16x and steady views. Sig Zulu6 16x42 (1 Viewer)

[Binastro]

Instrument turbulence is usually because of poor choice of materials.
Also poor colour and the top in sunshine, the bottom in shade.
Sometimes large lenses are white, sometimes black.

My telescopes are blue.

But usually instrument turbulence is at much more than 10x.

It could be that a faulty optic like one tube of my 5x25 VisionKing binocular is so awful optically that the resolution is bad at 5x even though the star image test is good.
I suspect it is just a poorly molded objective element with faulty or no polishing, or possibly striations in the glass, or even a faulty melt.

The 2000mm f/14 Zoomar mirror lens is the worst large lens I have seen regarding instrument turbulence.
It is a weird design with the secondary half way up the tube and a strange material body.
It is never temperature stabilised or steady.
Yet these lenses were used for movie use.
Perhaps mine is particularly bad.

So the 10x30 IS binocular needs to be thoroughly tested to see what the problem is.

Regards.
B.

 

[[email protected]]

I see no instrument turbulence in either my Sig Sauer Zulu 6 10x30 or 16x42. I really don't think 4th_ Point knows what he is talking about, or he had two defective binoculars. I would like to see some pictures through his binoculars of this shimmer. I have used both of my Sig Sauer's under different conditions now, and they have performed superbly. The optics are superior to any of the Canon's I have tried outside of the 10x42 IS-L, especially for CA and contrast, and I have tried almost all of them. Sig Sauer has good glass. In this review, the Zulu 9 is ranked right up there with the SLC in the $1500 class.

26 Best Binoculars For Hunting | Side By Side Field Test - Backwoods Pursuit

Looking for the best binoculars on the market and aren't quite sure which ones to purchase? Maybe you are looking for the best binoculars for hunting or the

backwoodspursuit.com

 

[4th_point]

I'll ask again: are you sure that the degradation you're seeing in the SIG is a more pronounced turbulence effect (which really seems unlikely at the same magnification) rather than a malfunction of the IS system in those conditions? What happens if you switch IS off?

The heat haze, shimmer, or mirage was due to the air and had nothing to do with the stabilization mechanism. I could focus the SIGs at various distances and see the mirage all along the way. This was last summer when it was really hot but there was no mistaking what was observed.

 

[4th_point]

Instrument turbulence is usually because of poor choice of materials.
Also poor colour and the top in sunshine, the bottom in shade.
Sometimes large lenses are white, sometimes black.

My telescopes are blue.

But usually instrument turbulence is at much more than 10x.

It could be that a faulty optic like one tube of my 5x25 VisionKing binocular is so awful optically that the resolution is bad at 5x even though the star image test is good.
I suspect it is just a poorly molded objective element with faulty or no polishing, or possibly striations in the glass, or even a faulty melt.

The 2000mm f/14 Zoomar mirror lens is the worst large lens I have seen regarding instrument turbulence.
It is a weird design with the secondary half way up the tube and a strange material body.
It is never temperature stabilised or steady.
Yet these lenses were used for movie use.
Perhaps mine is particularly bad.

So the 10x30 IS binocular needs to be thoroughly tested to see what the problem is.

Regards.
B.

Interesting, B. Thanks for the comments.

I don't have the SIG binoculars anymore, but I believe that the exit pupils on one of them, maybe both, were not round. I want to say that they were partially round, with a flat portion but I don't think that I took a picture of it. The next time I go to the local sporting goods store I will check.

I know that in years past some people made a big deal about checking for round exit pupils. I haven't heard it mentioned much lately and don't know if it's relevant with this design.

Jason

 

[henry link]

Interesting, B. Thanks for the comments.

I don't have the SIG binoculars anymore, but I believe that the exit pupils on one of them, maybe both, were not round. I want to say that they were partially round, with a flat portion but I don't think that I took a picture of it. The next time I go to the local sporting goods store I will check.

I know that in years past some people made a big deal about checking for round exit pupils. I haven't heard it mentioned much lately and don't know if it's relevant with this design.

Jason

I've been wondered what's up with those sliced lenses at the front of the 16x42. They certainly would produce exit pupils with a flat side if they're the objective lenses. Even they're just optical windows in front of round objectives they could still block light from reaching one edge of objective lens which would have the same effect on the exit pupil shape.

 

[Binastro]

The 16x42 are at best 16x39.

The 12x50 Optolyth are about 12x42 with completely odd shaped exit pupils caused I think by undersize prisms.
Yet owners loved them.

B.

 

[4th_point]

I took these photos of the 16x42 at the store. This version had the grey armor, so not the new UDX version which has beige armor.

Anyway, I made sure that the unit was pointed towards a blank wall, so the flat portion of the exit pupil is a characteristic of the binocular and not some object on the wall.

In the second photo you should be able to see what appears to be a sliver of light.

 

[4th_point]

Here are a few photos from the objective end.

 

[4th_point]

I also took my 15x50 Canon to the store and compared it to the grey 16x42 SIG outside. Not an exhaustive comparison, but long enough to get some impressions.

And for reference, I previously owned one of the 16x42 but sold them shortly before buying the Canon so I didn't own them at the same time. After getting the Canon I definitely felt that they were an improvement over the SIG but I obviously didn't compare side by side until now.

One of the most noticeable things to me was the color. The Canon has a slight yellow cast to my eyes, while the SIG has a strong blue cast. I had never noticed the yellow with the Canon until now. Maybe it was the strong blue in the SIG that made it more apparent.

The blue in the SIG seemed stronger near the edge of the FOV while the Canon seemed uniformly yellow. With objects skylined, the blue seemed even more exaggerated. I remember seeing that in my personal sample of the 16x42 but I don't recall it having that darker blue near the edges like the one at the store.

The Canon also appear sharp towards the edge of the FOV, as I believe Roger Vine noted in his review. This sample of SIG is not sharp near the edge. Neither was my personal sample.

To me, the Canon view is more relaxed, brighter, and appears much larger. Simply due to the larger aperture and 1x less magnification?

I was expecting the SIG stabilization to be better, as that was what I felt was really noteworthy with mine but I didn't feel that it was any better than the Canon today. Maybe I have just gotten better at holding the Canon.

 

[rdnzl]

I spent some time at a bald eagle sanctuary yesterday. The Sig performed marvelously. There were some eagles perched in a tree maybe 500 yards away, and I could easily watch them preening and snipping at each other. Very stabile view. I really appreciate how light they are. I was there for over an hour and my arms never got tired.

 

[henry link]

Thanks for the photos, Jason. They leave no doubt that the clear aperture is clipped on one side, but I'm still not certain whether the glass on one side of the objective lenses has actually been sliced off so they can be positioned closer together or whether there are just straight sided obstructions in front of circular objective lenses. I'd also be curious to know how large the clear aperture actually is. Are you or anybody else with a pair of the 42s familiar with the "flashlight" method of measuring clear aperture?

Henry

 

[rdnzl]

Thanks for the photos, Jason. They leave no doubt that the clear aperture is clipped on one side, but I'm still not certain whether the glass on one side of the objective lenses has actually been sliced off so they can be positioned closer together or whether there are just straight sided obstructions in front of circular objective lenses. I'd also be curious to know how large the clear aperture actually is. Are you or anybody else with a pair of the 42s familiar with the "flashlight" method of measuring clear aperture?

Henry

No. But who cares if its 39, 40, or 41?

Some of you guys are like the pixel peepers on photography forums. What looks good, is good.

 

[4th_point]

Thanks for the photos, Jason. They leave no doubt that the clear aperture is clipped on one side, but I'm still not certain whether the glass on one side of the objective lenses has actually been sliced off so they can be positioned closer together or whether there are just straight sided obstructions in front of circular objective lenses.

Hello Henry,

Does this photo help? The objective lenses sure looked sliced on one side, but the photo was taken at a bit of an angle.

Jason

 

[4th_point]

Are you or anybody else with a pair of the 42s familiar with the "flashlight" method of measuring clear aperture?

Henry

I have never used that method, but am up for trying when I get back to that store. I searched online and found this:

The flashlight Test for Aperture - Illustrated - ATM, Optics and DIY Forum - Cloudy Nights

Jason

 

[4th_point]

I took these photos of the 16x42 at the store...

...In the second photo you should be able to see what appears to be a sliver of light.

View attachment 1515312

Here's another photo taken outside where you can see the flat side of the exit pupil, but with what appears to be a sliver of light inboard of the flat.

Anyone know what that sliver of light might be? A reflection, or the edge of the lens?

 

[[email protected]]

The Canon 10x42 IS-L is actually a 10x37, so it is not uncommon for manufacturers to inflate their aperture size. By the way, 4th_point the thread will give you tips on how to measure EP and determine objective size.

http://www.cloudynights.com/ubbthreads/showthreaded.php/Number/694864

To all Canon 10x42 IS owners! - Binoculars - Cloudy Nights

Page 1 of 2 - To all Canon 10x42 IS owners! - posted in Binoculars: On a German binoculars forum, the owner of a Canon 10x42 IS has recently reported a deviation from official specifications: He measured the size of its exit pupils and found only 3.7mm instead of 4.2mm as specified by Canon. In...

www.cloudynights.com

 

[Hermann]

The Canon 10x42 IS-L is actually a 10x37, so it is not uncommon for manufacturers to inflate their aperture size.

This was true until ~2010. Canon then quietly changed the baffling on the 10x42. In other words: All Canon 10x42s made after ~2010 have a 4.2mm exit pupil.

Dennis, you're out of date.

Hermann

 

[kabsetz]

If one extrapolates the circles of the Zig objective lens, the two objectives would significantly overlap if they were not cut. It seems they must be. However, this way there will be better light throughput and better resolving power than if the lenses were circular with a diameter small enough to fit the body. So it is a compromise but maybe a good one.

 

[henry link]

Hi kimmo,

I agree that the objective lenses have been sliced, but why would they do that rather than just giving the lenses a wider baseline so that there's enough space for them to fit without slicing, like in every other binocular?

I think the answer might lie in the design choice to use exactly the same inline Schmidt-Pechan prism and IS mechanism for both the 30mm and the 42mm models. My guess is that the centers of the 30mm and 42mm objectives have the same baseline of perhaps 36-38mm so that they can both align with the fixed baseline of the prism/IS unit at the back of the unibox housing. Rotating rhomboid prisms behind the S-Ps then bring the eyepiece baseline up to match the range of human IPDs. The result is a very short baseline between the objective centers rather like a reverse Porro.

Why didn't they choose a single shared baseline wide enough for the 42s? My guess is that using the narrow baseline had the advantage of keeping the 30s from being too large and heavy and allowed the 42s to be unusually small and light. And, as you said, lopping off the edge of the objective lens is probably not going to do much optical damage at 16x.

Henry

 

[henry link]

I have never used that method, but am up for trying when I get back to that store. I searched online and found this:

The flashlight Test for Aperture - Illustrated - ATM, Optics and DIY Forum - Cloudy Nights

Jason

That's the one. It's much easier to do than you might think from reading that thread.

Henry