Which binoculars are less stressfull for the eyes? (1 Viewer)

[Conndomat]

There’s no argument for me that more accurate testing of certain optical levels can be determined boosted.

The higher you magnify, the better you will be able to recognize aberrations. It is not for nothing that Hernry always emphasizes that some binoculars do not want to see them at very high magnifications.

By the way, it's analogous to the telescope, here too, moderate optics often perform reasonably well at low magnification, but when things go "high" the collapse comes

What exact test are you referring to that tested for sharpness , please explain.

If you search here in the forum there is a test for sharpness from Canip, he tested the SF, NL and Noctivid for sharpness with 4 and 6x boosters if I remember correctly...
1.SF
2. Noctivid
3. NL

I did the same test without a booster, you can also read it here, I didn't get a clear result, it was more of a guess, but in the end it was the same order.

Andreas

 

[Paultricounty]

The higher you magnify, the better you will be able to recognize aberrations. It is not for nothing that Hernry always emphasizes that some binoculars do not want to see them at very high magnifications.

This is true.

By the way, it's analogous to the telescope, here too, moderate optics often perform reasonably well at low magnification, but when things go "high" the collapse comes

Absolutely, this is true as well.

If you search here in the forum there is a test for sharpness from Canip, he tested the SF, NL and Noctivid for sharpness with 3 and 4x boosters if I remember correctly...
1.SF
2. Noctivid
3. NL

If your stating it, you should supply it. A shame the EL wasn’t included.

I did the same test without a booster, you can also read it here, I didn't get a clear result, it was more of a guess, but in the end it was the same order.

Andreas

I’m not new to using 3x booster, i’d say it definitely gives an objective conclusion on resolution , and of course magnifies aberrations. But a guess on sharpness to me is no more accurate than a half dozen relatively knowledgeable people spending time with optics, and agreeing on the subjective nature we’re talking about. These three binoculars are so close in optical quality that we are splitting hairs on which one is sharper , and I’m not the only one that believes sharpness is subjective , especially on these levels.

Andreas , are you a Zeiss brand loyalist.


Paul

 

[Conndomat]

If your stating it, you should supply it.

Paul, I wouldn't mention it if I didn't know exactly that Canip carried out this test, that would be too slippery for me, but find something in the mass of posts!
If I find the test I'll pass it on!

Andreas , are you a Zeiss brand loyalist.

I thought you understood that the Leica UV 7x42 is my absolute favorite and not just because of its sharpness.

Otherwise it is a discussion about the fly in the ointment, but I am convinced that chromatic aberrations do not contribute to the quality of the image.

Andreas

 

[Patudo]

The thing about all these tests (and I take my hat off to all involved for making the effort to organize them) is that using boosters etc starts getting into the realm of ball stacking, or whatever term it is that the Archbishop of Alignment (or should that be the C-in-C of Collimation?) likes to use; and observer testing depends so much on the circumstances of the test and the observers themselves. I genuinely enjoyed reading the Canip test referred to (link here) as I suppose it is interesting to know the theoretical limits of a binocular's resolution; yet I know my own vision is nowhere near capable of approaching those kinds of limits. Maybe it'd be different if I had the vision of guys like typo, or Horace Dall... I mean the guy who keeps mentioning Horace Dall. Likewise, though it'd certainly be interesting to have half a dozen (or more) folks look through different binoculars and offer their opinions on which they thought were sharper, their vision, perception, physiology and experience is likely going to be different to yours. What are they looking at to determine sharpness? Are they using the binoculars on tripods or handheld (as most of us use ours)? What were the conditions that day? How much time did they have to try each binocular? How experienced with optics were they? The two tests are almost too academic (the booster test) and too loose (the one where twelve good men and true are asked which is sharper).

Then there's the issue of sample variation - if, as one of Birdforum's most - ahem - prominent voices has stated, sample variation is so great that it's "impractical and foolish" to compare binoculars of the same model manufactured on the same day, how can binoculars from different manufacturers be sensibly compared?

Ultimately the best test is your own eyes, and for what it's worth, I've used a friend's Noctivid and tried various SFs on three occasions at different Birdfairs, and thought all were plenty sharp enough for me. I guess I'm just easily satisfied. Lol.

 

[Paultricounty]

Paul, I wouldn't mention it if I didn't know exactly that Canip carried out this test, that would be too slippery for me, but find something in the mass of posts!
If I find the test I'll pass it on!


I thought you understood that the Leica UV 7x42 is my absolute favorite and not just because of its sharpness.

Otherwise it is a discussion about the fly in the ointment, but I am convinced that chromatic aberrations do not contribute to the quality of the image.

That is for sure, at least that’s been my experience for the last 40 years.

Andreas

Wow , are we agreeing 😂.

Are UV 7x42’s sharp 😝. To be perfectly honest with you, I can’t remember what members favorite binoculars are. I can barely follow the discussions.

Paul

 

[Conndomat]

If your stating it, you should supply it. A shame the EL wasn’t included.

Bingo, here there are... Zeiss SFL 8x40, A Field Review

Wow , are we agreeing 😂.

Are UV 7x42’s sharp 😝. To be perfectly honest with you, I can’t remember what members favorite binoculars are. I can barely follow the discussions.

Paul

Yes, it's sharp enough but not exceptional, that's beautiful, I can't observe longer and more relaxed with any binoculars and the 7x42 simply has a wonderful look, feel, ergonomics and build quality.

Andreas

O.K. @Patudo found the test faster!

 

[Maljunulo]

Unless I've missed something, I find it a bit odd that we are arguing about something we haven't defined.

 

[Binastro]

Post #53.

A fine 102mm f/8 triplet will be somewhat better than a 102mm f/8 doublet.

But firstly, not all achromats are made from the same glass types.

My custom refractors were probably aspherised.

The Tal 100mm f/10 refractor is highly regarded.

My Pentax 100mm f/12 was a doublet, but could easily take 250x, 300x or 400x for testing.
The image certainly did not break down at 400x.

The optical folk bragging about their finest refractors do not usually appear on the list of active observers who actually make regular observations of planets and report their observations to national or international organisations.

They just brag.

Post #64.

As to Horace Dall.
I don't think he had exceptional eye sight.
In fact in his last years his eyesight failed.

He was a, or the, top master optician, which is quite different.

Binoculars are sometimes about f/3.5 or f/3.4.
They rarely compete with a good telescope if boosted.
They are just two poor telescopes side by side.
If hand held, as long as they are good samples the resolution is adequate, although someone with 20/8 vision may find faults.

The IS binoculars are usually better, and some of my Canons have tiny star images, which greatly enhances the visibility of faint stars.
However, when I boost the 18x50 IS the result is a rubbish image.

Personally, I don't think that with binoculars resolution is an issue, so long as the sample is good and it is hand held.

Regards,
B.

 

[WJC]

I am interested in a 8x or 10x binocular.
The main usage is during the day.
It is for someone using spectacles.
The upper price is limited to 2K USD (for a new one).
I have a possible candidate, Zeiss SF, and I need at least another one before going to the shop for testing.
From your (or a friend) experience, which models can be considered? Thank you.

Edit:
Can be 8 x any, 10 x any.
I suppose at 2K USD the binocular has great control of CA, glare, pincushion, etc. Not perfect, but great.
Even so, some models have more stressfull effects.

Well made, collimated, and properly focused binoculars, in the hands of those who KNOW something about binoculars do not cause stress. Yet, how many times have I heard, "My binoculars won't focus," when, in fact, the instrument is out of collimation or the observer is trying to focus ... backwards?!

 

[Conndomat]

Post #53.

A fine 102mm f/8 triplet will be somewhat better than a 102mm f/8 doublet.

Well, that's what I say all the time!

Andreas

 

[Conndomat]

Nobody wants a slower refractor anymore. Guess how fast your bins are.

1. FS 60Q f/10
2. FC 76 DCU Ex. 1,6x f/12
3. TSA 102 f/8
4. FL 102 f/8,8
5. LZOS 130 f/9,2

No quick openings!

Visually, the triplets are simply superior to the doublets, at least in terms of color purity.

By the way, most purely visual users prefer to use long aperture ratios, one of the best refractors at the moment is the Tak FOA 60Q f/15, long refractors are coming back into fashion.

Andreas

 

[has530]

By the way, most purely visual users prefer to use long aperture ratios, one of the best refractors at the moment is the Tak FOA 60Q f/15, long refractors are coming back into fashion.

My problem with slow scopes is that even with a 2" focuser at those focal lengths you are limited to a FOV of about 2°. Which if you want to use 82+° eyepieces gives you a minimum magnification of 40x+ which I don't always want if I'm not doing planetary.

 

[Conndomat]

Which if you want to use 82+° eyepieces gives you a minimum magnification of 40x+ which I don't always want if I'm not doing planetary.

That also depends on the size!

With the TSA 102/816mm. and a Nagler 31mm. you get 26x with the FOA 60Q 29x.
With the TMB LZOS 130/1200mm. it is actually 38x.

Of course, we should clarify when a slow telescope starts?!

Andreas

 

[Binastro]

All fine refractors have objectives that rattle a bit.

If they don't then the elements are too tightly held and pinching results.

If the refractors are actually used then the elements rotate by themselves.

Here, triplets have a problem.

One, two or three elements may have rotated from best position.
This means that the test certificate provided with the high quality triplets is no longer valid.
The scope is probably still excellent or very good, but not as good as new.

In addition, when cleaning several things may happen.
The critical separation may be changed.
If an element has almost identical curves, it may be reversed in reassembly.

When cleaning old refractors, I have found that indeed the elements have rotated and indeed the elements may have been reversed.

With large refractors the spacers may also have ben squashed unevenly.

My Ross 100mm f/15 triplet had a metal rod that went through the three elements at the edge with tiny semi circular cutouts in each element. A brave man cut these.
I doubt that modern day users would be happy to see this in their top bragging rights triplet.

Buying used optics, I frequently found ruined optics by folks trying to clean them.

Six Leitz lenses were useless as they had all been assembled wrongly.
I rather easily reassembled them correctly with the correct spacers also.

My two Questars bought cheaply could not form an image.
The eyepieces had been reassembled wrongly.
I quickly reassembled the eyepieces correctly to have two good scopes.

A good name refractor gave a poor image.
One element was back to front.
When reversed a fine refractor emerged.

A secondhand Vivitar 600mm f/8 solid Cat lens was useless.
Obviously messed up by a dabler.
I didn't try to fix this as I have an essentially perfect example.

This goes on and on.

People sell their mistakes, either through dishonesty or just lack of knowledge.

But triplets have more possibilities of going wrong than doublets.

Horace Dall's 108mm f/30 camera obscura doublet objective was as near perfect as one can find.
Corrected for four colours.
The image on the large white flat projection table had the most amazing colour error free image one could find.

Regards,
B.

 

[4 The Birds1]

B.
Stick with binoculars, your auto stuff is not needed or appreciated.
Jerry

Jerry
I beg to differ.
I appreciate Binastro's contributions, including the Ferrari one.
Whereas your venom is not needed or appreciated.

 

[NDhunter]

This is a binoculars forum, remember that. Stay on topic.
Jerry

 

[Binastro]

Jerry has a point.

But Jerry is not a Moderator.

He has also not posted personal comments about me for a long time, and I appreciate that.

Regards,
B.

 

[Scott98]

>Binoculars are sometimes about f/3.5 or f/3.4.

>They rarely compete with a good telescope if boosted.
>They are just two poor telescopes side by side.

Uh-oh, Binastro you are whacking the hornest's nest here, we astronomers don't speak of such things in the binocular forums! These $3,000 alphas are the absolute BEST of the best, right?

I won't go into my usual rant on long f-ratio refractors either - many of us prefer them, I'm thrilled to have just switched my flagship scope from an f/7.5 to a 6" f/9 refractor (90's vintage). Also I had the late-model Tak FC100DL f/9 which was a superb lens. There are still companies making f/8 and f/9 refractors and beyond for people that don't do photography.

 

[Binocollector]

Not sure why anyone would even compare those to binos?
I do use binos for astronomy but the most I have spent for any of those was one grand for the Canon 18x50IS. And I really am not interested in how it would perform if I added a booster. I think the only one that would really work well boosted for astronomy is probably the Nikon WX. At least one person on CN has boosted his 10x50 WX to 16x50 if I remember correctly.
And anything bigger would be a BT anyway.
I sure would like a look through the 25x150 Fujinon or the Chinese 150mm BT.

Fujinon 25x150 EM, ED, 45° Einblick Groß-Fernglas | Intercon Spacetec - Alles für die Astronomie

Fujinon LB Large Binocular 25-fache Vergrößerung, 150 mm Öffnung, Schrägeinblick und ED-Optik. Ideal für beidäugige astronomische Beobachtung licht...

www.intercon-spacetec.de

APM 150mm 45° ED APO Fernglas mit UF30mm & Koffer

Das APM 150mm ED Fernglas gehört zu den leistungsfähigsten Ferngläsern der Welt. Lieferung mit 2" Okularset UF30mm und Transportkoffer.

www.apm-telescopes.net

But even those have their limits magnification wise. I forgot what the actual limit was though for a decent image. I'd have to look it up. There is a lenghty thread about the150mm APM ED Apo on a German astro forum.

 

[Binastro]

Binoculars are probably limited to 100x because of collimation problems.

Unless you include the enormous Alvan Clark? 6 inch binocular telescope, which probably had the same limits as the 6 inch telescope.

My friend made several 150mm binoculars using 150mm f/8 Chinese scopes and mirrors.

There is an 8 inch amateur British binocular, with folded optics.
The Ross fortress of Malta 6 inch plus binocular made with old Zeiss objectives.
An Italian binocular of about 10 inch aperture.

There were three Zeiss 30cm binoculars on rotating mounts that weighed over a ton.
I think they were destroyed.

There is the Japanese 180 binocular and a 250mm binocular in a Japanese museum.

I suppose the APM 30cm binocular is good at 200x.
Probably $500,000.

Mirror binoculars of 16 inch aperture.
But collimation can take an hour when moved to a star meeting.

Or the professional binocular telescope of several metres aperture.

I have a Japanese 25x-135x80 binocular that is well aligned up to 135x, but shows no gains above 80x.
Even at 80x it is no match for a fine 80mm telescope.

Personally, I have had no use or desire to own large binoculars.

One of the best planetary observers uses a 16.5 inch Dall Kirkham with a binoviewer.

Regards,
B.