• 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.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

The case for the 8x56. (1 Viewer)

[email protected]

Well-known member
Supporter
I know an 8x56 is not normally the size of binocular most birders use, but I have been comparing two good 8x56's a Meopta Meostar B1 8x56 and a Docter Nobilem B 8x56 to a Nikon SE 8x32, Swarovski Habicht 8x30, and a Swift Audubon 804 8.5x44 under different lighting conditions, and I am very impressed with the 8x56. I know the 8x56 has the advantage of a bigger exit pupil, so it is going to be brighter especially under low light and eye placement will also be easier, but it goes beyond those two things.

The two 8x56's also have a big advantage with glare under difficult lighting situations, they have better contrast seeming to almost cut through difficult lighting situations, and they are sharper because they use the sweet spot of the bigger aperture avoiding aberrations at the edge as in a 42 mm similar to a stopped down binocular. The glare resistance of the big aperture 56 mm is a bigger advantage than you might think because you can use it at sun up and sun down without so much as a smidgen of glare to spoil the view. The bigger exit pupil of the 8x56 handles glare better because the reflections from the edge of the objective never enter the eye. These two 8x56 binoculars only have a 6.4 degree FOV, so they can't compete with the Swarovski NL or Zeiss SF when it comes to FOV, but that is not the point.

The point is they have a higher quality FOV with no glare, they are sharper with less optical aberrations, and they are brighter under almost any light except maybe full sunlight and I have had the NL and SF in 42 mm apertures. As you move up in aperture from a 20 mm to a 56 mm, each step up gives you a slight improvement in performance but moving up to a 56 mm gives you a huge leap in performance even over a 42 mm because you are increasing your aperture size geometrically.

A bigger aperture helps you even in the daytime because it controls glare better, which gives you better contrast. In astronomy, they always say aperture rules, but I am beginning to think it applies to birding also. Again, not many birders will carry a 40 oz. 8x56 binocular hiking, and I fully understand that. I still think for most birders a good 8x32 or 8x42 is best, but a big 8x56 certainly spoils you with the view. When you are used to using an 8x56, it is hard to back to an 8x32 or even an 8x42.



P8230360.JPGP8230361.JPG
 
Last edited:
My Zeiss 8x56 Dialyt is my favorite binocular for handheld astronomy,
its mag and FOV is just right --for me;
but for birding the FOV is a little small

edj
 
An “old fashioned” looking Doctor.. not the green rubber coated more recent models… probably a little lighter, with no risk of the rubber going icky!

Peter
 
My Zeiss 8x56 Dialyt is my favorite binocular for handheld astronomy,
its mag and FOV is just right --for me;
but for birding the FOV is a little small

edj
Is yours phase coated? Those have such an easy, relaxed view, and they still can compete for brightness with a modern 32 mm or 42 mm roof with modern coatings because the aperture is so much bigger.
 
I had 8x56 Zeiss FL's.
The itch wasn't worth the scratch...as very good as they were... I prefered my 10x42's overall, and now, I have to say I prefer my 8x32's to those.
The small advantages of those huge binoculars just isn't worth it in my opinion.
As far as light gathering goes, the 10x42's were closer than I expected, the 8x56's going for perhaps 15 minutes longer or so, to the same light levels, give or take.
Just too big.... too heavy, for not enough gain !!
 
I had 8x56 Zeiss FL's.
The itch wasn't worth the scratch...as very good as they were... I prefered my 10x42's overall, and now, I have to say I prefer my 8x32's to those.
The small advantages of those huge binoculars just isn't worth it in my opinion.
As far as light gathering goes, the 10x42's were closer than I expected, the 8x56's going for perhaps 15 minutes longer or so, to the same light levels, give or take.
Just too big.... too heavy, for not enough gain !!
It is not just about low light performance. The biggest advantage I see with an 8x56 is the absolute absence of glare, even when you are near the sun. I absolutely love that after suffering with glare in even the alpha 8x32's and 8x42's. No matter what time of day you use the 8x56, they have none of that veiling glare that so many smaller aperture binoculars have that ruin the contrast. They are almost like wearing polarizing sunglasses.
 
Only at dusk or dawn. In daylight the transmission (not aperture) is the deciding factor of how bright a bino is. That's why my Fuji HC 8x42 is brighter during the day than my Kite Cervus HD 8x56 with AK-prisms.
Yes, but that is true in only bright sunlight. There are so many times when it is overcast, you are under a canopy, or you are looking into the shadows and then the 8x56 will outperform the 8x42.

In bright sunlight, an 8x32 or 8x42 will often show veiling glare from reflections from the sun which ruin your contrast. I had the Fuji HC 8x42 and although it was good at handling glare, it was not near as good as a big 8x56. IMO, that is the biggest advantage of an 8x56 glare control, not low light performance.

Even the best 8x32 or 8x42 does not have the contrast of an 8x56 during the daytime because the 8x56 totally eliminates the veiling glare because it never reaches your eyes. When you use an 8x56 it cuts through the sun and it's reflections like putting a pair of polarizing sunglasses on.

I really noticed that, when comparing the 8x56 Meopta Meostar B1 to my Nikon SE 8x32. Every time I would compare them, I wanted to go back to the bigger 8x56 because I could see clearer and sharper even in bright sunlight, and then I figured out it was the improved contrast I liked about the 8x56.
 
Last edited:
I had 8x56 Zeiss FL's.
The itch wasn't worth the scratch...as very good as they were... I prefered my 10x42's overall, and now, I have to say I prefer my 8x32's to those.
The small advantages of those huge binoculars just isn't worth it in my opinion.
As far as light gathering goes, the 10x42's were closer than I expected, the 8x56's going for perhaps 15 minutes longer or so, to the same light levels, give or take.
Just too big.... too heavy, for not enough gain !!
I had the big Zeiss 8x56 FL also. They have all the advantages of an 8x56 including low light performance and glare control, but they have a lot of distortion and soft edges which the Docter Nobilem 8x56 improves upon. Plus being a porro the Docter gives you that great 3D stereoptic view that a roof doesn't have.
 
@[email protected]
I never saw ANY glare at all in the Fuji HC 8x42 so far. It's definitely a better bino than my Kite 8x56. So these comparisons only would make sense if all else was the same, and that is never the case. But it's nice you found a new favourite.
 
Those are a couple of big beauties! I love 56mm binoculars, for all the reasons you mention and more. Sadly, my eyes developed astigmastism at 7mm exit pupils, so I can use 8x56 fine during the day, but when it's dark my pupil opens and the astigmatism kicks in, so I had to go with 10x56 instead of 8x. No more 7x50 or 10x70 either :(

Comparing 10x56 to 10x50 and 10x42, the advantages of bigger aperture and exit pupil become clear. The 10x56 has by far the most comfortable and tolerant eye placment. Even during the day, the views are better, like everything is enhanced somehow. Brightness, colors, contrast.
 
Last edited:
Yes, but that is true in only bright sunlight. There are so many times when it is overcast, you are under a canopy, or you are looking into the shadows and then the 8x56 will outperform the 8x42.
Simply put -- ehm, no. When you're looking into shadows, nothing at all happens to your pupils. They don't get wider unless you block out all other light with a bino-bandit or something. I doubt you will have any situation during the day, be it cloudy or not, where the larger aperture really makes a difference when it comes to brightness.
And like I mentioned -- everything else would have to be the same, same coatings, same amount of baffling, same eye-piece design, etc.
 
Those are a couple of big beauties! I love 56mm binoculars, for all the reasons you mention and more. Sadly, my eyes developed astigmastism at 7mm exit pupils, so I can use 8x56 fine during the day, but when it's dark my pupil opens and the astigmatism kicks in, so I had to go with 10x56 instead of 8x. No more 7x50 or 10x70 either :(

Comparing 10x56 to 10x50 and 10x42, the advantages of bigger aperture and exit pupil become clear. The 10x56 has by far the most comfortable and tolerant eye placment. Even during the day, the views are better, like everything is enhanced somehow. Brightness, colors, contrast.
Exactly. It surprised me, quite frankly, that the 8x56 was better than the 8x32 and 8.5x44 in the daytime. I wasn't expecting that.
 
@[email protected]
I never saw ANY glare at all in the Fuji HC 8x42 so far. It's definitely a better bino than my Kite 8x56. So these comparisons only would make sense if all else was the same, and that is never the case. But it's nice you found a new favourite.
You're very lucky if you found an 8x42 binocular that shows no glare. Almost every 42 mm binocular I have had has shown some glare when you get right next to the sun. It must fit you perfectly. The 8x56 is not necessarily my favorite birding binocular, I am just pointing out some of the advantages of a big aperture. I wouldn't expect many birders to carry an 8x56 hiking unless they used a harness.
 
Simply put -- ehm, no. When you're looking into shadows, nothing at all happens to your pupils. They don't get wider unless you block out all other light with a bino-bandit or something. I doubt you will have any situation during the day, be it cloudy or not, where the larger aperture really makes a difference when it comes to brightness.
And like I mentioned -- everything else would have to be the same, same coatings, same amount of baffling, same eye-piece design, etc.
I would swear I can more detail in the shadows during the daytime with the 8x56 than an 8x32. Maybe it is the increased resolution of the 8x56. I know the 8x56 is brighter than an 8x42 under canopy or in heavily forested areas because I have seen it. It is the same as low light viewing.

" 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."

 
As soon as the pupil gets near those 7mm, certainly it will be brighter. I wonder however when our pupils reach those 7mm. A good alternative might be a 7x42.
I have also carried around my 8x56 on hikes sometimes. But it's just too big. I do have a much smaller 10x56 however that I use quite often. Also because of the excellent center sharpness. But I think that is just caused by the stopping down of the exit pupil.
Sometimes even the Fuji HC is too heavy for my taste and I use an 8x32. If I wanna "travel light", I sometimes even just use a skeleton 8x20. Strangely enough that one also rarely shows glare. Maybe because of the tiny FoV of just 5°.
 
I know an 8x56 is not normally the size of binocular most birders use, but I have been comparing two good 8x56's a Meopta Meostar B1 8x56 and a Docter Nobilem B 8x56 to a Nikon SE 8x32, Swarovski Habicht 8x30, and a Swift Audubon 804 8.5x44 under different lighting conditions, and I am very impressed with the 8x56. I know the 8x56 has the advantage of a bigger exit pupil, so it is going to be brighter especially under low light and eye placement will also be easier, but it goes beyond those two things.

The two 8x56's also have a big advantage with glare under difficult lighting situations, they have better contrast seeming to almost cut through difficult lighting situations, and they are sharper because they use the sweet spot of the bigger aperture avoiding aberrations at the edge as in a 42 mm similar to a stopped down binocular. The glare resistance of the big aperture 56 mm is a bigger advantage than you might think because you can use it at sun up and sun down without so much as a smidgen of glare to spoil the view. The bigger exit pupil of the 8x56 handles glare better because the reflections from the edge of the objective never enter the eye. These two 8x56 binoculars only have a 6.4 degree FOV, so they can't compete with the Swarovski NL or Zeiss SF when it comes to FOV, but that is not the point.

The point is they have a higher quality FOV with no glare, they are sharper with less optical aberrations, and they are brighter under almost any light except maybe full sunlight and I have had the NL and SF in 42 mm apertures. As you move up in aperture from a 20 mm to a 56 mm, each step up gives you a slight improvement in performance but moving up to a 56 mm gives you a huge leap in performance even over a 42 mm because you are increasing your aperture size geometrically.

A bigger aperture helps you even in the daytime because it controls glare better, which gives you better contrast. In astronomy, they always say aperture rules, but I am beginning to think it applies to birding also. Again, not many birders will carry a 40 oz. 8x56 binocular hiking, and I fully understand that. I still think for most birders a good 8x32 or 8x42 is best, but a big 8x56 certainly spoils you with the view. When you are used to using an 8x56, it is hard to back to an 8x32 or even an 8x42.



View attachment 1527994View attachment 1527995
The only problem with all this is you can’t hold up 50’s , forget about 56’s 😉.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top