What's your favourite low light binocular, and why. (1 Viewer)

[ragin-cajun]

I asked this question in a thread a yr. ago? based on several recommendations from dennis, pileatus and others I purchased the SLC 8x56's. the light monsters. they're heavy but view is so wow i forget about the weight and I'm usually stationary at dusk. If I wanted smaller/lighter try the NL 42s. or the SFL 40s I tested were great at low light and gave the 56s a run. other 42s recommended SLCs, Meostars, Swarovski Habicht 7x42, Victory HTs. also check w/ Gijs van Ginkel who tests this specifically and gave me great info.

 

[[email protected]]

I own and like the 10x40 - it's transmission does make them decent for duller days and early evening, but of course the exit pupil is only 4mm so not really great for dusk. I think exit pupil makes a lot more difference than transmission, but I would have to leave the maths for someone else...

Exit pupil makes more difference in low light and transmission makes more difference in bright light.

 

[[email protected]]

No one is 'bigging up' the Habicht here....
I thought it might get a mention from one or two folk.

The Habicht 7x42 is right up there with the HT 8x54 in low light if you like a porro with a narrow FOV. Its transmission is as good or better than an HT, and it is flat in the blue-green part of the spectrum also. The HT 8x54 would be a little brighter in low light if you are younger because of it's bigger EP, but if you are you are 60 years old or older the Habicht will be as bright and maybe brighter and definitely lighter.

 

[[email protected]]

I have the same question. I have a SLC 8x42, which gives a nice view in low light. I wonder how a SLC 10x56 would perform (I like 10 power). I also wonder if that would be really better compared with the EL 10x50. A 56mm seems so bulky to me. Too bulky. That's why I would prefer a 10x50, but how much would I give in? EL has "just" 90% transmission. A SLC 56 has 93%. I might consider a Habicht 10x40 as well. Not bulky, better priced, 3D view, 96% transmission, but "just" 4mm exit pupil....

The SLC 10x56 is going to be brighter than the SLC 8x42 in low light, no doubt, and you will see more detail because of the higher magnification. Between the SLC 10x56 and the EL 10x50, that would be a fairer race, but the SLC would be a little brighter because of the bigger 5.6 mm EP versus the 5.0 mm EP of the EL. The EL 10x50 would be a lot more practical birding binocular because of it's much smaller size and bigger FOV though.

 

[[email protected]]

I asked this question in a thread a yr. ago? based on several recommendations from dennis, pileatus and others I purchased the SLC 8x56's. the light monsters. they're heavy but view is so wow i forget about the weight and I'm usually stationary at dusk. If I wanted smaller/lighter try the NL 42s. or the SFL 40s I tested were great at low light and gave the 56s a run. other 42s recommended SLCs, Meostars, Swarovski Habicht 7x42, Victory HTs. also check w/ Gijs van Ginkel who tests this specifically and gave me great info.

The only binoculars that going to give that SLC 8x56 a run for its money in low light are the HT 8x54, HT 10x54 or the Habicht 7x42.

 

[dries1]

If weight and girth is very important for a viewer to avoid, the SLC 8X42 as a lighter option is quite a good performer in low light. I have been impressed with them. (It has been serviced and the focus is now working as it should). The Zeiss FL and HT in 8X42 are also excellent as well.

 

[Conndomat]

The rods are the part of our eyes that are responsible for scopic vision or low light vision.

In this case I prefer my 18 inch Dobsonian.

but if you are you are 60 years old or older the Habicht will be as bright and maybe brighter and definitely lighter.

60 years seems to be the age at which the general signs of decline occur in humans.
It's like yoghurt...best before...

Andreas

 

[ReinierB]

If weight and girth is very important for a viewer to avoid, the SLC 8X42 as a lighter option is quite a good performer in low light. I have been impressed with them. (It has been serviced and the focus is now working as it should). The Zeiss FL and HT in 8X42 are also excellent as well.

I know you have (had) the EL 10x50. Which one did you prefer in low light conditions? This one or the SLC 8x42? I would like to hear about it from "the field". The real experience.

 

[dries1]

The 10X50 SV is the better low light glass, the extra magnification helps as well as aperture. Mind you I also use it for astronomy as a glass to have on travel for work, so I take it along with a 8X32. The SLC 8X42 has more eye relief but I do not wear glasses so the 10X50 works well with respect to ER. Of course the SV is a flat field ( if one has to have it clean to the edge at the field stop) whereas the SLC is not, so panning can bother some with the SV, not a problem now as I am used to it.
The 10X50 from an ergonomic perspective is easy to handle much like the Leica Ultravid 10X50, its only drawback perhaps could be if it had a tad higher light transmission. Mind you mine is from 2014.
The tradeoff is, the SLC is a small 8X42 which is a plus, and lighter in weight than the 10X50 SV, and I find it a nice option in the 8X42 format for a light low light glass, along with the Zeiss FL in X42.

 

[[email protected]]

If weight and girth is very important for a viewer to avoid, the SLC 8X42 as a lighter option is quite a good performer in low light. I have been impressed with them. (It has been serviced and the focus is now working as it should). The Zeiss FL and HT in 8X42 are also excellent as well.

I had about 5 SLC 8x42's and not one had a decent smooth focuser. All of them were rough and harder to turn in one direction. I wouldn't buy an SLC 8x42 for that reason. Funny thing is, the focusers on the SLC 8x56's I had were fine.

 

[[email protected]]

In this case I prefer my 18 inch Dobsonian.


60 years seems to be the age at which the general signs of decline occur in humans.
It's like yoghurt...best before...

Andreas

The older you get, the faster you age. You decline much more from 60 to 70 than you do from 50 to 60.

 

[rdnzl]

You decline more from 20-30 than you do from 10-20

 

[chill6x6]

I thought of another option this AM.... A less expensive option might be the Conquest HD 10X56. I have no experience with this particular model but it does check the previously mentioned boxes. It seems to be well liked by most and I think it would be a good less expensive option to consider.

 

[[email protected]]

You decline more from 20-30 than you do from 10-20

I think you incline from 10-20. Then you start declining after 20. Most people are in their prime at 20. After that your flexibility goes down even though you maintain strength.

 

[tenex]

Chuck nailed it above. If you're contemplating a bin specifically for low light, you want to go all the way to 10x54/56 AK (or possibly 7x42 AK or Habicht, depending on purpose?) because more incremental gains just aren't worth it, or even easily noticeable. And not more than ~20 years old due to coatings and transmission.

 

[AlphaFan]

I’m in the same camp as Chuck and others - also own both 10x56 FL and SLC. Both are superb in low light. If wanting very good low light performance in a lighter / handier unit, I’ve been very impressed with the after dusk performance of the Maven B6 10x50.

 

[Scott98]

The older you get, the faster you age. You decline much more from 60 to 70 than you do from 50 to 60.

so much to look forward to!! I saw an eye surgeon a few years ago because I noticed a big increase in floaters (after having to take Doxycycline for 6 weeks).

He told me my floaters were actually mild and normal. He basically said learn to live with it because it gets worse. At 60 many people often experience big round chunks of crud that break loose and float around. There is laser surgery for it but it's non-FDA approved and somewhat experimental, only a handful of docs in the USA do it.

As we know from astronomy, smaller exit pupil makes the floaters more visible and annoying. So many reasons to like more aperture. I seem to be one of the people who hates exit pupil under 5mm in binoculars.

I'd sound a note of caution on those Zeiss HT 54mm. THere's a reason those demos are sitting there at Europtic. Only a small sweet spot in the middle is sharp, they have really bad edge of field issues and they don't seem as sharp to me as the Zeiss SF's or Swaro 56mm SLC. The HT"s seem very specialized for hunting. Personally I wouldn't want them for astronomy or birding/day use. I think any modern 8x42 bino does pretty well with low light.

 

[[email protected]]

so much to look forward to!! I saw an eye surgeon a few years ago because I noticed a big increase in floaters (after having to take Doxycycline for 6 weeks).

He told me my floaters were actually mild and normal. He basically said learn to live with it because it gets worse. At 60 many people often experience big round chunks of crud that break loose and float around. There is laser surgery for it but it's non-FDA approved and somewhat experimental, only a handful of docs in the USA do it.

As we know from astronomy, smaller exit pupil makes the floaters more visible and annoying. So many reasons to like more aperture. I seem to be one of the people who hates exit pupil under 5mm in binoculars.

I'd sound a note of caution on those Zeiss HT 54mm. THere's a reason those demos are sitting there at Europtic. Only a small sweet spot in the middle is sharp, they have really bad edge of field issues and they don't seem as sharp to me as the Zeiss SF's or Swaro 56mm SLC. The HT"s seem very specialized for hunting. Personally I wouldn't want them for astronomy or birding/day use. I think any modern 8x42 bino does pretty well with low light.

"I'd sound a note of caution on those Zeiss HT 54 mm. There's a reason those demos are sitting there at Eurooptic. Only a small sweet spot in the middle is sharp, they have awful edge of field issues, and they don't seem as sharp to me as the Zeiss SF's or Swaro 56 mm SLC. The HT's seem very specialized for hunting. Personally, I wouldn't want them for astronomy or birding/day use. I think any modern 8x42 bino does pretty well with low light."

The Zeiss HT 8x54 is a specialized binocular for low light use, be it birding or hunting. They do have some fall off at the edges, but the pair I had were very sharp on-axis. The color accuracy is superb on the HT 8x54 due to the flat transmission graph. They probably would not be as good for astronomy as a flat field binocular like the EL 10x50 because the star fields would not be sharp to the edge, and I would agree they are not the ideal daytime birding binocular. I prefer an 8x32 for that. Any modern 8x42 does pretty well in low light, but the HT 8x54 will leave them in the dust in low light. The Zeiss HT 8x54 is one of the brightest low light binocular on the market and if you need a binocular for that purpose it is hard to beat. With extraordinarily high transmission and a flat transmission curve that stays high on the blue-green area of the spectrum where your rods are most sensitive to light, I would say only the Habicht 7x42 or maybe a Swarovski SLC 8x56 could come close to them.

 

[lmans66]

8 or 10 x 42 Victory HT

 

[dorubird]

My favorite binoculars for night observations are the Habicht 7x42. It is well known that it has the highest transmission of light in the entire visual spectrum (from ultraviolet to red), and in combination with the fairly large 6mm exit pupil makes it a very bright instrument