• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Nikon Premier Se Binoculars (1 Viewer)

I don't have enough information for a theory, but if my feet were placed to the fire I'd point the finger at widely spaced 4 element objectives with negative focusing elements, another innovation that came along in the 90's. Binoculars using that design are the only ones in my experience with really excessive lateral color. Binoculars with simple doublet objectives have never been very bad no matter what the glass or coatings.

When the Leica Trinovid BA first appeared on the market, they exhibited noticeably more colour fringing than many older binoculars with simpler optical systems. This was quite obvious in direct comparisons, for instance between the Trinovid 10x42 BA and the Zeiss 10x40 BGATP. Both the Leica and the Zeiss used leaded glass at the time, and their coatings were of roughly similar quality. Interestingly, later versions of the Trinovids seemed to be somewhat better than the first production run, prompting speculation among some birdwatchers here that Leica had quietly introduced some changes to the Trinovids.

When Zeiss switched to complex objectives around 2000 with the original Victory range, one of the problems people noted was that the Victory exhibited too much colour fringing. It was this criticism more than anything else that lead to the introduction of the Victory FL a few years later. Everything else like the problems with flare, the slightly sticky armouring or the design of the eyecups could easily have been rectified without introducing a new range. In fact, the flare problem was rectified quite quickly by better baffles in the so-called "Victory II", and even binoculars from the first production run were modified in Wetzlar when people turned them in for repair.

I'd really like to know what the Zeiss people might have to say about this. I'm quite sure they know exactly what caused the problems with increased CA. My guess is it had nothing to do with changed coatings and/or the use of unleaded optical glass.

Hermann
 
Last edited:
Well, I don't have much more time to discuss this interesting topic, but it's not like nothing relevant was happening on the Porro front during the last two decades. Arguably the first hi-grade birding binocular with full multi-coating and ED glass was the Swift 804ED introduced about 1990. To my eyes this instrument provided an absolutely extraordinary view that overcame evident color fringing in the standard fully multi-coated HR/5 model of the same era. Again to my eyes, the multicoated 804R that preceded it in 1985 had an easier and more relaxed view, possibly because of the difficulty in adapting to the HR/5's more evident fringing. Indeed, I've always been somewhat surprised by the greater similarity of the 804R to the 804ED than to the latest HR/5 with deep green full multi-coating. Audubon mavens like Renze or others might follow what I'm trying to express. Gotta go.

The point is, internal focusing was not involved.

Regards,
Ed
 
Last edited:
Hi,
I'm not sure to ask this here or in a new thread. But now that there is quite a bit of a discussion ongoing here I would like to ask those who own a Nikon Premier SE bin: If you take a look into the tubes of this binoculars via the objetive, do you see some kind of baffles behind the lenses or not? Also, if you examine the exit pupil on the other side of the tube, is it of perfect circular shape or slightly oval?

Steve
 
Last edited:
Well, I don't have much more time to discuss this interesting topic, but it's not like nothing relevant was happening on the Porro front during the last two decades. Arguably the first hi-grade birding binocular with full multi-coating and ED glass was the Swift 804ED introduced about 1990. To my eyes this instrument provided an absolutely extraordinary view that overcame evident color fringing in the standard fully multi-coated HR/5 model of the same era. Again to my eyes, the multicoated 804R that preceded it in 1985 had an easier and more relaxed view, possibly because of the difficulty in adapting to the HR/5's more evident fringing. Indeed, I've always been somewhat surprised by the greater similarity of the 804R to the 804ED than to the latest HR/5 with deep green full multi-coating. Audubon mavens like Renze or others might follow what I'm trying to express. Gotta go.

The point is, internal focusing was not involved.

Regards,
Ed

Ed,

Can you determine if those models show differing amounts of lateral color? That's the only form of chromatic aberration I compared in the Nikon tests and the only one I had in mind when speculating about the effects of complex objectives with internal focusing.

Henry
 
Henry on your link to the pictures in post #17 the housing for the SE the screw looks rusty looking. I didn't notice that before.
 
Thanks Henry for the link.
The reason why I´m asking is that I found some distinctive differences in baffling when I compared an 8x32 SE with a 10x42 SE. Now I wonder if this is a difference between these two - 8x32 and 10x42 - models or if there was a general change with all SE-models in building quality sometimes during the years of production. The 8x32 (S/N 500xxx) was baffled in a clearly more elaborate way than the 10x42 (S/N 008xxx). The most noticeable difference was a multi-baffle element behind the objective of the 8x32 which wasn´t there in the 10x42. Your photos in the other thread were taken from an angle where this element isn´t visible. It is visible from an angular front view into the objective. In the result, comparing these two samples, I would rate the optical performance of the 8x32 higher because of a clearly better contrast and less stray light.

Steve
 
Hello, Everyone.
I Have Been Following Your Replies. Honestly, Most Of The Technical Discussion Has Been Far Beyond My Experience. I Have A Lot To Learn.

I Have Received My First Pair Of Nikon 8x32 Se.cf Binoculars. The View Is Great. So Good That I Have Purchased A Second Pair As A Gift. The Serial #'s Of The Bins Begin With 503... And 501... Does Anyone Know If These Would Contain The Eco-glass Or The Original Leaded Glass ? The Owner / Seller Of The 501... Bins Is Certain That These Are Made With The Leaded Glass. What About The 503... Bins ? Would These Still Contain The Leaded Glass ? The 503... Bins Came With The Original Sales Slip From The Year 2000.

These Bins Feel Good In The Hand, Are Light-weight, And Deliver A Great View. I Am Glad To Have Them.

Thanks To Everyone For Your Posts.
 
You have been a good sport about all this wingersheek and we are glad you are pleased with your new SE's. Clearly, what you lack in experience you more than make up for in perception so do not feel inadequate about it.

Enjoy your new SE's and use them often!:t:

Bob
 
Ed,

Can you determine if those models show differing amounts of lateral color? That's the only form of chromatic aberration I compared in the Nikon tests and the only one I had in mind when speculating about the effects of complex objectives with internal focusing.

Henry

Hi Henry,

Yes, I understand, and in fact it may be very true that CA is more of a design problem when using some types of internal focusing lenses. I would think that a ray tracing program could establish that, as well as help with another question we have about increased magnification at near working distances.

Using my simple methods I can not establish reliable differences in the amount or spectral composition (apparent color) of CA fringes. I have an 804R and an 804 HR/5 to work with, made in '86 and '95, respectively. Both are marked Muli-Coated Optics, but the coatings are obviously quite different. My '93 804ED's coatings appear about the same as the '95 HR/5, so I assume that either Swift/Hiyoshi wasn't too careful about cover plate markings, or there was more than a single stage of development before they reached fully multicoated models.

Whatever the case may be, if I observe a back-lit window frame (it's pretty dismal in California today) a purple halo becomes readily apparent as a vertical edge is moved to the right, and a green halo to the left. I estimate the 804R and HR/5 models grow fringes at the same rate with field angle, which is consistent with having the same optical design. I can't distinguish any difference in magnitude or color, except that they both become stronger and more vivid at the edges. By contrast, the 804ED's fringing begins at a larger field angle and never gets quite as vivid near the edge. Again, I can establish no color differences in any of the fringes themselves.

Although my set up (if one could call it that) is not as good as yours, I'm not inclined to believe that either is adequate to address the kinds of visual adaptation I've suggested. These must occur in the normal course of viewing. Back-lit or high-contrast situations represent extreme cases, so subtle differences are essentially swamped. It would be like judging the difference in weight between a feather and a quarter with each attached to a ten pound weight.

Some conjectures are difficult to turn into testable hypotheses. Most testable hypotheses are not easy to study with modest means.

Ed
 
Last edited:
Hello, Again,
Please, Would Someone Explain And Compare The Similarities / Differences Between The Zeiss Classic 7x42 ( Bgat ? ) And The Newer Zeiss Victory 7x42 Fl ?

Thanks.
 
John,
Can you pin it down a little closer?
Bob

Bob,

This has been discredited by the experts, but since you asked....here's one of the Ohara's reports I mentioned earlier that "lead" me to suspect that lead-free glass caused greater CA.

NOTE that the lead and lead-free glass being compared in this report have the same refractive index and Abbe numbers and yet still show differences in CA (greater in the lead free glass).

This had been the crux of counterarguments - because lead-free glass and lead glass have the same Abbe number, they are equal in all respects including CA control. According Ohara, that is not the case with all lead free optical glass. The first example is in the extreme end of the spectrum and though important for microscopy is probably not relevant for sports optics. The second example refers to "wide wavelength ranges".

I did download a more relevant Ohara report that dealt differences in the entire spectrum, and which stated that after a number of failed attempts at finding the right combination of lead substitutes, Ohara was able to make lead-free glass "nearly as good" as its high grade lead optical glass, but I also lost that document in a fatal computer crash. I don't have time to look for it now, but I will try to find it later.

Here are some quotes to that effect:

"To illustrate the difference in anomalous dispersion of lead-containing glass material and lead-free glass with the same refractive index and Abbe’s number, the differences between the glass materials BPH5 and S-NBH5 manufactured by OHARA INC. are described below. The refractive index and Abbe’s number of the lead-free glass material S-NBH5 are the same as that of the lead-containing glass material BPH5. The anomalous dispersion (Δθg,F, Δθi,g) of S-NBH5, which is important for correcting the chromatic aberration in the short wavelength region, is half or less than that of BPH5. Therefore, it will be impossible to design an Apochromat objective lens unless lead-containing glass material such as BPH5 is used."

Another example:

"In another example, the difference between the lead-containing glass material LAM7 and lead-free glass material S-LAM7 manufactured by OHARA INC. is described below. Although the refractive index and Abbe’s number of both glass materials are the same, the sign of anomalous dispersion (ΔθC,t), which is important for correcting the chromatic aberration in the near-infrared region, is different. Therefore, S-LAM7 cannot be used as a substitute for LAM7 to manufacture objective lenses that can correct chromatic aberration in wide wavelength ranges up to the near-infrared region. It is impossible to design a near-infrared objective lens unless lead-containing glass material is used."

Brock
 

Attachments

  • 6_No_13-2_Lead_in_Optical_Glass.pdf
    265.1 KB · Views: 258
Last edited:
Brock,
You are starting to sound like a scientist, I am worried about you!

I get the idea I think: The Abbe number is defined across the bright part of the visible, from C to F I think (486 to 656 nm), so two glasses could have the same Abbe number, but still behave differently outside that range.

So, what color are the fringes that you see? To me, lateral color fringes usually look purple on one side and yellow green on the other (which I think is characteristic of secondary spectrum, and may give a clue to the fringes's origin). Yellow and green are in the middle of the visible, so I don't see how your argument pertains to them. I suspect the purple is a mixture of red and blue, at the ends of the visible, perhaps enough outside the CF band that your argument has some validity.

The link looks very interesting, I will read it when I get time. Thanks.
Ron
 
Last edited:
To answer Ron, the color fringing that I see is reddish purple on one side, yellow green on the other. Only kind I see.

I like Henry's suggestion that the uptick in CA reports in modern non-ED bins is due to the change in internal focus compound objectives.

If it weren't for the fact that I've also compared porros of the same design where the newer versions had more CA (though still less than the roofs), and if I hadn't also read similar reports about other "udpated" porros, I'd gladly jump aboard the compound objective = > CA bandwagon, because in general, I see more CA in modern roofs than I do in modern porros of the same configuration.

Not that also seeing more CA in newer porros negates the compound objective = > CA idea. It's just that it's beginning to appear from the other points that have been discussed earlier such as more awareness of CA, more birders, older birder population, etc. that rather than there being a "Lone Gunman," there could be multiple "shooters" conspiring together to create that CA uptick.

None-the-less, to beat the dead horse one more time...

I found another Ohara report that sheds some (color fringed) light on the lead vs. unleaded gas, er... I mean glass differences.

One interesting comment that amused me was this:

'In flint glasses, lead oxide plays a vital role in producing a negative anomalous partial dispersion. The B2O3-PbO system such as encountered in Ohara’s glass types BPH8, BPH5, BPM51 shows significant negative anomalous partial dispersion. However, since it is thought that the characteristic of showing negative anomalous partial dispersion with high dispersion is a unique property of B2O3-PbO system,1 it has been difficult up until now to eliminate lead oxide."

Translating into the vernacular, it means that their own presuppositions about what was possible delayed the development of lead free glass. Though I would bet that government regulations to "get the lead out" caused them to open their eyes and take another look.

What they found at first confirmed their suspicions...

"The lead-free flint glasses, for example the glass system SiO2-TiO2, showed the opposite behavior - positive anomalous partial dispersion (> CA). As environmentally friendly optical flint glasses having negative anomalous partial dispersion, the glass system SiO2-GeO2-Ta2O5 was
introduced."

The power of three was the charm except for its economic and physical limits....

"This [lead free] flint glass however is economically disadvantageous because, in order to achieve the desired negative anomalous partial dispersion, it required a large amount of GeO2 (germanium dioxide) and Ta2O5 (tantalum pentoxide), materials which are very expensive. In addition, this glass is difficult to melt and
therefore, it is hard to obtain material homogeneity."

Nobium to the Rescue

"In niobium containing glass systems, Ohara found that the SiO2-Nb2O5-ZrO2 system [Quartz+Niobium pentoxide+Zirconium dioxide] for Ohara’s glass types S-NBH8, S-NBH5, S-NBM51 has negative anomalous partial dispersion.

"These glasses attained almost the same values for θg,F as conventional lead containing flint glasses as shown in Table I.

Niobium oxide is effective for increasing the negative anomalous partial dispersion property of the flint glasses if the amount of niobium oxide is above 20%. As
a result, niobium oxide plays a vital role in environmental friendly glass having negative anomalous partial dispersion."

Hallelujah! Are we there yet? Not quite...

Problem of Niobium Oxide Containing Environmentally Friendly Optical Glasses

"Whether a melt of specific composition vitrifies or crystallizes depends on the composition and
the cooling rate.... As Figure 6 shows, lead oxide has an unusual characteristic such that the glass forming
tendency of even binary PbO-SiO2 system leads to lead oxide content of more than 60 wt%. So it is possible for lead containing glasses to achieve a very high refractive index."

The plot (and coating) thickens...

Give me Lead or Give me Jaundice

"However, niobium oxide has a narrower glass-forming region than lead oxide does. It shows that the
glasses tend to crystallize stronger when the content of niobium oxide is more than 40 wt%. In order to prevent the crystallization for niobium containing glasses with high refractive index, it is necessary to adjust the refractive index by using additional elements like titanium oxide....

(and another "however")....

However, since titanium oxide has the fundamental absorption in the range of the near ultraviolet, the absorption limit moves toward longer wavelength compared with lead containing glass as shown in Figure 7. This makes the glass slightly yellowish. Some extra
attention in material selection is required just in case the optical system is designed for use at the short wavelength part of the visible range."

and so on, the reports shows the "Long and Winding Road" (da da) that leads to the door of finding the right combination punches that KO'd lead glass (or "almost").

I've attached the entire document, complete with equations, abbe numbers, and all sorts of delightful technical information for those who like that sort of stuff.

But for those who don't, let's skip to the conclusion....

"Niobium oxide plays an important role as one of the components that are substituted for lead
oxide. Niobium oxide containing glasses are effective in attaining almost [there's that word again] the same relative partial dispersion values as conventional lead containing glasses....

"In the optical industry, the development of lead free products has become such an important
consideration that it is also part of the marketing strategy.[We are "cool" because we make Ecobins].
As a result, the demand for niobium oxide has doubled over the past ten years."

[The paper isn't dated but since lead free glass wasn't introduced until the late 1990s, I'm guessing this was written sometime in the past few years.]

"Future development of optical materials with special characteristics is desirable to accompany cost reductions including those in manufacturing methods and higher performance optical system design."

Given that Schott and other glass makers very likely went through this same trial and error process (assuming no corporate espionage was going on), I have to wonder if that R & D initially added some cost to the alphas and Nikon HGLs even though lead free glass has now trickled down to entry level optics?

Or if the cost of having to properly dispose of the lead and the safety concerns related to workers making lead glass offset the costs?

Regardless of the cause(s), if you see more CA in lead free glass bins of either porro or roof design, and it bothers you, there are ED/HD/FL/L glass bins available for the sensitive and discriminate birder at various price points. So no worries.

And there are always old porros and pre-internal focus roofs for sale....

http://cgi.ebay.com/Zeiss-Classic-8x56-B-GA-binoculars-Mint-case-/160573316986?pt=Binocular&hash=item2562ea5f7a

To be safe, carry a freezer baggie with you in case there's a downpour. But if the baggie's from China, make sure it doesn't have any lead.

Brock
 

Attachments

  • Ohara report on lead free glass.pdf
    1.4 MB · Views: 140
Last edited:
Brock:

Nice work, and and a nice evaluation of the mfr. of glass through the years. I have
read through the Ohara piece, and unless you are a half scientist, it is a nice read and
does refer how hard it is hard to get better glass without the lead. It seems that for
using microscopes, color "does really matter", when doing a diagnosis for the color
of an object, and when time for treatment is critical.

I do not find any mention of ED, HD or fluorite added to the story, so I suppose that
has been the way to just shortcut and add the factors to get the better color correction.

I am thinking the term Ecoglass, is just another politically correct wording that has
become popular. I think there is lead still being used in some optic elements, to get things to work well for many of the makers, and that is why many here will not know about those things. I have only seen Nikon proclaiming the use of lead free "Ecoglass",
what about the rest?

Jerry
 
Brock,

Would you mind deleting your quote of my post. I deleted it, but evidently not quickly enough. I don't have time to participate in this discussion now.

Henry
 
Brock:

Nice work, and and a nice evaluation of the mfr. of glass through the years. I have
read through the Ohara piece, and unless you are a half scientist, it is a nice read and
does refer how hard it is hard to get better glass without the lead. It seems that for
using microscopes, color "does really matter", when doing a diagnosis for the color
of an object, and when time for treatment is critical.

I do not find any mention of ED, HD or fluorite added to the story, so I suppose that
has been the way to just shortcut and add the factors to get the better color correction.

I am thinking the term Ecoglass, is just another politically correct wording that has
become popular. I think there is lead still being used in some optic elements, to get things to work well for many of the makers, and that is why many here will not know about those things. I have only seen Nikon proclaiming the use of lead free "Ecoglass",
what about the rest?

Jerry

Jerry,

I was surprised to see all the optical and physical qualities they needed to get right with lead free glass besides "negative anomalous partial dispersion," and how as they solved one problem, another cropped up that they had to solve. It turned out to be a major undertaking even for opticians who know optics 100 squared better than we do.

You saw this ad, but for others who haven't, I think it's worth posting a link to an auction ad for a "rare glass" 8x32 SE that originally opened with a starting bin of $1,650. When some BF members saw this ad, they must have thought I wrote it! But he's far more "evangelical" than I am about the superiority of lead glass.

He also purports to know exactly when Nikon switched to lead free glass in the 8x32 and 10x42 SEs.

My favorite all time bin is the 8x30 EII, which has "EcoGlass". More CA than I'd like in high contrast situations, but it as Henry mentioned, it is a rather short bin, after all (at least w/out the added prostheses :).

There was also an 8x30 E in near mint condition for sale recently, which if I were flush, I would have bought to compare.

Here's the ad of a true believer (or at least a good BSer who tried to drive up the price of these old 501 SEs :)! Pay particular attention to the third paragraph about its optical properties.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&_trksid=p4340.l2557&rt=nc&nma=true&item=190517731113&si=q0VoQLxoQwEugz3Pk5hlarwmFqs%253D&viewitem=&sspagename=STRK%3AMEWAX%3AIT

Brock
 
Last edited:
Warning! This thread is more than 13 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top