Glare Monsters! (1 Viewer)

[John A Roberts]

I don't know, these reviews seem to indicate they work pretty good on binoculars.

Four Stars
By Ben Howard in the United States on October 22, 2018 Work great on my binoculars.

Four Stars
By Len in the United States on August 4, 2014 I bought these for my 8x42 binoculars, and they do exactly what they are supposed to do.

Works just as advertised
By Gonz in the United States on July 20, 2017, Works just as advertised, can't tell when they are on when looking through the binoculars and I tried it with friends telling me they don't see the reflection of me looking at them. They are curved, so you won't be able to set your binoculars standing up with them on if that's how you store them, but I lay them flat now, also the clips are not really strong, and they fall off if you hit something or rub against something, but I glued them to my binoculars with soft silicone and that solved my problem. I mainly use it to check if there are people in a fishing spot I'm going to and to see if the people there are packing up or will be there for long, I got saltwater on them and just rinsed it and doesn't seem to hurt them.

. . . You seem keen to make my point:

If you read through the reviews on Amazon, many seem to positively comment on the anti-glint function,
though it's unclear as to whether in-image glare is also being addressed.
While others are just totally unclear as to what in particular is being rated - as with some of Dennis' examples.
. . .

🤔
John

 

[ReinierB]

What are your oberservations? Do NL's have more glare than EL's? All objective sizes? And comparing NL, EL with SLC 42?

 

[[email protected]]

What are your oberservations? Do NL's have more glare than EL's? All objective sizes? And comparing NL, EL with SLC 42?

I have had all those in different objective sizes. I find the NL's in general have the most glare followed by the EL followed by the SLC. Usually a bigger objective will reduce glare because the exit pupil is bigger, but I found the NL 8x42 to have more glare than the NL 8x32, 10x42 and 12x42.

After Swarovski came out with the NL 8x42 they knew they had a glare problem related to the huge FOV so when they came out with the NL 8x32 they reduced the FOV to control the glare. In most binoculars, an 8x32 has a larger FOV than an 8x42. For example, the EL 8x32 has a larger FOV than the EL 8.5x42, but not so in the NL.

That is why the NL has six eye cup length adjustments, which is more than any other binocular because Swarovski knew the glare was very sensitive to eye cup position.

If you want a glare free binocular, try the SLC 8x56 or FL 8x56. The glare passes the field stop and never reaches your eyes because of the big 7 mm exit pupil.

 

[tenex]

After Swarovski came out with the NL 8x42 they knew they had a glare problem related to the huge FOV so when they came out with the NL 8x32 they reduced the FOV to control the glare.

According to whom?

If you want a glare free binocular, try the SLC 8x56 or FL 8x56. The glare passes the field stop and never reaches your eyes because of the big 7 mm exit pupil.

But NL 8x42 has glare despite a 5.25mm EP which is still vastly larger than the eye's daytime pupil, so according to your logic, this resistance of SLC/FL56 must instead be due to their more limited FOV? You're confusing me.

 

[[email protected]]

According to whom?

But NL 8x42 has glare despite a 6mm EP which is still vastly larger than the eye's daytime pupil, so according to your logic, this resistance of SLC/FL56 must instead be due to their more limited FOV? You're confusing me.

According to whom?
That was suggested by Binomania in their review of the NL, and I agree with it. It is very odd that the NL 8x32 which followed the NL 8x42 has a smaller FOV. Almost always the smaller aperture of the same model has a larger FOV like EL 8x32 and EL 8.5x42.

"I believe that this glare effect may depend on the enormous field of view provided and on some "distraction" during the design phase, which - in my very personal opinion - subsequently led to limiting the field of view in the NL PURE 8×32 model. Many enthusiasts were expecting, in fact, amazing performances in regard to the wide angle of the 32 mm which, in practice in the 8x version is inferior to that provided, for example, by the Zeiss Victory SF 8×32

I think the presence of the glare effect in these binoculars is also the cause of a real field of view of the NL PURE 8×32 version that is much lower than what enthusiasts might have predicted, compared to that framed by the 8×42. On the other hand, even with this model, some enthusiasts noticed a bit of a "glare effect" but as you may have understood, I did not have the pleasure of testing it."

L'effetto abbagliamento nello Swarovski NL PURE? Ecco come risolverlo -

Dopo mesi dal test sul campo dello Swarovski NL PURE ho avuto il piacere, grazie alla disponibilità di un lettore di Binomania, di verificare la presenza dell'abbagliamento. E' possibile risolvere il problema molto facilmente, ma perché in Austria non ci hanno ancora pensato?

www.binomania.it

"But NL 8x42 has glare despite a 6mm EP which is still vastly larger than the eye's daytime pupil, so according to your logic, this resistance of SLC/FL56 must instead be due to their more limited FOV? You're confusing me."

The NL 8x42 has a 5.25mm EP, which is not big enough for glare to totally bypass the field stop of the binocular even in daytime, like the huge 7 mm EP of an 8x56. I also feel the 8x56 SLC/FL are more glare resistant due to their smaller FOV. The super WA eyepieces required to get the huge FOV of the NL's creates glare problems. Both the EL and SLC, which had smaller FOV's than the NL, had less glare.

 

[tenex]

That was suggested by Binomania in their review of the NL, and I agree with it

You agree with someone's personal speculation as to what Swarovski may have done, and restate it as a fact?

The NL 8x42 has a 5.25mm EP, which is not big enough for glare to totally bypass the field stop of the binocular even in daytime

According to what optical theory? (How big would its EP need to be? What about other wide-field bins?) Or are you merely guessing, and again, stating your guess as a fact?

 

[[email protected]]

You agree with someone's personal speculation as to what Swarovski may have done, and restate it as a fact?
It is a very logical deduction why Swarovski designed the NL 8x32 with a smaller FOV than the NL 8x42. Their EL 8x32 has a bigger FOV than their EL 8.5x42, so everybody was expecting the NL 8x32 to have a bigger FOV than the NL 8x42 but surprise, surprise it was smaller and the NL 8x32 has less glare than the NL 8x42.

The Zeiss SF 8x32 has a larger FOV than the SF 8x42 because the SF 8x42 didn't have any glare problems to speak of like the NL 8x42. Why do you think the NL has 6 click stops on the eye cups? Could it be that you need a more precise eye cup adjustment to avoid glare. Sometimes you have to do a little logical deduction and thinking on your own.

According to what optical theory? (How big would its EP need to be? What about other wide-field bins?) Or are you merely guessing, and again, stating your guess as a fact?

You don't need optical theory. It is easily seen by observation and comparison. Henry saw it when he compared the FL 8x42 to the FL 8x56. The FL 8x42 has some glare and the FL 8x56 does not. I have compared the SLC 8x42 to the SLC 8x56. The SLC 8x42 has some glare and the SLC 8x56 does not. The only difference between the two binoculars is aperture, so guess what? The difference in the glare has to be aperture.

What you need to do is prove it to yourself, like I have. Compare an SLC 8x42 to a SLC 8x56 or an FL 8x42 to a FL 8x56 or better yet compare an NL 8x42 to a SLC 8x56 and see which one has the most glare.

 

[CharleyBird]

Ask Santa for these Dennis, should be right up your street.

 

[[email protected]]

View attachment 1540754Ask Santa for these Dennis, should be right up your street.

No, I don't care for the tunnel like 279 foot FOV or the 52 oz. weight. I am sure the transmission is nowhere near the 93% of the SLC 8x56 nor are the quality of the optics.

 

[CharleyBird]

But Dennis, didn't you tell us that the day of the Alpha binocular is over, you simply don't need the best quality. And recently you say weight is not important to you as you don't carry them far.
63mm objectives Dennis, can you imagine the brightness, the lack of glare

 

[tenex]

The SLC 8x42 has some glare and the SLC 8x56 does not. The only difference between the two binoculars is aperture, so guess what? The difference in the glare has to be aperture.

This is absurdly simplistic; SLC 56 (introduced 4 years later) is a substantially different optical design from SLC 42. And what's your source for "SLC 8x42 has some glare" anyway? The only such complaint I recall is Tobias Mennle's, and he was reviewing the newer (2014) model that has greatly simplified internal construction with less baffling and blackening, which is obviously relevant. Presumably that's the one you once had too? (My earlier SLC HD 10x42 has no glare problem, and several members here have the 8x42... have you asked them?)

The Zeiss SF 8x32 has a larger FOV than the SF 8x42 because the SF 8x42 didn't have any glare problems to speak of like the NL 8x42.

But why didn't it? Because it has a larger EP? No, it doesn't. Because it has less FOV? No, it has more. And it still doesn't have a glare problem even with more FOV. So the story that NL 8x42 has glare because of its wide FOV (and they didn't know or expect that, but fixed it in the 32?) just falls right apart. Why do you just keep ignoring other obvious causes of glare, in a thread you meant to devote to the subject? (To say that there have been better ones is a gross understatement.)

 

[[email protected]]

But Dennis, didn't you tell us that the day of the Alpha binocular is over, you simply don't need the best quality. And recently you say weight is not important to you as you don't carry them far.
63mm objectives Dennis, can you imagine the brightness, the lack of glare

How do you figure the Bresser 9x63 would be brighter or have less glare than the SLC 8x56. They both have the same Exit Pupil of 7mm, and the SLC has higher transmission.

I don't necessarily have to have an alpha, but the SLC 8x56 seems to be the only 8x56 that gives me a central focuser with sharp edges and a fairly large FOV. The only other binocular that comes close is the FL 8x56, and it has softer edges and more distortion.

My main birding binocular is the SFL 8x40 because I preferred it over the NL 8x32. The SFL is brighter in low light with a bigger aperture, it has way less glare, much easier eye placement, a smoother faster focuser, truer more accurate colors, and it is 1/2 the price.

 

[[email protected]]

This is absurdly simplistic; SLC 56 (introduced 4 years later) is a substantially different optical design from SLC 42. And what's your source for "SLC 8x42 has some glare" anyway? The only such complaint I recall is Tobias Mennle's, and he was reviewing the newer (2014) model that has greatly simplified internal construction with less baffling and blackening, which is obviously relevant. Presumably that's the one you once had too? (My earlier SLC HD 10x42 has no glare problem, and several members here have the 8x42... have you asked them?)

But why didn't it? Because it has a larger EP? No, it doesn't. Because it has less FOV? No, it has more. And it still doesn't have a glare problem even with more FOV. So the story that NL 8x42 has glare because of its wide FOV (and they didn't know or expect that, but fixed it in the 32?) just falls right apart. Why do you just keep ignoring other obvious causes of glare, in a thread you meant to devote to the subject? (To say that there have been better ones is a gross understatement.)

My SLC 8x42 which was a recent one definitely had more glare than my SLC 8x56 which is also the latest model. The Zeiss SF's have less glare in general than the NL's probably because of their design, and they are better baffled and blackened and have less internal reflections. It was a common complaint on the EL 8x32 that they weren't baffled well, and the thought was Swarovski doesn't use a lot of baffling to improve ease of eye placement.

It seems that Zeiss can build a SWA binocular without glare, but Swarovski can't. It is obvious from the difference in glare resistance between the NL and SF, with either SF being much more glare resistant than the NL.

The Zeiss SF did have a problem with reflections behind the eyepiece diaphragm, but Zeiss admitted it and corrected it, and now they are almost perfect for glare resistance. Look at the difference in the internal reflections between the NL 10x42 (1st Pictures) and the SF 10x42 (2nd Pictures). The last two pictures are of a Zeiss SF 8x42, which have almost perfect exit pupils with no reflections. If you want a glare resistant binocular, get an SF or SFL. (From Allbinos)

 

[henry link]

The Allbino's photos above are good examples of why their images of internal reflections are mostly useless for predicting glare issues. The problem is that the exit pupils are so bleached out from overexposure that the problematic internal reflections originating in the area of the objective cells directly adjacent to the objective lenses tend to also bleach out and disappear into the general glare of the exit pupil. For years Allbinos has misdirected our attention to harmless "false pupils" and other reflections well away from the exit pupil while ignoring the genuine glare sources.

None of the six photos, including 10x42 NL photos, show any signs of a glare producing reflection, even though at least one of them (the 10x42 NL) actually has a very bright ring of not fully baffled reflection lost at the edge of the overexposed exit pupil. That reflection can be photographed easily enough (see photo below) by pointing the binocular into a dark area rather than a bright one with an unobstructed sun positioned anywhere from 10-60º above the binocular's line of sight so that bright sunlight can reach far enough into the binocular to reflect off the not fully baffled lens cells of the objective group and back to the eye or camera lens.

I should add that this glare source can be fully baffled for any observer by bringing the eye'e pupil close enough to the eyepiece; a simple solution available to all who can adjust the eyecup length to bring their eye's pupil to a position just behind the point where kidney beaning begins. Since I made that adjustment three years ago I have had no significant glare problems with my 8x42 NL.

 

[[email protected]]

At this point in the thread, let's summarize what to look for in a binocular to avoid glare and list some of the binoculars members have found to be glare resistant and glare prone. We will add to this list as more glare resistant and glare prone binoculars are noted. Remember, even though a binocular is on the Glare Resistant or Glare Prone list does not mean it will be 100% glare resistant or glare prone for you. The Allbinos website can also be helpful in determining if a binocular handles glare well because they test for I/R (Internal Reflection) and a higher number means less reflections, which will probably mean the binocular will have less glare than one with a lower number.

Binoculars rankings - AllBinos.com​

The best binocular tests on the net. The comprehensive database of binoculars with their parameters and users opinions. Interesting articles and comparisons.

www.allbinos.com

Glare Resistant Binoculars

1) Most Zeiss FL's, especially the 8x56 and 10x56
2) Most Swarovski SLC's, especially the 8x56 and 10x56
3) Most 8x56's (Big EP)
4) Most Leica's (Well Baffled)
5) Most Zeiss SF's 42 mm, especially the 10x42 (SF 32 mm are NOT as glare resistant)
6) Fujinon HC 8x42
7) Opticron Aurora 8x42
8) Most EDG's especially the 7x42
9) Canon 10x42 IS-L
10) Swarovski Habicht 7x42
11) Meopta Meostar 7x42 SLC
12) Nikon EII 8x30
13) Swarovski Habicht 10x40
14) Leica Noctivid's
15) Most Zeiss Conquest HD's, especially the 8x56 and 10x56
16) Leica Trinovid HD 8x32
17) Steiner HX 8x42.
18) Helios Nitrosport 8x42
19) Zeiss SFL's (Especially the 8x40)

Glare Prone Binoculars

1) Nikon M7 8x30
2) Swarovski Habicht 8x30
3) Hawk Frontier EDX 8x32
4) Swarovski EL 8x32
5) Kowa 8x25 SVII
6) Swarovski NL's
7) Zeiss 10x42 HT
8) Nikon HG 8x30
9) Opticron Oregon 15x70

Important things that control glare in Binoculars

1) Good Baffling (Leicas are known to be well baffled and blackened inside)
2) WA can be worse than narrower FOV binoculars because of the binocular design
3) Large EP aids glare control because it never reaches your eyes
4) Binocular design failures, especially reflective surfaces in the light path

 

[KC Foggin]

Good lists Denco!

 

[[email protected]]

Good lists Denco!

Thanks!

 

[ReinierB]

I should add that this glare source can be fully baffled for any observer by bringing the eye'e pupil close enough to the eyepiece; a simple solution available to all who can adjust the eyecup length to bring their eye's pupil to a position just behind the point where kidney beaning begins. Since I made that adjustment three years ago I have had no significant glare problems with my 8x42 NL.

So turn the eyecup just one step in, what I normally would do? And let the eyecups rest on my eyebrows when needed?
I have the NL 10x32 and get some glare. I get kidney beaning when I turn the eyecups one step in. So maybe let it rest on my eyebrows ore use o-rings?
What adjustment did you actually do? It seems link the perfect postion is between two positions.

 

[[email protected]]

So turn the eyecup just one step in, what I normally would do? And let the eyecups rest on my eyebrows when needed?
I have the NL 10x32 and get some glare. I get kidney beaning when I turn the eyecups one step in. So maybe let it rest on my eyebrows ore use o-rings?
What adjustment did you actually do? It seems link the perfect postion is between two positions.

Instead of fiddling around with the overly tedious eye cups on the NL trying to eliminate glare, just get a pair of Zeiss SF 8x42 or SFL 8x40's. No more glare! That is what I did. You also get a smoother faster focuser and much better front forward balance with the Zeiss, so it feels much lighter, a normal case instead of the goofy side load case, no goofy FP strap attachments, a rain guard that isn't too tight and no huge overdone adjustable strap.

 

[ReinierB]

I like 10 power, I like lightweight, I like Swarovski, I like NL pure <> I don't like glare.

So the balance is to the left and I have accepted the glare. It only bothers me occasionally. Besides, I don't like selling binoculars (always losing some money and regret will overtake me.)