Why are those dang Habicht's so BRIGHT! (2 Viewers)

[dorubird]

Is it the WA eyepieces in the 8x30 W and 10x40 W Habicht that cause them to show more glare than the 7x42 Habicht? Do more complex WA eyepieces in general show more

In the Habicht series there are no WA (wide angle) eyepieces. For example Habicht 7x42 has only 3 (three) elements eyepieces. None of them has complex WA. As I said in the post #7, Habicht eyepiece optical simplicity is an important factor in increasing light transmission (of course in addition to the quality of the glass and the anti-reflective coating).
Nikon E2, for exemple, really has WA eyepieces with 6 elements ocular and does not have big problems with glare as Habicht 8x30 with only 3 elements eyepeieces. So we can have a WA with less glare. It seems that the Habicht glare problem is from elsewhere (from prisms and/or internal inner tube reflections?)

 

[ZeNiTh-PbArM]

In the Habicht series there are no WA (wide angle) eyepieces. For example Habicht 7x42 has only 3 (three) elements eyepieces. None of them has complex WA. As I said in the post #7, Habicht eyepiece optical simplicity is an important factor in increasing light transmission (of course in addition to the quality of the glass and the anti-reflective coating).
Nikon E2, for exemple, really has WA eyepieces with 6 elements ocular and does not have big problems with glare as Habicht 8x30 with only 3 elements eyepeieces. So we can have a WA with less glare. It seems that the Habicht glare problem is from elsewhere (from prisms and/or internal inner tube reflections?)

Hi

Not true - 8x30W and 10x40W have 6 element eyepiece (please have a look at attached pic)
only 7x42 has 3 element eyepiece

zp*

 

[dorubird]

ok!
I was wrong for 10x40. It was more about 8x30 and 7x42. 8x30W have 6 elements?!

 

[Richard D]

ok!
I was wrong for 10x40. It was more about 8x30 and 7x42. 8x30W have 6 elements?!

I'm pretty sure the 8x30W has 6 elements too. The 7x42 only has three hence it lacks the W for Wide designation.

 

[Richard D]

Not having tried the 8x30W I can't say how much of an issue glare is. I use the 10x40W GA and whilst glare can be forced to appear under extreme lighting in general they handle glare very well - I'm pretty sure they use the same eyepieces and prisms so either the baffling is very different or it's to do with the smaller objective.

 

[John A Roberts]

To recap, as the images in post #10 show:
• the W eyepiece for the 8x30W and 10x40W, has 6 lenses in 3 groups (2, 2, 2) [also see post #82], and;

• the S eyepiece for the 6x30 and 7x42, has 3 lenses in 2 groups (1, 2).


John


p.s. For a quick introduction to common/ traditional eyepiece designs see: Beginner's Guide Eyepieces
It has the same information as in the Wikipedia entry on eyepieces but is more readable.

 

[Richard D]

I am glad you agree with me that the Habicht's are as sharp on-axis as the NL's and show very little CA! Not everybody does. It is pretty amazing that the Habicht's are even comparable to the NL, which costs almost 3x as much as the Habicht. I would agree the NL is a better birding binocular overall, but the astounding thing about the Habicht is it holds its own with the NL as far as optics and even has some advantages like brightness and 3D...

I can only speak for my comparisons with the 10x's (I've not tried the 8's of either Habichts or NLs)- whilst I have no doubt that a tripod mounted test using a test chart and comparing blown up photos would reveal the NLs to have superior on-axis resolution, in practical terms though, with handheld observation by eye they both seem to reach my level of acuity. Would I notice a difference by eye on a tripod? I honestly don't know - I can't see me wanting to put 10s on a tripod. To be honest you'd have to look hard for a pair of sub-£700 binoculars in the 7-10 range that don't have excellent on-axis apparent sharpness - it's not that difficult. Edge sharpness is obviously a whole different ball game and whilst for me the 10x Habichts have a large enough sweet spot, the edge to edge sharpness of the NLs is incredibly impressive.

I don't find CA an issue with the 10x40s, but significant CA shouldn't be an issue with a simple Porro design of moderate range- once the optical path gets complicated and you add it extra elements or want to push into high magnification designers have a challenge on their hands. Sure you can push them to their limits and induce a little CA at the field edges, but it's off-axis and better controlled than with many binoculars (I find them much better than Trinovids (very good binoculars in other respects) for example). CA sensitivity does seem to vary with viewers though - I once had some Bushnell roofs that I found unusable in bright conditions, but they had generally good reviews for the price.

I don't think there's a perfect binocular out there it's all a matter of deciding where you're happy to compromise

 

[gweller]

The NL is long gone! They had way too much glare in the bottom of the FOV. In my experience, none of the modern roofs are any better and most are not as good as the Habicht's. I haven't found any that are as bright or as transparent and have that that marvelous 3D view. Thanks for the tip on the Opticron's. I will have to try those, although Opticrons are not real common on this side of the pond. I love trying new binoculars!

So we can delete and forget that whole discussion by you about the NL's being the best binoculars ever?? Sometimes I really just can't keep up with all your change of opinion....... Well, anyway there goes the rest of your credibility, what was left of it of course.....

 

[SUPPRESSOR]

It is amazing what a difference coatings make! From a transmission of 46% with no coatings all the way to 96% with modern coatings. Wouldn't the newer Habicht's have better glass also than the 1949 version, and wouldn't that improve transmission also?

Maybe they still use glass with a lead content in the Habicht!!!
Peter.

 

[Thotmosis]

I never really thought about where I hold my arms when using my binoculars, but I am going to try different wings!

It really makes a huge difference how you hold your arms and hands using a binocular in my experience. With elbows close together and arms close to my chest/belly in front of me it's possible to handhelp my Zeiss 15x60 for a few minutes and the Duovid at 12x much longer. Like it makes a huge difference if you use a Bino Bandit to help eliminate certain reflections.

 

[SUPPRESSOR]

So we can delete and forget that whole discussion by you about the NL's being the best binoculars ever?? Sometimes I really just can't keep up with all your change of opinion....... Well, anyway there goes the rest of your credibility, what was left of it of course.....

Without Dennis birdforum would be a duller place.

 

[gweller]

Without Dennis birdforum would be a duller place.

Definitely!! He never ceases to amuse me!!! I've never known anyone capable of changing their mind so quickly!

 

[[email protected]]

So we can delete and forget that whole discussion by you about the NL's being the best binoculars ever?? Sometimes I really just can't keep up with all your change of opinion....... Well, anyway there goes the rest of your credibility, what was left of it of course.....

The NL 8x42's were very good when I first stated using them, and then I noticed the glare in the bottom of the FOV. Once I saw it it was irritating because I knew I really couldn't get rid of it by adjusting the eye cups or my eye position like some users do.

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

 

[[email protected]]

Without Dennis birdforum would be a duller place.

Thanks for that! Of course, I TOTALLY agree!

 

[[email protected]]

Definitely!! He never ceases to amuse me!!! I've never known anyone capable of changing their mind so quickly!

That is a man's prerogative!

 

[gweller]

The NL 8x42's were very good when I first stated using them, and then I noticed the glare in the bottom of the FOV......

But I thought you had the NL 10x32???? Wasn't that the one you were praising up in your other thread??

 

[[email protected]]

It really makes a huge difference how you hold your arms and hands using a binocular in my experience. With elbows close together and arms close to my chest/belly in front of me it's possible to handhelp my Zeiss 15x60 for a few minutes and the Duovid at 12x much longer. Like it makes a huge difference if you use a Bino Bandit to help eliminate certain reflections.

The Bino Bandit has really improved the view for me and I use them on both my Habicht 8x30 W and Habicht 7x42. Just reducing the side light improves your contrast so much. The Bino Bandit works much better than winged eye cups because it conforms to your face better and eliminates all the side reflections, and it helps to eliminate black-outs with eye cups that are too short because the Bino Bandit's can be used to rest the binoculars against your eye sockets.

 

[[email protected]]

To recap, as the images in post #10 show:
• the W eyepiece for the 8x30W and 10x40W, has 6 lenses in 3 groups (2, 2, 2) [also see post #82], and;

• the S eyepiece for the 6x30 and 7x42, has 3 lenses in 2 groups (1, 2).


John


p.s. For a quick introduction to common/ traditional eyepiece designs see: Beginner's Guide Eyepieces
It has the same information as in the Wikipedia entry on eyepieces but is more readable.

Would the WA eyepiece in the 8x30W and 10x40 W Habicht contribute to the fact that they show a little more glare than the 7x42 Habicht which has a simpler 3 element eyepiece?

 

[Richard D]

Would the WA eyepiece in the 8x30W and 10x40 W Habicht contribute to the fact that they show a little more glare than the 7x42 Habicht which has a simpler 3 element eyepiece?

I suspect it's the ocular rather than the eyepiece - the 10s show little glare.

 

[Steve C]

Well at least you don't appear to have claimed YOU took the picture.