purchasing new binoculars (1 Viewer)

I wear glasses and tried all the top makes a year ago before the Ultravids appeared i.e. Leica 8x42 Trinovid, Zeiss 8x40 Victory, Swaro 8.5x42 EL and Nikon 8x42 HG. I found that the Nikons had the best eye relief though all were excellent and gave me a full field of view. The actual eye relief required will depend on the shape of the users eyeglass frames, the thickness of the lenses, the shape of their face (which determines how they sit on the face), and how their eyes are set in their face. I have small frames, thin lenses and do not have deep set eyes. I certainly find that I need at least 15mm of eye relief. I prefer 17mm, though the Zeiss Victory with 16mm were excellent.

As suggested what matters is the effective eye relief measured from the point where eyeglasses would make contact with the binocular. I am not sure if this is the figure given by manufacturers. I suspect they quote the eye relief relative to the rear surface of the rear eyepiece lens element. Certainly that is true of the Swift Audubon 8.5x44 which are notorious for having little eye relief despite a high quoted value.

As always, the message is that someone who is planning to fork out a small fortune on some nice bins should try them for themselves, or at least seek out as many viewpoints as possible.

scampo said:

Park Cameras - thanks to a tip off from Leif. Apparently they only had the one pair. I'm not at all knocking Opticrons, Tim.

Click to expand...

Tim ? What Tim? You were quoting me!!

Tim, Pete, Steve - what the heck, it's Saturday! And if you knew what kind of day I had yesterday, you'd forgive me solidly...


But - I'm sorry. You just sound like a Tim sometimes!

Leif said:

...I have small frames, thin lenses and do not have deep set eyes. I certainly find that I need at least 15mm of eye relief...

Click to expand...

Okay, Leif - I attach a photo of me. It was taken a while back, but it'll do. Looking at it, can you give me any hints at what kind of eye relief I'd need?

scampo said:

Okay, Leif - I attach a photo of me. It was taken a while back, but it'll do. Looking at it, can you give me any hints at what kind of eye relief I'd need?

Click to expand...

LOL. I'm not sure why you sat on a high pressure air hose whilst having your picture taken. Must be a fine old East Midlands tradition.

Leif said:

LOL. I'm not sure why you sat on a high pressure air hose whilst having your picture taken. Must be a fine old East Midlands tradition.

Click to expand...

Nah - I was just watching some pneumatic things on "I'm a something or other, get me outa here!".

Sleeper said:

How about the sworo 8x32 ELs? Have you any experience of these Leif?

Click to expand...

I was out looking at scopes today at an InFocus field day, and took some time to look through the Swaro 8x32 EL. My impression was that the shape and ergonomics are superb but I was underwhelmed by the optics. I compared them with my Nikon 8x32 SE. The optics were excellent but contrast, brightness, and sharpness were all noticeably lower and the depth of field seemed to be a bit less (this seems to be the case with all 8x32 roofs). Chromatic aberration was well controlled with no obvious field curvature or distortion. These are without doubt excellent binoculars and - along with the Nikon 8x32 HG - are the best in their class. I wouldn't go for them simply because the Nikon 8x32 SE has better optics. But if someone needed waterproofing in a compact package and wanted to lose a few pounds on the Swarovski diet then these would be a superb choice. Of course, these things are a matter of taste and ones own needs, so some people will no doubt disagree.

What surprises me is the rave reviews these have received in the UK birding press. But then again, what do I know. I'm not a professional bird-journalist.

I entirely agree based on my comparison at the Bird Fair this year. But I also thought the Nikon HGs were much better than the Swarovski 8x32s. My only problem with the HGs is that they are too short for my hands (I've got the SEs so don't need another pair of 32s)

dogfish said:

I entirely agree based on my comparison at the Bird Fair this year. But I also thought the Nikon HGs were much better than the Swarovski 8x32s. My only problem with the HGs is that they are too short for my hands (I've got the SEs so don't need another pair of 32s)

Click to expand...

I'm glad to hear someone else agrees with me. I was surprised and almost doubting myself given the over the top reviews in the press.

I thought the Nikon HGs had too much chromatic aberration but otherwise, yes much better.

Had a wonderful walk this morning over my local patch with Roy, my youngest brother; he was putting his new Nikon 8x42HGs through their paces. It was interesting to get the chance to use them for a prolonged time alongside my Swaro 8.5x42s.

When you first put the Nikons up to the eyes, the first impressions are impressive. The image is clear and contrasty (I hate to say but slightly better than the Swaros by a whisker); it is very sharp across the whole field of view (the equal of the Swaro, perhaps a smidgeon better); it is very bright (the equal of the Swaro), clear (equal if not, I hate to say it, a touch more clarity on certain views - might be the somewhat higher contrast); fringing was none existent, however hard we tried (as with Swaros); colour as near as can be said, utterly faithful to nature (both); field of view is a fraction narrower than the Swaros but is very wide; eye relief is better than the Swaros and allowed me to see the circular edge of view at a push (noticeably better than the Swaros); focusing is smooth, precise and quick (somewhat easier than the Swaros); weight - well, despite the objective difference on the scales, subjectively it proved not to be an issue over an extended and long walk in quite difficult walking conditions; grip and comfort were excellent and they were very easy to hold and use wearing gloves (as with Swaros).

All in all, a top-quality fieldglass that offers all a birder could ask from modern optics. Would I swap them? It wouldn't worry me at all - and they are a binocular that seem made to last a lifetime. They look more rugged than the Swaros, partly because they are a bit heavier, or because of the thicker black rubber covering.

Yet, the best part was, of course, the birds. Despite expecting to see very little owing to a very high and cold wind for much of the morning, we found a large set-aside field replete with alders around its edge, flanked by a babbling brook, full of hepas of rotted manure and with a deep wet ditch along one side shielded by a high hawthorn hedge and a few old rotting oaks and elms. We thought we might be lucky; and we were.

On that one patch of rough land we saw: red and grey (first for a good while) partridge, pheasant, kestrel, brambling, chaffinch, grey wagtail, mistle thrush, fieldfare, song thrush, lapwing and heron. In a nearby strip of woodland, we added tree-creeper, goldfinch, green finch, siskin and redpoll (sadly we were not able to locate a lesser-spotted woodpecker, which we have been on the look-out for as they are known to frequent the dead elms); finally, in a small nearby lake, we added coot, moorhen, mute swan and a resplendent pair of gadwall in their Sunday best.

Leif said:

I'm glad to hear someone else agrees with me. I was surprised and almost doubting myself given the over the top reviews in the press.

I thought the Nikon HGs had too much chromatic aberration but otherwise, yes much better.

Click to expand...

You really must get hold of another pair of Nikons, Leif - try as I might, no CA was visible at any time this morning. I looked askew through them, any which way, all I got was a fine, brigh and sharp image. Same with the Swaros - although, I have seen CA with them on different occasions.

scampo said:

You really must get hold of another pair of Nikons, Leif - try as I might, no CA was visible at any time this morning. I looked askew through them, any which way, all I got was a fine, brigh and sharp image. Same with the Swaros - although, I have seen CA with them on different occasions.

Click to expand...

Steve: The Swaros are fine bins, but they seem to have a shade less contrast than my Nikon 8x32 SEs. There was a recent post on BF showing the CA through the Nikon 8x32 HG.

I went out for a short walk after reading your post, but only saw loads of noisy parakeets. They are almost a pest round here.

BTW If you have dead elms near you, I recommend you pass by them in late Autumn and early Winter. With a bit of luck you might see a very beautiful fungus called Rhodotus palmatus growing on bits of dead elm. These mushrooms have bright pink caps, about 5cm across, pink gills, and a white stem which sometimes has what looks like drops of blood clinging to it. It's quite remarkable.

gunvald said:

Hello Scampo (and all you other people)!


More thoughts on binoculars and eye glasses:

I feel unsure about the eye relief of the Leica Ultravid 8x42 which otherwise seem to be a really good candidate for a good pair of binoculars.

I use eye glasses with a strength of -7 dioptries, although I have thin glass elements with high refractive index, I have tried to measure how much eye relief I need and it seems to equal 15 mm "free air" between my eye and the outer rim of the eye piece of the binoculars.

Judging from pictures, the Leica Ultravids seem to have the outer rim located a few mm-s above the eye piece glass element even with the eye cups lowered, so even if the eye relied is 16 mm, the free distance seems to be less, perhaps ~14 mm. This is probably too little for me.

Click to expand...

Compared to the 8x32 Trinovids (14mm eye relief) the eyerelief is better for the Ultravids 8x42 and I would say that its about 16 mm (stated by leica is 15,9 mm). The 7x42 ultravids is even better with 17 mm, and they are even easier to look into.

When I compared the Ultravids (7x) with 8,5x42 ELs (18mm eye relief) and zeiss 7x42 (19mm) my impression was that the "looking into comfort" is almost equal for the trio maybe with the Zeiss being just a bit ahead.

Though the sharpness of the zeiss 7x42 classics is not on the same level as the leica/swarovski duo. The chromatic abberation also seemed a bit larger. (The zeiss pair i tried was rather new and had both P* and T* coatings, the earliest models dont have P* coating I think).

When it comes to the 8x ultravids eye relief I thought it was just on the short side for me. It would be acceptable unless you are looking for the ultimate "widescreen" experience in binos. But at this price levels I think one should demand almost perfection when it comes to the view...

Another point that differs between the models, is the larger outer diameter of the eye piece tubes of both the Zeiss (with rubber eyecups folded down) and the Swarovski EL. This makes it easier for me to support the binos on my eye browes, and this makes them more comfy I think...

Leif said:

Steve: The Swaros are fine bins, but they seem to have a shade less contrast than my Nikon 8x32 SEs. There was a recent post on BF showing the CA through the Nikon 8x32 HG.

I went out for a short walk after reading your post, but only saw loads of noisy parakeets. They are almost a pest round here.

BTW If you have dead elms near you, I recommend you pass by them in late Autumn and early Winter. With a bit of luck you might see a very beautiful fungus called Rhodotus palmatus growing on bits of dead elm. These mushrooms have bright pink caps, about 5cm across, pink gills, and a white stem which sometimes has what looks like drops of blood clinging to it. It's quite remarkable.

Click to expand...

Both of us this morning felt that the contrast was a shade better on the Nikon HGs - interesting, really - I was surprised to be honest; the overall impression on just a few views was that the Nikon did give a clearer, more faithful view. I shouldn't be surprised really as I have said, one of our most highly respected local birders has swapped from Trinovids to 8x42HGs for just the same reasons (and he didn't choose Ultrvids, either!). Interesting.

Leif said:

Steve: The Swaros are fine bins, but they seem to have a shade less contrast than my Nikon 8x32 SEs. There was a recent post on BF showing the CA through the Nikon 8x32 HG.

I went out for a short walk after reading your post, but only saw loads of noisy parakeets. They are almost a pest round here.

BTW If you have dead elms near you, I recommend you pass by them in late Autumn and early Winter. With a bit of luck you might see a very beautiful fungus called Rhodotus palmatus growing on bits of dead elm. These mushrooms have bright pink caps, about 5cm across, pink gills, and a white stem which sometimes has what looks like drops of blood clinging to it. It's quite remarkable.

Click to expand...

Well - as I've said, one of our most respected birders sold his Leicas for the HGs and once or twice this morning, I did feel the Nikons had the edge; but still so very close.

Is that fungus on your website, btw? You must give me the address again - I think I forgot to put it in my favourites folder.

scampo said:

Well - as I've said, one of our most respected birders sold his Leicas for the HGs and once or twice this morning, I did feel the Nikons had the edge; but still so very close.

Is that fungus on your website, btw? You must give me the address again - I think I forgot to put it in my favourites folder.

Click to expand...

You can find my site address from my BF profile. There is a rather poor photo of the fungus on my site. I keep meaning to put up a better one, though I am currently archiving my slides so that is occupying my time. I am sure that if you search the Internet you will find a better picture. The Fungi of San Francisco Bay is a quite superb site. Worth a look and it might have a picture of said fungus.

I shall have a good look when I have a spare half-hour. Last time I looked I remember being hooked - you do have some amazing photos of fungi, etc.

Leif said:

Steve: The Swaros are fine bins, but they seem to have a shade less contrast than my Nikon 8x32 SEs. There was a recent post on BF showing the CA through the Nikon 8x32 HG.

Click to expand...

If you mean my recent post http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=12242 it was actually with 10x32HG, which may be the worst from HG-models in this respect. I have looked through 8x42HG only briefly, but I'd say it has less CA than 32mm models. -If only it wasn't so heavy...

Ilkka

iporali said:

If only it wasn't so heavy...

Ilkka

Click to expand...

That does seem a rather odd statement to make really - all the more so because you have regularly sung the praises of the Leica Apo-televid.

Now, no one would describe the Nikon 8x42HG binocular as a comparative lightweight in its market segment, but how heavy is it? Well - it there are 90g. between say, the Nikon and the excellent and very popular Leica Trinovids.

One look at the Nikons hints at where these 90 grams go - on the rugged rubber armouring, more than likely. One look at the Nikons suggests that they should easily see their owner through a lifetime of use and more. Now, to my real surprise, a recent post concerning Trinovids stated that their owner's pair was "past their best" in just seven years of use (very heavy use, I should think - but a point of interest, nonetheless).

So - 90 grams? Well, that excellent scope you speak so highly of weighs in at over two kilograms with its case. I wonder, can 90 grams make or break that enjoyable birding day? Heavens above, the cheese in a few sandwiches weighs as much.

(-;

Are the Nikon 8x42s really ''equivalent'' to the Trinovids? Granted, they're in the same price bracket, but the Nikons are better bins to my eyes. So surely the most interesting comparison is with the Ultravids, which are noticeably better optically than the Trinovids. And they're c 790g and superb in the hand. Oh, and around the neck too.