Fujinon FMTR SX(2) (1 Viewer)

[Rg548]

So ... I thought these had a transmission of 95%, and I believe Fujinon do actually quote that.
But I was told on here the other day this is not the case.

Does anyone know what these achieve, the latest MKii version, and will they match the Habichts for light transmission.

I have long been pondering over a nice lowlight porro, and looked at these, even though they are I.F.
It is more for static observations of foxes, badgers, otters etc, so I.F. will not be a major headache.
Or are the Habichts just a better, albeit more expensive, option.

 

[Swedpat]

A FMTR 10x50 had been in my collection since many years if it was not for the eyepiece design.
The eye lenses are huge and eye relief is 20mm but unfortunately the lenses are so much recessed from the eyecup edge that useful ER is only 13mm. At least 5mm ER is wasted(taking in consider that a certain margin needs to be in order to avoid glass to glass contact) and makes it not good for eyeglasses despite it could have been great.
I wish Fujinon could redesign the eyepiece so you could make use of the long ER it actually has.

 

[Conndomat]

A FMTR 10x50 had been in my collection since many years if it was not for the eyepiece design.
The eye lenses are huge and eye relief is 20mm but unfortunately the lenses are so much recessed from the eyecup edge that useful ER is only 13mm. At least 5mm ER is wasted(taking in consider that a certain margin needs to be in order to avoid glass to glass contact) and makes it not good for eyeglasses despite it could have been great.
I wish Fujinon could redesign the eyepiece so you could make use of the long ER it actually has.

Hello,

I am a bit confused.

I used the Fujinon 10x50 for over 10 years. In fact, in terms of suitability for glasses wearers, they were perhaps the most comfortable binoculars I've ever had, and they were even a tad better than the Swarovski EL 8.5x42.

The FMT has at least 20mm. As a farsighted person who wears glasses, there is no doubt about the distance, I need about 16mm. to get a good view.

It was a pleasure to use the binoculars with glasses, you put them on and got the picture without any problems, a really big advantage of the FMT 10x50.

Andreas

P.S. The only glass from the FMT series that I had problems with was the 16x70, here the eye relief is a bit short for people who wear glasses, the 10x50, 10x70 and 7x50 were all excellent.

 

[Swedpat]

Hello,

I am a bit confused.

I used the Fujinon 10x50 for over 10 years. In fact, in terms of suitability for glasses wearers, they were perhaps the most comfortable binoculars I've ever had, and they were even a tad better than the Swarovski EL 8.5x42.

The FMT has at least 20mm. As a farsighted person who wears glasses, there is no doubt about the distance, I need about 16mm. to get a good view.

It was a pleasure to use the binoculars with glasses, you put them on and got the picture without any problems, a really big advantage of the FMT 10x50.

Andreas

P.S. The only glass from the FMT series that I had problems with was the 16x70, here the eye relief is a bit short for people who wear glasses, the 10x50, 10x70 and 7x50 were all excellent.

I based my number of what has been told at Cloudy nights. I think it was Ed Zarenski who measured the useful ER to 13mm. And according to my experience 15-16mm is the shortest useful ER required for me with eyeglasses to get that open evenly illuminated view.
It,s also noticeable at pictures that the lenses are pretty much recessed. Unfortunately I have never got opportunity to try this model, when very few optical dealers have it in stock.

Patric

 

[Conndomat]

I based my number of what has been told at Cloudy nights. I think it was Ed Zarenski who measured the useful ER to 13mm. And according to my experience 15-16mm is the shortest useful ER required for me with eyeglasses to get that open evenly illuminated view.
It,s also noticeable at pictures that the lenses are pretty much recessed. Unfortunately I have never got opportunity to try this model, when very few optical dealers have it in stock.

Patric

Hello Patric,

I can't confirm that, I'm farsighted, so I need a longer eye relief than short-sighted people, I'm very critical of binoculars with too short eye relief, and for me Fujinon 10x50 were among the best I've ever used, and I can't think of anything else to say one where a user reported that the eye relief was too short?!

If in doubt, you should try out the binoculars yourself before relying on individual opinions.

Andreas

Fujinon 10×50 FMT-SX2 – Binoculars Today

"Eye relief (acc. to spec): 20 mm
Usable eye relief (measured from rim of eyecup): 19 mm"

 

[Rg548]

Super.... but any thoughts on the light transmission... the figures mentioned in another thread, were for the original version, not the Mkii.
Are these things 'Habicht' bright ??

 

[Conndomat]

Super.... but any thoughts on the light transmission... the figures mentioned in another thread, were for the original version, not the Mkii.
Are these things 'Habicht' bright ??

FMT-SX-2 | Fujinon | Ferngläser | Beratung | Intercon Spacetec - Alles für die Astronomie

#IndexMetaDescriptionStandard#

www.intercon-spacetec.de

"The new models are a little lighter, a little more compact, and have slightly better transmission. Except for the coatings, the appearance is identical to the old models."

I tested the SX-2 against a Zeiss FL 10x56 and the Zeiss was noticeably brighter even during the day!

Fujinon probably increased the transmission by 2-3%; compared to a Swarovski EL 10x50, it was just as bright.

So no, it still shouldn't reach the transmission values of a Swarovski Habicht.
But the transmission is only one factor of binoculars, if that is the most important point you should go for the Habicht.

Andreas

Edit: There is also a bit of confusion here, as far as I know the SX2 series is only available with the FMT 10x70 and 16x70, and the Fujinon 10x50 only has the name SX. IMO nothing has been changed here, size and weight are identical, at best a slightly improved coating was used, but that shouldn't have an improvement of 10%, at best the binoculars have a transmission of 88-90%.

 

[dries1]

The Fuji 10X50 will show more than the Habicht 10X40 under the night sky. Allbinos has the Fuji 10X50 transmission of 92.9+-3%, Allbinos as of 2010 had the Habicht 10X40 at 90 +- 3% (likely increased in the newer models).

 

[Conndomat]

The Fuji 10X50 will show more than the Habicht 10X40 under the night sky. Allbinos has the Fuji 10X50 transmission of 92.9+-3%, Allbinos as of 2010 had the Habicht 10X40 at 90 +- 3% (likely increased in the newer models).

Sure, a 5 mm. EP shows more than a 4mm. EP even with less transmission.

What always excites me about allbino's measurements is the +- information of 3%, so the FMT could have 90 or 96% transmission?
allbino's is sometimes a useful site but I have no trust at all when it comes to transmission measurements, I think the data from Gijs is far more reliable here.

Andreas

 

[dries1]

So ... I thought these had a transmission of 95%, and I believe Fujinon do actually quote that.
But I was told on here the other day this is not the case.

Does anyone know what these achieve, the latest MKii version, and will they match the Habichts for light transmission.

I have long been pondering over a nice lowlight porro, and looked at these, even though they are I.F.
It is more for static observations of foxes, badgers, otters etc, so I.F. will not be a major headache.
Or are the Habichts just a better, albeit more expensive, option.

Did you have the FL 8X56 at one time?, if not my mistake on that.

 

[henry link]

Fujinon's claims of 95% transmission don't just apply to the latest versions. They go back almost 40 years. The graph below is from a mid 1980s Fujinon brochure.

The Fujinon and Nikon multi-coatings looked virtually identical at that time. Both returned green reflections from every surface and gave the image a mild reddish color bias. I still have Nikon Es from that period and a Fujinon 8x30 FMT-SX from about 2000. My Fujinon FMT-SX apparently continued to use the same coatings from the 80s and its image brightness is virtually identical to the old Es and my Nikon 8x30/10x35 EIIs from about 2003. My Swarovski 8x30 Hacicht from 2016 is brighter and more color neutral than any of my old Nikon/Fujinon binoculars, although strangely enough my 8x32 SE from 1997 comes the closest of the old Nikons to matching the Habicht.

 

[Tringa45]

allbino's is sometimes a useful site but I have no trust at all when it comes to transmission measurements, I think the data from Gijs is far more reliable here.

Quite possible, and although I can't judge the importance of transmission at the extremes of the visible spectrum, I would nevertheless like to see these values in Gijs' tests. His measurements only cover 450-675 nm.

Regards,
John

 

[Rg548]

Did you have the FL 8X56 at one time?, if not my mistake on that.

Yes I did, as my only bino at the time which I generally found too big.
I sold them and bought some smaller binos. I have an Ultra 8x20 and BN 8x32 for the same as the FL's, and these get more use.
I should probably have kept them, but they were an expensive optic for limited use. The size just wasn't worth the performance in the end.
Superb though.
But I am now into more twilight viewing than I have been previously, and I am thinking of a good low light optic, but not the £1100 FL region.
I just can't justify it...
(And my mate has just sorted us another Chamonix snowboard trip)..... somethings gotta give..... Oh and The Long Haired Colonel wants a good holiday next summer..... Binos are slipping down the list a bit !!!!!