Why are those dang Habicht's so BRIGHT! (1 Viewer)

[[email protected]]

Andy

I was referring to the post where it was said the Habicht 30 had a small FOV, when the SE came up as a better example of a porro. I was just pointing out the FOV is smaller on the SE (not sweet spot) than the Habicht’s , 7.5 to 7.8.
7x42‘s are tunnel vision as some have described. The Habicht 742 is a FOV disaster , but even it serves a very useful purpose after dark when the zombies come out.

This discussion was mainly talking about the 30mm and how awful Henry seems to feel about it.

It appears we always circle back to, certain binoculars are not for anybody. And obviously Habicht’s not for Henry. I’m sure, I could bank on the fact that there is a Binocular that Henry loves, that somebody has a problem with. It always gets deep into the woods with so many here with all the spec testers/reviewers, Albinos anybody.

Paul

My Habicht 7x42 is my "Zombie Apocalypse" binocular. It has a narrow FOV but with 96% transmission there is NOTHING brighter in the daytime or in low light. It is the only binocular I have ever seen that seems like it has a built-in light source inside of it.

 

[[email protected]]

I hope to get to the Birdfair (or whatever it is called now) in July with a view to maybe an SF, SFL or NL.

But the Habicht 8x30 stay. I do think some of the criticisms are overstated. I wear glasses and just fold down the eyecups so not a problem. Focuser a bit stiff but, after much use, not bad and very smooth with not much movement required unless focusing very close. Edge to edge sharpness is actually good horizontally though huge fall off vertically. The centre is very sharp and the resolution of detail high. And I love the view (maybe I'm just not very discerning).

And they are lightweight, comfortable to hold and a whole lot cheaper.

Apart from the eyecups, what's not to like?

"And I love the view (maybe I'm just not very discerning)."

You're not alone! The Habicht view always WOWS me when I come back to it from using a roof prism. Nothing has that high transmission sparkle and 3D image like a Habicht. Dang, those Habichts are bright!

 

[Paultricounty]

My Habicht 7x42 is my "Zombie Apocalypse" binocular. It has a narrow FOV but with 96% transmission there is NOTHING brighter in the daytime or in low light. It is the only binocular I have ever seen that seems like it has a built-in light source inside of it.

Dennis,

Do you read your PM’s?

 

[William Lewis]

I think Mr Links probably forgotten more about optics than the majority of bird forum members have ever known and applies a much more rigorous scientific approach then anyone else to the discussions here, I always appreciate that. Whether they meet peoples qualitative experiences of an optic which is invariably based on there past experiences is always going to be unlikely.

Sample variations definitely a thing though but who's realistically going to have 10 Zeiss fl's kicking about- you use what you can.

I'd suggest someone tries running the same test on their 8x30's as Henry's described his methodology thoroughly. Probably more enlightening than subjective statements.

 

[Conndomat]

And the one Habicht he tested was a one off Habicht 8x30 GA that was specially made for him, which could very well have been defective. As clever as Henry appears to be, he doesn't seem to know much about sample size and the Scientific Method. He throws a lot of numbers and optical terminology around to try to prove his point, but it doesn't mean much because no matter what he says about the Habicht we all know it is an excellent binocular. We can see that with our eyes, despite what Henry's tests show. Once I compared his favorite monstrous Zeiss FL 8x56 and a Habicht 8x30 W in the daytime and I liked the bigger sparkling high transmission 3D view of the Habicht better than the green tinted Zeiss which has almost twice the aperture size not to mention it is twice as heavy. I listed the FL the next day on eBay. I was relieved when it sold because it took forever to find somebody to buy it.

Dennis I don't think it's appropriate how you discredit a very respected member here.

I find such statements from someone who changes his opinion about binoculars more often than his underwear completely out of place.
Henry has demonstrated his in-depth knowledge of binoculars more than once, please cut the bullshit.

Andreas

 

[gweller]

And the one Habicht he tested was a one off Habicht 8x30 GA that was specially made for him, which could very well have been defective. As clever as Henry appears to be, he doesn't seem to know much about sample size and the Scientific Method. He throws a lot of numbers and optical terminology around to try to prove his point, but it doesn't mean much because no matter what he says about the Habicht we all know it is an excellent binocular. We can see that with our eyes, despite what Henry's tests show. Once I compared his favorite monstrous Zeiss FL 8x56 and a Habicht 8x30 W in the daytime and I liked the bigger sparkling high transmission 3D view of the Habicht better than the green tinted Zeiss which has almost twice the aperture size not to mention it is twice as heavy. I listed the FL the next day on eBay. I was relieved when it sold because it took forever to find somebody to buy it.

Dennis, you really are out of order here..... Well the only good thing about this post is that at least you have nailed your true colors to your mast for everyone to see. Thankfully it will reduce your remaining credibility to zero, and hopefully from now on all here on Bird Forum will treat you with the utter contempt you deserve.

 

[Paultricounty]

I think Mr Links probably forgotten more about optics than the majority of bird forum members have ever known and applies a much more rigorous scientific approach then anyone else to the discussions here, I always appreciate that. Whether they meet peoples qualitative experiences of an optic which is invariably based on there past experiences is always going to be unlikely.

Sample variations definitely a thing though but who's realistically going to have 10 Zeiss fl's kicking about- you use what you can.

I'd suggest someone tries running the same test on their 8x30's as Henry's described his methodology thoroughly. Probably more enlightening than subjective statements.

I don’t doubt your opening sentence, that’s for sure.
What about current experience? Does that have any bearing?

Id love to see this test redone with a few more samples. it’s possible the same results 5 or more times might convince my eyes that there not seeing what there seeing: it could happen🙃

 

[Paultricounty]

I don't see any.

I replied to your PM.

 

[Alexander Stöhr]

?????

From time to time, I read threads about optics here on BF and find many interesting things/issues there and learn alot (from Henry Link and many others). Thanks!

I havent read every comment in this thread and I am not up to date in this thread, but I get the feeling, that some useful information (regarding light transmission of high quality binos and more?) is gathered here.
Please dont led not well thought sentences ruin that. Its easy to write fast words/thoughts, that one might regret a moment later. Thankfully there is a editing feature implemented here and the friendly staff here will surely help with older posts.

Thanks!

 

[[email protected]]

I think Mr Links probably forgotten more about optics than the majority of bird forum members have ever known and applies a much more rigorous scientific approach then anyone else to the discussions here, I always appreciate that. Whether they meet peoples qualitative experiences of an optic which is invariably based on there past experiences is always going to be unlikely.

Sample variations definitely a thing though but who's realistically going to have 10 Zeiss fl's kicking about- you use what you can.

I'd suggest someone tries running the same test on their 8x30's as Henry's described his methodology thoroughly. Probably more enlightening than subjective statements.

I respect Henry's knowledge and objective testing methods, but there are so many members that disagree with him about the Habicht including me that I think he overlooks some of the stronger points of the Habicht's that causes birders to like them like the 3D and transmission. IMO it comes down to personal preference what qualities you like in a binocular and what qualities you consider important, and objective testing by Allbinos or anybody shouldn't be your deciding factor when picking a binocular. It is best to use your own eyes. The Habicht's may have some small aberrations and longitudinal CA, but I think overall for the money they are are a very good value in binoculars for somebody that likes a nice lightweight traditional porro prism binocular with high transmission and a nice 3D image.

 

[henry link]

...Id like to ad that you tested one Zeiss and one Habicht. What were the condition of both of the instruments, how much use and/or abuse did either one of them have. Were they excellent examples from the manufacturers, the latest and greatest, were any of them ever damaged, or refurbished. These are questions that answers could have a profound effect on the believability of the outcome.

i’m not from Missouri, but that test method with one example of each binoculars definitely can be taken seriously, but if you did that with five Habicht’s and FL‘s , I’d be more apt to agree with the results...

Paul

Naturally I star-test and measure resolution first to see if there are sample defects that would disqualify a specimen. In this case I had two 8x56 FL telescopes and four 8x30 Habicht telescopes for comparison. My 8x56 FL, bought in 2007, has a good side and a theoretically "bad" side (prism edge defect), so I would have used its good side compared to the better of the two sides from my then newest pair of 8x30 Habichts.

The two 8x30 Habichts I have on hand have remarkably similar optical quality, even though one was made about 1990 and the other in 2016. Properly assembling a simple binocular like this doesn't seem to be that much of a challenge for Swarovski. In a high magnification star-test all four telescopes are quite free from the typical sample defects like astigmatism, pinching and coma. All four have very similar resolution and all four star test almost identically for longitudinal chromatic aberration and spherical aberration, which gives me pretty high confidence that the image I posted represents "normal" performance for the design.

Thanks, William, Andreas, gweller and Alexander. By now I know what to expect from Dennis.

 

[Paultricounty]

Naturally I star-test and measure resolution first to see if there are sample defects that would disqualify a specimen. In this case I had two 8x56 FL telescopes and four 8x30 Habicht telescopes for comparison. My 8x56 FL, bought in 2007, has a good side and a theoretically "bad" side (prism edge defect), so I would have used its good side compared to the better of the two sides from my then newest pair of 8x30 Habichts.

The two 8x30 Habichts I have on hand have remarkably similar optical quality, even though one was made about 1990 and the other in 2016. Properly assembling a simple binocular like this doesn't seem to be that much of a challenge for Swarovski. In a high magnification star-test all four telescopes are quite free from the typical sample defects like astigmatism, pinching and coma. All four have very similar resolution and all four star test almost identically for longitudinal chromatic aberration and spherical aberration, which gives me pretty high confidence that the image I posted represents "normal" performance for the design.

Thanks, William, Andreas, gweller and Alexander. By now I know what to expect from Dennis.

Henry,

I won’t and can’t argue with that testing method , Thank you for clarifying a few things for my intermediate analytical brain. I can’t say I agree with Dennis, and not that I’d want to so I can’t comment on the FL56 side by side with Habicht’s but I have compared them to Nikon, Leica, Zeiss, and Vortex upper mid-level ($1000 range) and to my eye the Habicht’s bring a clearer, sharper Image with more detail. Did some side by side by side with some upper level premium bins and they seem to hold there own in a pleasing image.

These comparisons were done non scientific , visual observations with small groups of optical aficionados and some birders and the consensus seem agree with those results. Considering your test results and the the personal observations of my groups, and quite a few here, what do you make of this.

I seem (as well as a few in my groups) to have a good visual acuity , that allows us to see differences in many other binoculars when it comes to optical idiosyncrasies and how they affect the quality of the image. So again what gives here with the Habicht’s? I don’t think or believe it’s just high light transmission.

Paul

 

[james holdsworth]

I don’t doubt your opening sentence, that’s for sure.
What about current experience? Does that have any bearing?

Id love to see this test redone with a few more samples. it’s possible the same results 5 or more times might convince my eyes that there not seeing what there seeing: it could happen🙃

Do it. Until then we have Henry’s actual repeatable, verifiable tests and about 10 peoples completely subjective opinions.

 

[dries1]

Perhaps the performance Henry is alluding to is overall performance in different settings, different light settings. My feeling is it is an 8X30, nothing special, a good performing 8X30.` Even with updated coatings, the design is no different than one 40 years old. IMO not worth over $1000.00. By the way Swarovski does not service these anymore, they contract out the work - at least here in the US.

 

[Paultricounty]

Do it. Until then we have Henry’s actual repeatable, verifiable tests and about 10 peoples completely subjective opinions.

Ok, send me all the bins. I’ll get right on it

 

[John A Roberts]

Hi Andy (post #354),

In relation to Habicht servicing, are you referring to Cory’s FAQ page?:

'S.O.R. now offers repair services for Carl Zeiss, Carl Zeiss Jena and Swarovski Habicht.
The optical technician in Austria no longer services Habicht binoculars made prior to 1984.'


(see at: Suddarth Optical Repair Frequently Asked Questions — Suddarth Optical Repair )


The distinction being that Habicht production before 1984 is not air-tight, but all since then is. And it’s immediately identifiable by the valve cap screws on the front bridge arms.

As far as I’m aware, air-tight Habichts go to the Swarovski factory in Austria for servicing, though SONA/ Swarovski Optik North America services the other binocular lines.


John

 

[dries1]

Thanks John, but he has received some new ones also. BTW they are not that water proof either, not like a roof prism anyway.
I wonder when they started (what year) to make them with rubber armor.

 

[John A Roberts]

Hi again Andy,

In relation to the RA option on the Habichts, the introductions were:
7x42 IF in 1971;
10x40W IF in 1972,
7x42 CF and 10x40W CF, both in 1976;
8x30N IF and CF and 8x30W IF and CF, all around 1983, and;
7x42B IF on it's introduction around 1985.


John

 

[dries1]

Thanks for the info John, appreciated.

 

[[email protected]]

Perhaps the performance Henry is alluding to is overall performance in different settings, different light settings. My feeling is it is an 8X30, nothing special, a good performing 8X30.` Even with updated coatings, the design is no different than one 40 years old. IMO not worth over $1000.00. By the way Swarovski does not service these anymore, they contract out the work - at least here in the US.

I don't know of too many roofs or porros with 95% transmission, the exceptional microcontrast and the 3D stereopsis of the Habicht. It, is a superb small porro. I can't convince everybody to like them. It is your personal preference what kind of binocular you like. My point of the thread is, the Habichts are the brightest 8x30 you can buy. If you like bright binoculars, the Habichts are it. From The Greatest Binoculars. Tobias likes them.

"The Swarovski Habicht 8x30 W is my favorite binocular. The proof is in the pudding, and this one I take out every day and use with joy - and awe. It's my reference for center sharpness, color reproduction, brightness, and handheld steadiness. And the 3D view is what spoils me for most other binos. The Habicht is very small, easy to hold, of very high build quality, and has a truly excellent price-performance ratio. Other binoculars may be easier to use and give a cleaner image under difficult situations. The Habicht 8x30 yields the most beautiful images, and has the greatest "I WANT TO TOUCH WHAT I SEE" factor."

"To be honest, it is a bit embarrassing to test the latest and most expensive roofs and always find that they cannot achieve what this little porro does in the center of the image. I was glad to find out that some people had made similar observations and commented at www.birdforum.com, especially about Gijs van Ginkel´s statement who measured the transmission of quite a few binoculars and claimed: "I have investigated the quality of the Habicht 8x30 porro and at first I could not believe what we found. I have had many porro binoculars in my hands, but the image quality of the Habicht is excellent: very sharp image quality, bright and with perfect color reproduction. We measured 95% light transmission, but the latest ones come up to 96%, while the spectrum is flat as the Dutch country side". Swarovski now claims on their website a transmission of 96% (compare this with 91% for the 8x42 SLC and 90% for the Swarovision 8x32 and then tell me that porros are totally outdated...)"

greatestbinoculars: Swarovski Habicht 8x30 W binoculars review