What binocular with added feature(s) do you use? (1 Viewer)

[Hermann]

Now discontinued, the 42mm Zeiss HTs could take filters as covered in this thread:

B&W Nano coated 46mm clear filters on Zeiss 8x42HT

I just bought these filters from B&H and thought I would share. I wanted to protect the front objective lens and keep the optical performance of the HT.

www.birdforum.net

Thanks a lot for that link. I thought about opening a thread on the use of protective filters with binoculars, but all the information is already in that thread.

BTW, I've been using high-quality protective filters (B+W, Canon, Nikon, Leica) on my scopes ever since the disaster with the first Leica Apo-Televid 77mm. And no matter how I tried, I never saw any serious effects on the image quality.

Hermann

 

[Ted Y.]

Wouldn't it be quicker just to focus instead of assessing distance, setting it, raising the binoculars to your eyes and then fine focussing?

For some people, yes.
I prefer it for relatively fixed distances to target. As opposite to flying birds.
For me is not important if is in m or yd. It is a 10% difference.
Who really can estimate a distance of 100m with precision? For me the error is ±20%. More than the 10% m/yd.

 

[Ted Y.]

Thanks a lot for that link. I thought about opening a thread on the use of protective filters with binoculars, but all the information is already in that thread.

Maybe it is not.
Do a UV filter interact with the prisms coating (roof binoculars)? I think yes, severely.
A polarizing filter induce a strong loss of light (maybe one stop). Is this changing the view?
Meaning a new thread will be good.

 

[Hermann]

Do a UV filter interact with the prisms coating (roof binoculars)? I think yes, severely.

I nowadays only use clear filters, not UV filters. When I still used UV filters, I never saw anything that might have been the result of an interaction with the prism coatings. I also don't see how a UV filter could interact with the prism coatings, neither the phase coatings nor any other coatings.

A polarizing filter induce a strong loss of light (maybe one stop). Is this changing the view?

Yes, definitely. Anyone who ever used a polarizer on his/her camera lenses will know the effects. On binoculars and scopes (I experimented with polarizers quite a lot on my scopes snd still use them occasionally) they are fun to play with.

However, I think filters are most often used to protect the objective lenses in hostile environments.

Hermann

 

[Binastro]

I have a variable density filter, which uses rotating polarising filters.

I see that a photographic one varies from 2 stops to 8 stops.

I think my one is for telescope use, if I can find it.

I cannot remember the difference between circular polarising filters and the older type.

B.

 

[exup]

I cannot remember the difference between circular polarising filters and the older type.

My recollection is that circular is needed for digital cameras, whereas linear were the norm for film.

 

[SimonLS]

Thanks a lot for that link. I thought about opening a thread on the use of protective filters with binoculars, but all the information is already in that thread.

BTW, I've been using high-quality protective filters (B+W, Canon, Nikon, Leica) on my scopes ever since the disaster with the first Leica Apo-Televid 77mm. And no matter how I tried, I never saw any serious effects on the image quality.

Hermann

I use a filter for protection on my Kowa 774 - it's been needed once!

 

[SimonLS]

My recollection is that circular is needed for digital cameras, whereas linear were the norm for film.

Or were circular required when 35mm SLRs got autofocus?

 

[exup]

Or were circular required when 35mm SLRs got autofocus?

Possibly......yes. Autofocus was probably before digital sensors, so that makes logical sense.

 

[tenex]

My recollection is that circular is needed for digital cameras, whereas linear were the norm for film.

Circular polarizers were required by growing numbers of SLRs that metered light through a partially transmissive mirror, whether film or digital. I know no reason why a mirrorless camera would require one, but high quality linear polarizers may no longer be made.

 

[John A Roberts]

A Focus Distance Scale? *

Not to make too much of this, but in most circumstances I find that the use of a focuser scale maximises the ability to raise a binocular to the eyes,
and achieve a sharp focus with minimal focuser movement.
And the longer the total focuser travel (e.g. the closer the minimum focus, and the further the over-travel at the far end), the more beneficial a focuser scale is.

After a while, checking/ pre-setting the focus when initially picking up a binocular becomes routine (just like a quick glance at the IPD setting scale).
So when you need to focus quickly you're in the best position to do so; and when speed's not needed you've reinforced a useful habit.


On the Habichts, there's both:
• a focus scale on the focuser, and;
• an index mark on the underside of the focuser arm assembly at the 6 o’clock position.

Traditionally when the zero point of the scale was set to the index mark, the focuser was at the nominal infinity focus position.
With the current models, for me infinity focus is normally achieved with the zero point at around 5 o’clock.

And my preference, depending on the anticipated circumstances is usually either . . .

a) Pre-setting the zero point to 3 o’clock, so that the focus is at around 10 metres/ 11 yards or so, and where:
• less than 1/4 turn clockwise will take the focus to infinity;
• and 1/4 turn anti-clockwise will take the focus to near the minimum distance.

b) Pre-setting the zero point to 4 o’clock, so that the focus is at around 20 metres/ 22 yards:
• with the clockwise and anti-clockwise rotation varying accordingly.


So a convenience feature for some, and an example of 'bino-craft' from an earlier time.


John


* perhaps more accurately: A Focuser Setting Scale?


Habicht 8x30 focuser scale, from left to right:
Earlier version; Current version; Indexed to nominal infinity.

 

[Hermann]

I use a filter for protection on my Kowa 774 - it's been needed once!

And possibly saved you the expense of an expensive repair which is a good thing ... 😀

I like to use filters on my scopes especially when I'm birding at the coast. Salt spray and sand are a potent mixture, and on a seawatch it's not always possible to clean the front lens carefully all the time.

Hermann

 

[pppppvvvv]

A Focus Distance Scale? *

Not to make too much of this, but in most circumstances I find that the use of a focuser scale maximises the ability to raise a binocular to the eyes,
and achieve a sharp focus with minimal focuser movement.
And the longer the total focuser travel (e.g. the closer the minimum focus, and the further the over-travel at the far end), the more beneficial a focuser scale is.

After a while, checking/ pre-setting the focus when initially picking up a binocular becomes routine (just like a quick glance at the IPD setting scale).
So when you need to focus quickly you're in the best position to do so; and when speed's not needed you've reinforced a useful habit.


On the Habichts, there's both:
• a focus scale on the focuser, and;
• an index mark on the underside of the focuser arm assembly at the 6 o’clock position.

Traditionally when the zero point of the scale was set to the index mark, the focuser was at the nominal infinity focus position.
With the current models, for me infinity focus is normally achieved with the zero point at around 5 o’clock.

And my preference, depending on the anticipated circumstances is usually either . . .

a) Pre-setting the zero point to 3 o’clock, so that the focus is at around 10 metres/ 11 yards or so, and where:
• less than 1/4 turn clockwise will take the focus to infinity;
• and 1/4 turn anti-clockwise will take the focus to near the minimum distance.

b) Pre-setting the zero point to 4 o’clock, so that the focus is at around 20 metres/ 22 yards:
• with the clockwise and anti-clockwise rotation varying accordingly.


So a convenience feature for some, and an example of 'bino-craft' from an earlier time.


John


* perhaps more accurately: A Focuser Setting Scale?


Habicht 8x30 focuser scale, from left to right:
Earlier version; Current version; Indexed to nominal infinity.

View attachment 1463845

I've often acquired this skill when intensely birding. Simply getting into a habit of lowering the binoculars at a set focus distance, and picking them up with the focus finger touching the wheel at the same place.
It's possible to adjust the focus as you raise them to your eyes, and being focussed on the subject before they reach your eyes.
A notch on the wheel would be useful for me, but I've never had a pair with this feature.

 

[kabsetz]

I agree with John here, and have had self-made distance markings set for my eyesight on several binoculars and telescopes. An index for infinity focus and ten or twenty meters for binoculars, and infinity focus, ca 100 meters and ca 10 meters for telescopes. This is useful since then I don't have to remember where I had last focused, and if there is focus creep, that is visible. Markings don't have to be fancy to work.

As for the original question, I constantly use IS and tripod attachment thread, which are essential features of my Canon 10x42, and now as a new and highly successful added feature, a vision-correcting add-on lens over my left eyepiece to correct for my .75 diopter astigmatism.

- Kimmo

 

[Tringa45]

BTW, I've been using high-quality protective filters (B+W, Canon, Nikon, Leica) on my scopes ever since the disaster with the first Leica Apo-Televid 77mm. And no matter how I tried, I never saw any serious effects on the image quality.

I don't think anyone need have any doubts about image quality and recall reading a filter test on a photography site.
IIRC they had to stack about 10 B+W filters on top of one another before they noted the first signs of image degradation
But why do Swarovski and Kowa put the filter threads of their scopes on the lens hoods?

John

 

[Hermann]

But why do Swarovski and Kowa put the filter threads of their scopes on the lens hoods?

Because they are fools? I can't think of any other explanation.

BTW, the first company that I recall doing this was Leica. The Televid 77 and the Apo-Televid 77 had the filter threads on the lens hoods as well. I talked to a couple of Leica people about this who went very quiet and couldn't offer any reasonable explanation.

The irony was that the Apo-Televid with its fragile objective lens that reacted quite badly to salt actually NEEDED a filter more than any other scope at the time.

Hermann

 

[Binastro]

There is a high quality opera glass which opens and closes by rotating the tubes.
Maybe by Ross.
I could not believe it when I first saw it.
My friend either gave it to me or charged very little.
I haven't seen another.

It operates in a similar way to the Barr and Stroud collapsible front hoods on the 7x50.

There are folding opera glasses where the front and rear fold flat.

I have a low priced opera glass with multiple folding parts that becomes very small.
But in use it is very difficult to keep everything open.

There is the common flat pack opera glass where the front opens to reveal the objectives.

All these opera glasses fit in a pocket.

There is a Fujinon IS binocular with either daytime normal eyepieces or image intensifier eyepieces.
About $20,000.

There is a smallish hand held binocular with different sets of eyepieces.

Kepler binoculars with inverted images.

Digital binoculars of several makes, with recording possible.
.
A Pentax small digital device

The Minolta 8x23 AF is the sharpest non IS binocular that I have.
It is pin sharp in good light.
I don't know why autofocus was not pursued in binoculars.

The spectacle binocular that I have is made by Eschenbach not Rodenstock, although maybe Rodenstock made something similar.

There are small solar binoculars maybe by Coronado and Celestron.
Also an adapted similar 8-24x50 binocular.
I would advise against using any of these because of the risks, especially for casual users.
The zoom version looks suspicious at best.

Regards,
B.

 

[John A Roberts]

Hi Binastro,

Perhaps some opera glasses like these?

 

[Binastro]

Thank you John.

Some of these I haven't seen before.

My one is different.

Regards,
B.

 

[SimonLS]

And possibly saved you the expense of an expensive repair which is a good thing ... 😀

I like to use filters on my scopes especially when I'm birding at the coast. Salt spray and sand are a potent mixture, and on a seawatch it's not always possible to clean the front lens carefully all the time.

Hermann

Indeed. A chip on the filter, not the objective.