Yes, take my word for it. There is a very noticeable difference even in daylight between the 8x42 SLC and 8x56 SLC. The bigger 8x56 SLC has better contrast, it is more transparent, it is more glare resistant, and you can see into shadows better.
-
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.
A Zeiss Conquest HD on steroids. (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter [email protected]
- Start date
I must have bigger biceps than you. Here is my left arm, and my right is even bigger. All you can handle is a wimpy 42 mm! You better get working out. Birders don't want to admit that bigger aperture binoculars are better because they don't want to carry them, and I can fully understand that.
Last edited:
Paultricounty
Well-known member
Lol, I thought you put me on ignore, couldn’t stay away could you? I have that effect on people.
Have you considered the possibility that most birders know from experience , that 42’s and 32’s are optimal for size, weight and image quality for most birding purposes? And most of them also know you your building up the advertising campaign for the up coming sale of the very big and heavy binoculars that you don’t like holding up and carrying 😜.
Paul
The 32's and 42's are optimal for size and weight, but not for image quality. If you want image quality the 56 mm is where it is at jack! What is another 10 oz. when you have biceps like me? I was out birding with the Conquest HD 10x56 this morning, and they will just knock your socks off compared to a wimpy 42 mm. They are just so bright and transparent, it is unbelievable! I had the best view of Great Blue Heron I have ever had. I watched him catch a fish under the water and swallow it whole. It was a way better view than my NL 10x42's. The 56 mm are just sucking in so much more light than a tiny 32 mm or 42 mm.
Last edited:
Dennis,
Some of the things you mention are not related to the aperture difference. Better contrast in daylight is one example. Nor glare resistance or transparence. And I would like to find out what you mean with see better into shadows...
One explanation to what you perceive can be that SLC 8x56 is optically of superior quality to SLC 8x42.
Is there any other user who consider it to be so?
Last edited:
William Lewis
Wishing birdwatching paid the bills.
No its not "much" better. I've tried all the top makes and models back to back which is the only time you'll really notice a difference. Also a lot of those differences come down to personal preference.
As I've said before anything from and e2 up in a porro or a Kowa Genesis/ Zeiss conquest etc in a roof only represent very marginal gains in terms of their actual usefulness as a practical birding tool rather than as a gear head/top trumps choice.
Yes it is. I compared many 32 mm and 42 mm binoculars, and every time the 56 mm had much better contrast. I think it is because the 56 mm has much better glare resistance. When I compared the smaller aperture binoculars to the bigger aperture 56 mm it was as if a film was removed from the FOV and I went to a to another level of contrast, transparency and clarity.
When there are shadows, say under a tree or between houses in darker places, using the 56 mm is almost like you turned a light on or shined a flashlight on the view, similar to its performance in low light. You can actually see more in the shadows than you can with your eyes.
I guarantee you the 56 mm are much better for glare resistance, and that is a big reason I like them. With the 7 mm EP, the glare if it is there never reaches your eyes.
I don't care about any other user, and I don't care if you believe me. I know what I saw and what my eyes perceived. That is why I sold all my 32 mm and 42 mm binoculars and went to 56 mm binoculars. I wouldn't have done it if the smaller binoculars were as good optically because they are of course lighter and more convenient.
No way. The Habicht 8x30 and Nikon SE 8x32 are better than the E2, but yet when I compared these two superb porro's to the SLC 8x56. The SLC just killed them in a side by side test in the daylight. It wasn't a marginal improvement, either. It was very noticeable.
I had all the NL's also, and they are nice for the big FOV, but they have something called glare. Even Holger Merlitz the renowned binocular expert says they have glare. So don't tell me they don't have glare. For the quality of view, nothing has ever wowed me like the SLC 8x56 and Conquest HD 10x56, and they don't have glare like the NL.
The 56 mm is just pulling in so many more photons of light, and the big aperture just cuts down on aberrations so much that the view is at another level. From Holger's review. (Holger saw exactly what I saw in the NL)
"Stray light: The tendency to develop stray-light in some situations remains the only considerable weakness in both binoculars. In difficult light conditions, bright spots are emerging around the edges of the exit pupils, which tend to create partial whiteouts (in most cases a crescent-shaped glare in the lower half of the field) when the eye-pupils accidentally get in contact with them. A careful setting of eye cup positions and a certain discipline in the way and angle at which the instrument is held in front of the eyes go a long way to avoid these whiteouts in the vast majority of situations. Observer's reports vary wildly about the severeness of the glare, ranging from 'irrelevant' to 'irritating'. Fact is that there exist binoculars (including the Zeiss 8x32 SF) with a superior resistance against stray light."
"Who already owns the EL WB would hardly gain from an upgrade to the NL Pure, since both are virtually playing in the same league. The stray light issue which has occasionally been reported to plague the EL WB has not been resolved with its successor, and this is going to remain a matter of dispute whenever the NL Pure's merits are discussed. Nonetheless, there exists only one binocular which could currently challenge its pole position, the Zeiss Victory SF. In comparison, the SF has the advantage of an even wider field, a lower weight and - yes - a superior stray light protection."
Last edited:
Some recent gems:
(February 2023)
(Jan 2023)
(June 2022)
(Mar 2022)
blah blah blah...
(February 2023)
(Jan 2023)
(June 2022)
(Mar 2022)
Don't ever compare them to the Habicht's in the daytime. You might sell those big, heavy 8x56's. 96% transmission can make up for a lot of aperture in the daytime when your eye can't open up far enough to utilize that big exit pupil of the 8x56! I measured my biceps, and they were 24 inches(or was that mm?). Not too bad for my age!
blah blah blah...
Paultricounty
Well-known member
Dennis I’m not sure if you forget things you said in your posts or don’t follow what members post in reply to you posts. You must remember some things because you delete your posts when you realize you get caught in contradiction. I’ve tested these binoculars side by side thoroughly with multiple observers in different lighting conditions. And as my earlier post , in bright daylight nobody sees a difference other than what differences the coatings produce. When the lights get low , that’s when the difference is evident. You have your opinions (if they really are your opinions) and I have the facts. 😝.
It must’ve been cloudy or early evening for you to see a difference from the 42mm.
Paultricounty
Well-known member
Many of us absolutely believe you see what you believe , that probably has more to do with your eyesight (or lack thereof) than the true facts that most of us understand to be the laws of optics. Or you could be in sale mode and your not going to let anybody dissuade your overly optimistic assessment of large objective sizes. At least until after the sale. 🤓.
That was because I never really compared them closely. Once I did, I really started seeing what Henry Link saw in his thread on the Zeiss 8x56 FL. I realize now they truly are better. Here is another thread on how much better larger objectives are. It is all about the increase in focal length. We will get you educated pretty soon, grasshopper. Henry Link quoted.
"Yes, I agree that (all things being equal) 42mm binoculars have lower aberrations in daylight than 30/32 binoculars. That's pretty obvious to me when comparing the 8x42 FL to the 8x32 FL. In addition, your 42mm SLC has unusually low aberrations among 42mm binos.
8x56mm (once again, all things being equal) takes the difference up another notch or two in daylight. I know you already know this, but for others who may not, I should add that the 8x56mm FL and (judging from star test photos I've seen) the 8x56mm SLC have very high aberrations at full aperture, worse than a typical 42mm or 32mm binocular because the designers know they can get by with using unusually short focal length objectives in large aperture/large exit pupil binoculars to reduce weight and size.
The low focal ratios don't do much if any damage to the perceived image quality in low light, where eyesight is extremely poor. In daylight, where the eye reaches its best acuity, the effective focal ratio becomes high enough to produce nicely corrected aberrations compared to small binoculars.
For that reason 10x56 and 10x50 binoculars don't enjoy quite the same freedom from aberrations in daylight that 8x56s and 7/8x50s do, and 12x50s and 15x56s have no aberration advantage at all (more likely a disadvantage) compared to small binoculars with the same exit pupil size (once again, all things being equal)."
Daytime benefit of large objectives?
Tried handholding a pair of 25x100 once, not an easy hold. My binocular purchases seem to be shrinking with time... I’ll be down to near unity opera glasses if I don’t stop soon! Peter My normal binocular used to be a 20x80. I think it weighed about 80 oz., but I had no trouble hand holding it...
www.birdforum.net
World's Best 8X42: The Zeiss 8X56FL
The image provided by the best current binoculars looks so good that it’s easy to fall into the assumption that binoculars are now so close to optical perfection that further improvement wouldn’t accomplish anything as it would be invisible to the eye. Every now and then I disabuse myself of...
www.birdforum.net
Last edited:
Paultricounty
Well-known member
OUCH! That had to hurt 😳. I guess he didn’t remember to delete those before he went on the 56 rant.
Last edited:
All that was because I have never really compared a smaller aperture binocular to a larger aperture binocular carefully. This time I carefully compared them and I kept wanting to come back to the 8x56. It seemed like something was missing with the smaller apertures. I now realize a really large binocular is better. Henry Link was right all the time, and many others agreed. Some posts from the article and the thread.
"A basic and immutable law of optics is that, all other things being equal, (magnification, quality, engineering, etc.) bigger objective lenses will give you a brighter, more satisfying view than smaller lenses. They will yield more detail and better color rendition than you can possibly obtain from smaller objectives. Big objective lenses allow you to see more detail in deep shadows."
"More typical comments were something like:“ Wow. I’ll bet those are really bright.” Well, yes they are very bright, but the real point -- one that most people miss -- is that they are better."
" So why bother schlepping these monsters around? Because it isn’t only about brightness. It’s about the quality of the image, and Swarovski’s 8x56 SLC offers perhaps the best image that I have seen in any binocular. Despite their considerable weight, I found them almost impossible to put down."
"This reviewer's suffering was lost in the sheer joy of the magnificent image produced by these binoculars. The Swarovski 8x56 SLCs will not be anybody’s choice for his or her only birding binocular. But if you love shorebirds, waterfowl, hawks, or owls, you will really want to find a way to get a pair of these because they will add immeasurably to your birding enjoyment."
"There are a number of reasons why a larger objective binocular might deliver a superior image, but not higher effective resolution, brighter shadows and color detail. As I mentioned in another thread, in bright conditions the iris of the eye progressively blocks the outside of the exit pupil and therefore the corresponding area of the objective. An 8x58 is an 8x16 in bright conditions, as far as your retinal is concerned. The effective resolution will be determined by just 16mm of the objective. Brightness in shadows and color detail by the transmission profile. Of course, shadows can be large enough and deep enough for the eye to need a larger exit pupil. I have known Henry chooses to use a larger exit pupil binocular (8×56?). If a remember correctly, it was not because it was a good 8x56, but because it was an excellent 8x40 and smaller when stopped down by the eye. You can check this out for yourself by taking a large objective binocular and masking the objectives to different diameters. Just a cautionary note. I've found that stopping down an objective will often improve contrast and perceived sharpness but cutting out stray light. I've seen this at all price points." (Typo's Post)
"I would put things a little differently now, but the basic points about large exit pupil binoculars having lower effective aberrations when combined with a small eye pupil in daylight would remain the same. I still use the big FL as my main birding binocular because no smaller binocular (8x30-42) I've tried since equals its image quality in daylight. I would add that not every large exit pupil binocular lives up to its low aberration potential, something I discovered when I tried to replace the 8x56 FL with an 8x54 HT." (Henry's Post)
"I haven't read Henry's link, but a larger objective means a longer focal length objective. An 8x56mm objectives may have focal lengths of 200mm or a bit more. If stopped to 20mm, this is f/10 or f/11. Of course, it performs better, although much heavier than a smaller binocular assuming reasonable quality." (Binastro's Post)
"Not everyone will notice the difference, but I find the improvement in image quality and viewing comfort with the 8x56 FL to be more than slight compared to any 42mm or especially to any 30-32mm binocular known to me. With the right harness, I'm good to go for any distance. For my priorities the only two current binoculars that might be worth a look as possible replacements are the Swarovski 8x56 SLC and one smaller binocular, the Leica 8x42 Noctivid, which from what I've heard could have the unusually low aberrations I'm looking for." (Henry's Post)
"To my eyes during the day, none of my 10X42s match the view through the Ultravid HD+ 10X50, that includes the EDG 10x42."(Dries Post)
"Thanks. This is coming together more clearly for me now. Years ago I read an essay "Bird-worthy binoculars" on Better View Desired that clearly explained ("explained"?) how larger objectives deliver better resolution by minimizing diffraction effects, and better color detail and brighter shadows by gathering more light energy, and therefore perform better at long distances or in shadow areas, even in daylight. (Pupil size wasn't mentioned in this context, only for dim light.) It all sounded authoritative and experience-based ("larger objectives will pull in detail that simply is not there in smaller glasses" etc.) and of course I imagined one would have to be some sort of expert to publish such an essay. I was just offering this wisdom myself to black crow, who had asked about objective size. I do resent being deceived, and conned into deceiving others." (Tenex's Post)
"It seems pretty obvious to me why more birders don't use 42 oz. binoculars. I've never recommended the 8x56 FL to anyone else, but for myself I'll only give it up when I find a smaller binocular that equals it or any binocular that surpasses it optically. Could be that after eleven years, I'm so habituated to a very low aberration image that I immediately notice when I don't see it." (Henry's Post)
Victory HT 8x42 Post showing the difference in resolution between a Habicht 8x30 and Zeiss FL 8x56)
"my 8x52 and 8x56 only get used around the yard/ or off the breakwater pier/ lake bluffs at the lake front [Lake Michigan].........the 30/32 or 40/44 are for purposeful hiking/glassing....the 8/10x25 or monocular are for walking the dog....but the best picture seems to come through the larger objective, from a decent quality bin."( Ganut's Post)
Daytime benefit of large objectives?
Tried handholding a pair of 25x100 once, not an easy hold. My binocular purchases seem to be shrinking with time... I’ll be down to near unity opera glasses if I don’t stop soon! Peter My normal binocular used to be a 20x80. I think it weighed about 80 oz., but I had no trouble hand holding it...
www.birdforum.net
World's Best 8X42: The Zeiss 8X56FL
The image provided by the best current binoculars looks so good that it’s easy to fall into the assumption that binoculars are now so close to optical perfection that further improvement wouldn’t accomplish anything as it would be invisible to the eye. Every now and then I disabuse myself of...
www.birdforum.net
Size Matters: The Case for Really Big Binoculars
Size Matters: A Case for Really Big Binoculars Contrary to what some of us would like to believe size really does matter. Flight, for example, imposes strict limits on size. Ostriches...
Last edited:
One way to understand the difference between looking through different 8x binoculars is to watch an object at 100m. In all cases it then corresponds to 12,5m with naked eyes.
Then:
8x32 corresponds to looking through a 4mm hole.
8x42 corresponds to looking through a 5,25mm hole
8x56 corresponds to looking through a 7mm hole.
In practise the image will be slightly brighter and with less(or no) glares with naked eye because there are no extra glass matter for the light to pass through.
Will you get better contrast and clarity by looking through a 7mm hole than 5,25mm hole when your eyepupil is 3mm? No.
If you see better through larger aperture 8x bino it completely depends on the quality of the optics, or if the eyepiece has significantly higher transmission, and not on the larger aperture. Relative brightness is based on exit pupil independent of size of the aperture or magnification. If light transmission is the same, brightness will be proportional to the area of the exit pupil.
Last edited:
That really has nothing to with the better performance of a bigger aperture binocular. The main difference comes from the fact that when you use an 8x56, you are stopping down the binocular and effectively changing the focal ratio. By making focal ratio longer, you are significantly reducing the aberrations. That is why an 8x56 binocular like the Zeiss FL has a cleaner, more transparent image in the daytime than an 8x42 FL. Henry Link explains it in detail here.
"At 56mm: Star test is similar to the 8x42. Perhaps the 8x56 has a little more chromatic and spherical aberration. I suspect the 56mm objective is faster than the 42mm, maybe f/3.2-3,4 vs f/3.5-3.7. There is plenty of CA in both, but in fact much less than a conventional binocular. There is also lots of SA, maybe 1.5 waves undercorrection in the 8x42, 1.5-2 waves in the 8x56. Very bad for a telescope, but typical for binoculars. Resolution is about 2.5 arc sec for the 8x56 using the USAF 1951 test pattern. Very good for a binocular, but actually no better than when it’s stopped down to 50mm. The 64x image looks a little cleaner and sharper when the objective is stopped down to 50mm because the aberrations are lower.
Stopped down to 42mm: Things get interesting. Now, the 8x56 is clearly superior to the 8x42. Measured resolution is excellent for both, about 2.9 arc sec, but the 64x image looks better in the 8x56. It’s cleaner, with higher contrast and visibly less chromatic aberration. The star test shows improved correction for spherical aberration in the 8x56 to probably better than 1 wave. The improvements are explained by the change in focal ratio. The stopped down 8x56 is now operating at around f/4.5 instead of below f/3.5
Stopped down to 32mm: Both stopped down binoculars have about 3.9 arc sec resolution, and both show improvements in the 64x image quality. The 8x56 is better. Its 64x image now looks quite respectably clean and contrasty with very little chromatic aberration. Spherical aberration in the 8x56 improves to perhaps 1/2 wave. Now, its optics are operating at about f/5.8. The stopped down 8x42 is operating at about f/4.8.
Stopped down to 24mm: Now the 8x56 becomes quite a good f/7.5 telescope, almost a true APO with about 1/4 wave SA.
The point of all this is to show that the 8x56 really has no better (perhaps slightly worse) optics than the 8x42 when they are compared at full aperture, but when the 8x56 is stopped down to 42mm and below it shows significantly lower aberrations than the 8x42 (at the same aperture) simply because the 8x56 focal length is longer. If the 8x42 had the same focal length, it would certainly perform just as well.
Now, does any of this matter when you simply look through the binoculars at 8x? To my delight, the answer is yes. In daylight, he 8x56 FL produces the sharpest, cleanest and most transparent image I’ve yet seen in a binocular. It’s very obvious comparing it to other binoculars tripod mounted, but even hand holding I’m always aware that the image is unusually fine by binocular standards. I wouldn’t have expected any binocular to make the 8x42FL, Nikon 7x50 Prostar and 8x32SE look mushy and dull in sunlight, but the 8x56 FL does it. Besides the reduced longitudinal CA and SA seen in star testing, there is also a reduction in lateral color that is quite obvious in daylight. Lateral color is probably almost always what people are seeing when they complain about “color fringing” in binoculars. There is also a modest but welcome increase in the size of the “sweet spot” compared to the 8x42FL. Less lateral color and a bigger sweet spot are two more benefits that come from the higher objective focal ratio, because the less steep light cone allows the eyepiece to perform better off-axis. But, alas, edge of the field astigmatism is still this binocular’s weakest performance characteristic, just like the 8x42FL. The 7mm exit pupil also has a benefit in daylight. There is virtually complete freedom from “flare”. When bright reflections from the edge of the objective reach the eye they are out at the edge of a 7mm circle of light, so the flare tends to fall invisibly on the iris rather than entering the eye."
CharleyBird
Well-known member
Dennis I agree wholeheartedly that size matters in that most people prefer to carry smaller lighter 8x42;
also 8x32, 7x42 and 10x42.
Here's our 2020 poll, with interesting comments (your post #19 was wrong about 8x32 being most popular, though things change)
www.birdforum.net
also 8x32, 7x42 and 10x42.
Here's our 2020 poll, with interesting comments (your post #19 was wrong about 8x32 being most popular, though things change)
Binoculars Poll - What format do you prefer ( 8x32, 10x50 etc. )
Maybe it is an aging birder thing. When younger I liked the big macho binoculars, as I get older I prefer smaller optics. As we age we get bored carrying hugh chunks of glass and deer carcass while kicking wolves and grizzly bears; and face it kicking one grizzly is enough for most. edj
www.birdforum.net
Dennis,
I get what Henry Link explains. And I know improvements can be done by stopping down the aperture. The question is how much this matters in reality and in what situations. I have had both 7x50 and 8x56 binoculars. The comfortability with large exit pupil is a fact. But I did not react about 7x50 and 8x56 providing a better image than smaller glasses. And they are bigger and heavier while having narrower FOV.
I am personally pretty insensitive to CA. At least it's usually a non-issue for me at normal binocular magnifications.
I cannot oppose about your experience. If you find 8x56 better than 8x42 even in full daylight, and worth to carry around a heavier and bulkier binocular with smaller FOV, enjoy it!
Many other do not, and find 4-5mm exit pupil comfortable enough when the eye pupil still is smaller than the exit pupil.
And especially when it comes to image sharpness, I have not noticed any advantage of larger aperture, with same magnification in daylight.
I get what Henry Link explains. And I know improvements can be done by stopping down the aperture. The question is how much this matters in reality and in what situations. I have had both 7x50 and 8x56 binoculars. The comfortability with large exit pupil is a fact. But I did not react about 7x50 and 8x56 providing a better image than smaller glasses. And they are bigger and heavier while having narrower FOV.
I am personally pretty insensitive to CA. At least it's usually a non-issue for me at normal binocular magnifications.
I cannot oppose about your experience. If you find 8x56 better than 8x42 even in full daylight, and worth to carry around a heavier and bulkier binocular with smaller FOV, enjoy it!
Many other do not, and find 4-5mm exit pupil comfortable enough when the eye pupil still is smaller than the exit pupil.
And especially when it comes to image sharpness, I have not noticed any advantage of larger aperture, with same magnification in daylight.
William Lewis
Wishing birdwatching paid the bills.
Just as an note, the longer form factor of the new generation of high end '32 roofs e.g n.l and s.f would play the same trick as a '56 stopped down, i.e a higher f ratio leading to less aberations - particularly c.a than the smaller more compact models.
A longer/higher f ratio 7x42 with it's 6mm exit pupil would be functionally very very similar to a '56 but smaller and lighter. Will one be built- I doubt it, there's always the old dialyt though.
Will
A longer/higher f ratio 7x42 with it's 6mm exit pupil would be functionally very very similar to a '56 but smaller and lighter. Will one be built- I doubt it, there's always the old dialyt though.
Will
Elpha8888
Well-known member
I have always wanted the 10x56 FL, now that's a Binocular, wonder how it stacks up with Conquest. I agree tho, aperture is where it's at, I don't mind lugging a 56mm around eitherI tried a bunch of different aperture binoculars a while back, and I came to the conclusion that the bigger the aperture, the better quality view you are going to get. So for the binoculars I don't use for hiking, I decided I liked an 8x56 and 10x56 the best. I bought an SLC 8x56, and optically it is one of the best binoculars I have ever used.
It doesn't have the huge FOV of the NL or SF, but it has better contrast, you can see into the shadows better, there are less optical aberrations because you are just using the sweet spot of the larger objective lens, it has much easier eye placement with the bigger EP and way fewer blackouts because of this, and it handles glare much better because with the bigger exit pupil because the glare never reaches your eyes which for me anymore is a priority. Even with the optical advancements of the NL and SF, they can't overcome the laws of physics and optics that stipulate a larger aperture is going to perform better than a smaller aperture.
Since I liked the SLC 8x56 so much I considered buying an SLC 10x56, but they are $2500 and not discounted too much, so accidentally I came upon a LNIB Zeiss Conquest HD 10x56 on eBay for $800 which is a great deal considering they retail for $1800. So I bought it, and frankly I wasn't expecting it too even compare with the SLC, but it surprised me how good it is. It is like a Zeiss Conquest HD 10x42 on steroids.
Everybody knows how good a Zeiss Conquest HD is, but the the 10x56 takes it to another level. It is shockingly bright, sharp and the contrast will knock your socks off. I almost think it is sharper on-axis than the SLC, although the SLC does have slightly sharper edges. Some reviewers have said the SLC has better CA control, but I think the Conquest HD is every bit as good at controlling CA.
It has an excellent smooth focuser, it is well-balanced and it is BRIGHT. The amazing thing about these big aperture binoculars is how they handle glare. You don't see ANY glare even near the sun. They are incredible the way they handle glare. These are not binoculars for the birder who does a lot of hiking, but they are more for static birding or when you walk a short distance to a stand or blind. You could carry them with a harness if you wanted to, and they wouldn't be too uncomfortable.
I had the Swarovski NL 10x42, and it has huge very good view and I paid about $2500 for mine discounted. The Zeiss Conquest HD 10x56 costs me $800, and it is bigger and heavier than the NL 10x42, but other than FOV and edge sharpness the Zeiss Conquest HD 8x56 beats the NL 10 x42 in ever other optical category including contrast, fewer optical aberrations, way better glare control, easier eye placement with fewer blackouts, it sees into shadows better, it has a more transparent and cleaner image, and it performs much better in low light.
I will say one thing once you get used to the view through these big apertures it is hard to go back to even a 42 mm.
" A basic and immutable law of optics is that, all other things being equal, (magnification, quality, engineering, etc.) bigger objective lenses will give you a brighter, more satisfying view than smaller lenses. They will yield more detail and better color rendition than you can possibly obtain from smaller objectives. Big objective lenses allow you to see more detail in deep shadows."
Size Matters: The Case for Really Big Binoculars
Size Matters: A Case for Really Big Binoculars Contrary to what some of us would like to believe size really does matter. Flight, for example, imposes strict limits on size. Ostriches...www.audubon.org
World's Best 8X42: The Zeiss 8X56FL
The image provided by the best current binoculars looks so good that it’s easy to fall into the assumption that binoculars are now so close to optical perfection that further improvement wouldn’t accomplish anything as it would be invisible to the eye. Every now and then I disabuse myself of...
View attachment 1534197
