit nit-picking. I have seen several reports that confirm 7x36 has about 4-4.3ft close focus. But the zen-ray website indicates the close focus is 5.1ft. The difference is more than a measurement error, I suppose. Initially, I thought they may measure from eyepiece vs from objective ends. but 0.8 ft difference seems to exceed the length of the barrel. My other question is why 36mm has a closer focus than 43mm ED1 I have. It can only go down to around 6 ft.

[Bob A (SD)]

Originally Posted by Fireform

But it's "personality," as Alexis puts it, is schizophrenic--it has an 80's vintage Tasco lurking inside, waiting to assert itself when least desired.

I still believe such statements are overly harsh given the number of folks who aren't experiencing the glare/flare "problem." Actually it would appear that the vast majority are unaffected. Making folks aware that they may experience such an issue is one thing; wholesale indictment of the model as Tasco-like is quite another.

[FrankD]

it has an 80's vintage Tasco lurking inside, waiting to assert itself when least desired.

It is funny Bob but I chose to quote the same statement. The response I was going to post was...

...."Now there is no need to get insulting now...."


:-)

[Alexis Powell]

I'm still trying to decide between returning versus returning for exchange of my Zen-Ray 7x36 ED2. The optics collector in me says "no way!" to giving these up. Optically, they continue to impress (in both an absolute stand-alone sense, and in comparison to my other binos). For what it's worth, as I said in my original post, I love everything about the view they provide, veiling glare crescents excepted, and even with the crescents I still find the view awesome most of the time. Non-optical issues and veiling crescents excluded, I have no reason to favor my alphas over these bins for birding. I've had a chance to test them in a variety of very tricky lighting conditions side by side with some of my alphas, and the Zen-Rays generally do as well as anything I own (veiling crescents excepted). I like the wide true FOV, though it isn't a "wow" for me because most of my bins are fairly wide, and the apparent FOV is about the same as higher power bins with slightly smaller true field. I really enjoy the greater DOF of the 7x. I don't find the edge performance unacceptable or distracting in the way I do with many cheap binos. The fall-off is fairly gradual except very near the edge, and most of the issue is field curvature. Maybe if I didn't still have youngish eyes, which are able to compensate for the curvature to a great extent, I'd perceive the sweet spot as much smaller and the edge poorer.

As good as they are optically, my other issues remain, and they are probably deal breakers. Strangely, the vertical alignment of my unit doesn't seem as far off as it was when I first checked it (traditional crude test, by eye). That's disturbing if it indicates that the alignment is unstable, but maybe it's just that my eyes/brain are learning to quickly compensate. I don't think the prisms are set quite right relative to the housing because besides being offset from one another, the views (through the two barrels) of a horizontal line are slightly canted relative to one another. Mind you, none of this is so bad that most people would notice, but they aren't as good as they need be to ensure eye comfort after hours of use.

Obviously, the alignment issue could be dealt with through replacement with a better unit. As for the focus knob operation, it has definitely become smoother and a bit easier to turn with use. In its current state, it's stiffer (though always fluid) than I prefer, but I could put up with it. It's the cold weather performance that is the serious problem. I reported earlier on my freezer test. Yesterday, I tried just the refrigerator (i.e. above freezing) and was disappointed to find it stiffen to an unacceptable (for me) degree.

I'm still also disappointed with the eye-relief and how it prevents me from fully enjoying the wide FOV and large exit pupil. With respect to the possibility for redesign in a future version, I imagine it might be hard to eliminate the inset of the outer ocular lens relative to the lip of the metal tube that holds the lenses, but it seems to me that the design of the outer metal housing might be able to altered a bit to where the eyecup rubber could lie flush with the tube in which the ocular lens is held, rather than above/behind it. That would gain a critical 2+mm of eye-relief.

--AP

[falcondude]

Originally Posted by Alexis Powell

I'm still also disappointed with the eye-relief and how it prevents me from fully enjoying the wide FOV and large exit pupil. With respect to the possibility for redesign in a future version, I imagine it might be hard to eliminate the inset of the outer ocular lens relative to the lip of the metal tube that holds the lenses, but it seems to me that the design of the outer metal housing might be able to altered a bit to where the eyecup rubber could lie flush with the tube in which the ocular lens is held, rather than above/behind it. That would gain a critical 2+mm of eye-relief.

--AP

strange.... Fireform said the binoculars has too much excessive eye relief in another different post. You think the eye relief is barely enough. Maybe the facial and head shape do come into play and explain why a couple of people have issues with it while most of them don't.

[Alexis Powell]

Originally Posted by falcondude

strange.... Fireform said the binoculars has too much excessive eye relief in another different post. You think the eye relief is barely enough. Maybe the facial and head shape do come into play and explain why a couple of people have issues with it while most of them don't.

I use glasses and need the eyecups to go down as far as possible. I presume Fireform has the opposite problem and finds that they do not extend far enough. As I've explained elsewhere, in my opinion, a well designed eyecup should allow a user to make full use of the ocular's potential by being adjustable from all the way flush with the ocular to all the way out (or ideally, beyond) and everywhere in between. Such an eyecup would meet the needs of _more_ users than most eyecup designs do currently. Most eyecup designs meet the needs of most users. Of course there is still the issue, for those who do not wear glasses, of how wide an eyecup is. That's a problem for which there is no easy design solution except making different interchangeable sizes for a given bino.

--AP

[Fireform]

Guys, I think you are selectively focusing on my criticisms and ignoring the many aspects of these bins I've justly praised. My FLs aren't perfect either. I sent the $1800 EDGs back, too.

The good news is that the flaws appear easily remedied and not inherent to the design of the bin. For the first release of a new model of a $400 binocular, it's an impressive achievement and I will look forward to the next iteration, likely with cash in hand.

[Fireform]

Originally Posted by falcondude

strange.... Fireform said the binoculars has too much excessive eye relief in another different post. You think the eye relief is barely enough. Maybe the facial and head shape do come into play and explain why a couple of people have issues with it while most of them don't.

You're misunderstanding me, falcondude. In my original review I said they had enough ER for me with my bifocals, and they do. The comment about having excessive eye relief was made in the context of looking through them without my bifocals and with the eyecups retracted all the way to try to reduce the glare. I would not normally use them that way, but I was exploring Alexis' observation that the gray crescents went away when he reduced his eye relief. It turns out it didn't work for me--set up that way I went directly from seeing the glare to blackouts because my eyes were too close to the ocular.

[falcondude]

Originally Posted by Fireform

You're misunderstanding me, falcondude. In my original review I said they had enough ER for me with my bifocals, and they do. The comment about having excessive eye relief was made in the context of looking through them without my bifocals and with the eyecups retracted all the way to try to reduce the glare. I would not normally use them that way, but I was exploring Alexis' observation that the gray crescents went away when he reduced his eye relief. It turns out it didn't work for me--set up that way I went directly from seeing the glare to blackouts because my eyes were too close to the ocular.

Thank you for explaining this. I understand this better now. I never had luck looking at binoculars without eyecups up, for any binoculars. It always brings out blackout since I cannot keep the gap constant between eyes and lens. Resting on eyecups helps a lot for my case.

[APSmith]

Bob A (SD),
Your reply is very helpful. The comparisons with the SLC make a big impression. Wow.


FrankD,

Originally Posted by FrankD

1. This reminds me of being similar to the "blackout issue" with the Nikon SE 8x32s. I don't see the blackout issue with those either and I believe that had to do with how the bins are used/the level of eye relief/facial dimensions.

Any chance though that this is a sample variation issue (unlike SE)?

Originally Posted by FrankD

It is funny. You would think it would have popped up sooner if it was that significant.

Yes but this is a 7x36 (different arrangement), right?

Originally Posted by FrankD

I will spend more intensive time with them over the next day or two and post something this weekend.

Looking forward to it.


The mighty EII Frank mentions is finally showing some weaknesses: 1) bridge flex, 2) a slight bit of contamination internally probably due to no seals(?). I've thought for some time that IF I could get a reasonably similar view in a roof (without objectionable faults) for $1K or less, I'd do it. The closest I've gotten so far is the Leica BN 8x32. This ZR 7x36 looks to be the right design; I'm just slightly concerned about the execution thereof. (Glare resistance is high on my list.) The other options I'm considering are the (beloved by Frank) Meopta 8x42, and Leica BR 7x42. Of course, much higher cost than ZR. But hey, I think most of the folks looking at these ZR ED2 are willing to pay double+ what they're selling for to get what they may well offer in performance. The low price just makes them easy to give a try.

Thanks, APS

[Steve C]

It may be stretching things a bit to call the 7x36 a new design. It is the same design as the 8x43. Uses the same prisms. The rest is just downsized to fit the package.

[Surveyor]

Hi All,

I had not been bothered at all by the glare issue but since it is overcast, but still bright here, I took some time trying various conditions to see what would happen.

I think I can finally cause the glare to appear at will, but it may be unique to my sample and/or face conditions, and would like to see if others can reproduce it.

If I look in the extreme bottom of the exit pupils I can see the glare, the lower I go the worse it gets. Since I do not normally look that low in the exit pupil, I had not seen it to now. I have to be low enough that the field stop or exit pupil edge starts to appear in my view.

I think someone else had had mentioned the bottom of the exit pupil.

Going out for awhile to check this out some more.

Best
Ron

[Kevin Purcell]

Originally Posted by Fireform

You're misunderstanding me, falcondude. In my original review I said they had enough ER for me with my bifocals, and they do. The comment about having excessive eye relief was made in the context of looking through them without my bifocals and with the eyecups retracted all the way to try to reduce the glare. I would not normally use them that way, but I was exploring Alexis' observation that the gray crescents went away when he reduced his eye relief. It turns out it didn't work for me--set up that way I went directly from seeing the glare to blackouts because my eyes were too close to the ocular.

Did you try the intermediate stop?