Zen Ray ED2 7x36 evaluations and review (1 Viewer)

None regard them as the $500 bin they are any more, and they are reviewed just as carefully (hard) as any $2000 bin would be.

Superb presentation, Ron! It answers nearly all the questions I might have about the basic optical performance. The optics lab you've assembled should prove to be a great resource for the rest of us optics buyers.

One thing I'm unsure about is whether the off-axis behavior (particularly field curvature) would be the same for the curved surface of the retina as it is when projected on a flat sensor. It would be interesting to compare your visual experience of the target with the photo.

Once again, fantastic effort. By far the best optical testing of a binocular I've seen done outside of a professional optics lab.

Henry

kristoffer said:

None regard them as the $500 bin they are any more, and they are reviewed just as carefully (hard) as any $2000 bin would be.

Click to expand...

Well that is hard to argue. What has me curious is at some point if Z-R decides to go with the improvements in the design needed to meet the high expectation and turn those expectations into reality, what are folks going to say when the price will have to start going up? Or do they decide to trim a bit of fov to help with glare and edge issues to keep the price down? No free lunch.

henry link said:

Superb presentation, Ron! It answers nearly all the questions I might have about the basic optical performance. The optics lab you've assembled should prove to be a great resource for the rest of us optics buyers.

One thing I'm unsure about is whether the off-axis behavior (particularly field curvature) would be the same for the curved surface of the retina as it is when projected on a flat sensor. It would be interesting to compare your visual experience of the target with the photo.

Once again, fantastic effort. By far the best optical testing of a binocular I've seen done outside of a professional optics lab.

Henry

Click to expand...

Henry, I will take some time to look at this. As a rule I try to avoid coherently coupled systems with the eye. I cannot explain my own vision, much less everyone elses. I try to use incoherent coupling when possible since I just want to compare instruments. But from past experiance, what I see with the CCD or frosted grids is pretty much what I see with the eye. Without getting into a discussion of theory, I adhere to the notion that the diopter change in object space = diopter (accomodation)/m^2 so even if I had 5d accomodation (lucky if it is 3) that would only equate to .1d in object space.

Thanks for the kind words.

Best
Ron

Surveyor said:

Hi All,

I received my 7x36 Saturday and have made some preliminary technical checks for those interested in that sort of thing. I did the report in PDF’s to keep it simple for me.

I have not looked at the glare issue yet. I was going to do that yesterday but I got sidetracked chasing a bird around the neighborhood and forgot all about testing. I will look into this later.

I will leave the subjective testing to those more adept at it than I am.

Best to all.

Ron

Click to expand...

What will be resolution limit of ideal 36mm binoculars? Is 4.03" enough? I have seen a report of 2.7" on some of the Porro binoculars in another thread.

Henry,

I just got in from making a check to answer your question. I looked at a house about 130 meters away and focused, center field, on the center windowpane of one of the windows. I then moved that pane to the right side of the right tube. I had to focus towards infinity 39 degrees of rotation, at 14.1 degrees/diopter, or –2.8d and I think I had posted –2.5d. I then moved the windowpane to the left side of the right tube and had to rotate towards infinity 24 degrees of rotation for a diopter of –1.7d, think I had posted –1d (I rounded off to 1/2d in the post).

I consider the bench readings to be more accurate since the equipment used had some magnification and, therefore, a sharper focus.

Bob A (SD)

I focused on a scene about 120 meters away that was mostly trees and pasture. Most of the field looked sharp enough, probably more than 80% although there was a shed with horizontal siding that, when looking at it intently, I could tell it was just getting out of focus about 75% from center.

As to glare, I had to look up at about 30-40 degrees and get to within about 20-30 degrees of the sun on my right side. This showed a light glare along the bottom edge and extended up about a ¼ towards the center. Oddly, with the sun in about the same position on the left side, I did not notice the glare. I think I will just consider this a safety factor.

Best
Ron

We'll they're here For the last hour I've had them spot welded to my eyes.

I need not have feared. They are providing very bright and crisp views. As far as the edge performance, perhaps it's my 62 year old eyes, but I really have to push things to see problems left or right. Now top and bottom of the field of view I much more readily find deterioration. That said I am not finding it objectionable at all. This with the caveat of but one hour's use mind you.

I have seen the glare bit but boy did I have to work to get it to evidence itself. This is a big non-issue thusfar as well.

There was an oddiity no one else has mentioned thusfar though. When adjusting the IPD with the eye cups fully extracted (viewing without eyeglasses), I found they rubbed the bridge of my nose. This doesn't happen with my Swaros nor did it with a pair of Vortex 10x Diamondbacks I once owned, both of which have similar eye cup styles. And no, my nose isn't big at all nor are my eyes that closely set. Weird......

And I too am glad Charles is addressing the objective lens covers.... they're way too loose. As for the length of the strap.... seems to be the same as the detachable Vero Vellini's I have on my Swaros. That said I'd prefer both to be shorter

Anyhow, so much for first impressions. Hoping for some decent skies to see how they do at night. I'm hoping for pinpoint stars without any astigmatism or other ill effects.

I just posted this on my shootout thread. These are photos of the oculars of the 7x36s at infinite focus and minimum focus. The controversial grey crescent of doom (or intermittent faint non-existent crescent of nothing, depending) occurs to the lower left of this left barrel, opposite the bright reflection in the infinite focus picture:

Infinite focus

Minimum focus

I have also noticed a small amount of backlash, a few degrees, in the Zen focus knob. I didn't notice it the first day, but it's there now, maybe because the lubricant has had time to spread around. Does anyone else notice this?

falcondude said:

What will be resolution limit of ideal 36mm binoculars? Is 4.03" enough? I have seen a report of 2.7" on some of the Porro binoculars in another thread.

Click to expand...

Here is what Ron said in his excellent report.

"This yields a
resolution limit of 4.03 arc seconds for each barrel. I consider this excellent for a 36
mm objective and would be surprised to find any significant aberrations in the
images."

Edz posted this #25
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=147615

Celestron Regal 8x42 considered an excellent binocular 4.1 arcsec
the Zen Ray ED2 8x43 4.1 arcsec

Steve (mooreorless),

Did you add any Zen-Ray bins to your stable? It's hard to keep up with whos doing what:king:

Hi Bob, No I didn't, I did try the a Promaster ED thanks to the kindness of Surveyor and liked it a lot. I ended up buying a Nikon 8x32SE. I will have to wait a while for one of the Zen-Ray ED2 7x36 binoculars. This is one I am interested in for sure.
Regards,Steve

I just did a comparo with my Swaro 7x42 SLCs under dark skies here. I posted my comments in Fireform's "shoot out" thread.

Got mine today. Almost as soon as I put them to my eyes I knew they were going back. The glare is just awful, much worse than my Leupold Cascade porros. It's also much worse with my glasses on. However, even without glasses, my Cascades are still better with controlling glare. The sad thing is aside from the glare the optics appear to be very good. They are great binos for looking at ground feeding birds.

mooreorless said:

Celestron Regal 8x42 considered an excellent binocular 4.1 arcsec
the Zen Ray ED2 8x43 4.1 arcsec

Click to expand...

Actually the resolution specs from Zen Ray for the x43 ED 1 and 2 is for 3.2 arc seconds. It is 4.0 on the 7x36. As Ron points out, and Z-R confirmed, 4.0 is as good as it gets @ 7x36. However anything approaching 4.0 can be pretty good. I know Ron posted some resolution specs for his Promaster ELX ED, which are speced at 3.6 arc seconds. I do not recall similar posts for any of the other ZEN type ED's. Not that they aren't there.

Edit, that 3.2 is peak performance. Like anything maybe best not really taken too literally. SteveM may be right about something in the order of 4.0 to be actual. But I don't know which he was posting about. Again if we can get to an actual 4.0 or so, the image can be excellent.

Steve C said:

Actually the resolution specs from Zen Ray for the x43 ED 1 and 2 is for 3.2 arc seconds. It is 4.0 on the 7x36.

Click to expand...

from my other post
more than 10 (out of 60) binoculars ranging from 7x50s to 15x70s that all could see resolution of 3.4 arcseconds down to 2.4 arcseconds. Only one was a roof.

here's the same list I posted before only in order and now including a second sample of the ED2 8x43. all values rounded to nearest tenth.

Leica Trinovid 10x42 rp 3.4
Celestron Regal 10x42 rp 3.6
Zen Ray Summit 10x42 rp 3.8
Zen Ray ZEN ED2 8x43 rp smpl 1 4.1
Zen Ray ZEN ED2 8x43 rp smpl 2 4.1
Celestron Regal 8x42 rp 4.1
Oberwerk 12x50 Sport rp 4.3
Bushnell Legend 8x42 rp 5.4
Garrett DCF 8x42 Apo rp 5.4
Nikon Monarch ATB 10x42 rp 5.7
Pentax DCF HRII 10x42 rp 6.1

BUT take note: the second sample of the ED2 8x43 did not reach the same limit of normal power resoluion as sample 1 8x43, the ZRS or the Regal LX, or several others for that matter. So, as much as people like to look at boosted resolution, you should probably only weight that boosted value about 1/3 weight vs 2/3 the weight given to normal power resolution. For instance, here's the same list as above only this time showing the actual normal power resolution (times the power to equalize).

Zen Ray Summit 10x42 rp 81
Celestron Regal 10x42 rp 83
Celestron Regal 8x42 rp 83.5
Zen Ray ZEN ED2 8x43 rp smpl 1 84.5
Bushnell Legend 8x42 rp 84.5
Garrett DCF 8x42 Apo rp 86.5
Oberwerk 12x50 Sport rp 87
Leica Trinovid 10x42 rp 88
Zen Ray ZEN ED2 8x43 rp smpl 2 89
Pentax DCFHRII 10x42 rp 94
Nikon Monarch ATB10x42 rp 97

To get some idea of how these stack up to all binoculars, values around 85 are good, below 82-83 very good. the best binoculars all range between 75 and 81. the worst are all over 90.

Boosted resolution values do not give a clear indication of normal power resolution and should not be weighted as much in trying to see where things fall in rank. I don't ignore boosted resolution, I just give normal power twice the weight when trying to fit it all together. Nothing in the above values is weighted, it is all direct. I'm not ranking anything here, as that would need to take into consideration a dozen other aspects of performance. You can take the data and use it however you like. But it should be pretty obvious, with few exceptions in the data, anyone who uses exclusively boosted resolution as opposed to anyone who uses exclusive normal resolution is going to come up with a much different list order.



Also one comment about Zen Ray's "spec" of 3.2 arcsec for a 43mm binocular.
It's either coincidence or what Zen Ray does here is calculate the Rayleigh limit of a 43mm lens 138/43 = 4.2arcsec. This is not a useful value for any daytime observing or for comparing to any values obtained using a "line pairs" chart.

I'd recommend following Steve's link above back to his resolution tests where you can read more about what you need to know regarding resolution, But here's the short of it.

Can't compare Rayleigh resolution limit and line pairs resolution as equals. Rayleigh limit is measured on point sources against a dark background. Stars, at night. Line pairs resolution will always be on the order of about only 60%-70% as wide as Rayleigh.

So, if a 43mm lens has a Rayleigh Limit of 4.2 arcseconds, it should have approx a 2.7 arcsec limit of resoluion using a line pairs chart. All scopes that I've tested at Rayleigh and with line pair charts show this exact relation. No binoculars that I know of reach the corrected line pairs limit.


edz

Here are my (what are likely to be poorly organized) thoughts on the Zen-Ray 7x36 ED2 after a day's testing under a variety of lighting conditions and in side-by-side comparison with several other binoculars. Although I'd have liked to have tested them further and given myself some time to digest my thoughts and feelings before rendering a "verdict" of sorts, I've already found that I'm going to have to return the unit that I currently have because its vertical alignment is not good. I haven't decided yet whether the return will be for exchange or refund. In the past, during the height of my binocular collecting, the thought to give these (or rather, a replacement unit of the same model) up would never have entered my mind because they are wonderful and interesting binoculars, but these days I've pledged to not buy any more binos unless they are so good that I am confident that they will displace (in use) one of the members of the set that I regularly choose for birding and/or butterflying (And my finances, for now and the foreseeable future, help bolster this resolve).

The first thing I'd like to point out is that in one very important respect (that I already knew from reading the specs on the Zen-Ray website) these are not the 7x~35 binocular that I've been hoping (and still hope) to see someone produce some day. That bino would be the size of a Leica 8x32 Ultravid (or Zeiss 8x32 FL, or Nikon 8x36 Monarch) but with an "easier" view as a consequence of having a ~5mm exit pupil, greater depth of field, and ideally, a wider field of view than a typical 8x32. The Zen-Ray 7x36 is a full-sized bino. At 24oz it's a little lighter (by 2-5oz) than my usual full-sized choices, but it is overall just as large (e.g. it is about the same size, and actually longer, than the Leica 8x42 Ultravid). Still, I was intrigued by the idea of a modern 7x roof with a truly wide FOV, so for the first time ever in my history of bino buying, I ordered them before testing them myself or waiting for detailed reviews from others.

Optically, these Zen-Ray 7x36 ED2 are stunning, irrespective of price. I'll certainly be recommending them to a lot of folks. They're the first of the new so-called "Chinese ED" binos that I've actually laid hands on, and I can see what all the excitement is about--I've never seen this level of optical quality at this price before (though I must say, my ~$200 Browning 8x32 continue to amaze me--they are darn good). The 7x36 ED2 have that transparent view that I don't expect from any but the very best roofs and good porros. Read Surveyor's superb test report (attached as PDFs to one of his posts in this thread) for an awesomely well-presented summary of some objective measures of these binos' optical properties. Here's a summary of my reactions/impressions after using them. The true FOV is generous, the apparent FOV is as large as I like (I don't like less than about 60 degrees), the sweet spot is comfortably large (to the extent that I don't think about it in use, which is more than I can say for some of the Zeiss FL models), the apparent sharpness (resolution and contrast) is superb, and the color is nothing less than luscious. Most of the fall-off in sharpness toward the edges seems to be due to field curvature rather than astigmatism, so when looking at objects on or near the ground in the distance the (already substantial) DOF seems even greater since the curvature brings the foreground into sharper focus than it would be otherwise. There is pin cushion distortion, and there is no "rolling ball" effect when panning. I do note, despite the seemingly apparently superb contrast, that I can't see detail in shadows of otherwise brightly lit scenes as well as I can with some others, but maybe that's due to the 7x magnification--everything I compared it to in this regard was 8x (e.g. Zeiss 8x32 FL, Swarovski 8x32 EL). Please note that the difference in shadow detail visibility is not an issue of veiling glare, it's that shadowed areas go to black before they do through the alphas with which I compared the ED2. Actually, blacks/shadows seemed darker/richer in the 7x36 ED2 than in my Zeiss 8x32 FL, although that unit is currently a bit dirty with some big greasy smudges and a thin film over the objectives after a couple weeks of recent camping/travel. I don't mean to resurrect the discussion of contrast in the FL, but for those who know what I'm referring to, I'd say the rendering of the Zen-Ray 7x36 ED2 has more in common with Nikon LX and SE binos than with the (sometimes, in my opinion, comparatively blue-hazed) Zeiss FL.

OK, so how about those crescents or doughnuts of veiling glare? Yep, they're there and are conspicuous enough under enough lighting conditions that I think it's fair to say that they are a prominent/distinctive attribute of these bin's optical "personality" (And no, I don't buy the argument that they are a standard attribute of all wide-angle binos). Happily, they are not, as I already described above, an indicator of overall inferior contrast, or poor performance in patchy light, strong backlight, or when viewing objects with the sun just outside the field of view (and/or with direct sunlight falling on the objectives). Sure, they obscure some of the field, but there is plenty of view left where color and contrast are rendered as well as in any bino I've seen. For me, the crescents and doughnuts were most visible when using the binos during the last 3 hours of the day when I had an overcast sky but otherwise beautifully low but warmly toned and even illumination of the landscape. Under those conditions, crescents/rings were almost always present and conspicuous, regardless of the direction I was looking or the distance at which I was focused. I found that I could, by moving my eye slightly relative to the exit pupil, make them go away in part, or at least move them to a part of the view where they didn't interfere with my observations. I have to do something of the same thing with most top-end binos at times because none of them are entirely free of some patches of veiling glare under certain conditions. In that respect, in practical use, I feel like the Zen-Ray 7x36 ED2 work about as well as any of my alphas. I also found a possible explanation for differences in various reviewer's opinions of the prominence of these veiling glare crescents. When one's eye is closer to the ocular (but not so close as to cause kidney beaning), they diminish greatly. When wearing my glasses, my eye is usually positioned just barely close enough to the ocular to see the full FOV, and at that distance they are much more noticeable. I experimented and found that the issue is not due to the glasses themselves, and that the stray light is not entering the bino from the ocular end. I can't say for sure where it's coming from but I do note that the edges of the objectives are not blackened or masked, and they are _very_ conspicuous (brightly transilluminated) when looking through the bins from the objective end. When looking through the oculars at the exit pupil (with the bins held away from my face) I can see the bright edges of the objectives quite easily. I don't have any other bino (at least that isn't packed away) with as prominent undarkened or masked edges, so I suspect the edges of the objective are at least part of the cause of this undesirable condition.

Moving on to other considerations. Ergonomically, I found the the Zen 7x36 ED2 to be excellent. I do like the open-bridge design although it's not quite as well executed as in the Swarovski EL x32 and x42 models (they have a longer inter-hinge slot). The strap lugs are placed farther from the ocular end than I'd prefer; consequently, I find a bit of a trade-off between finger placement on the focus wheel and avoiding placing the web at the base of my thumb over the lug rather than in front of it (closer to the objective end). The hinges themselves are pleasantly stiff (hold IPD setting securely). The neck strap is functional but not the sort that I'd use (It is foam-backed/padded woven nylon; I much prefer neoprene straps, such as those from Op Tech or Eagle Optics, because they have a bit of give which reduces the apparent weight of the bino and they are superbly flexible which means they contour perfectly to my neck/shoulders). The objective covers don't attach securely (Zen-Ray is rectifying this) but I never use these anyway. The objective lenses, by the way, are deeply recessed from the end of the bino, a design that I like a lot. The ocular cover is an OK design, certainly better than some (e.g. Swarovski EL hard plastic version, Leica Ultravid bulky and ultra-floppy version). It goes on easily and securely and is made of a nice flexible/soft rubbery but not too floppy material, but it is a bit deeply cupped so it doesn't flick off the eyecup as easily as I prefer (when, rarely, I actually use ocular guards) and is a bit bulky when hanging on the strap. The case is a clam-shell style with a zipper. It's nicely made but a bit unnecessarily bulky. For packing efficiency, I prefer clamshell with a close form-fit or a close-fitting cordura case.

Now to discuss the things that I really don't like about the Zen-Ray 7x36 ED2. First big issue--the focus knob action. There is a bit of movement before the focus engages--what some inexplicably call "backlash"--but not enough to bother me in the slightest. The knob moves fairly fluidly, but with much more resistance than in any of my other binos. This is not good. It seemed to get more evenly fluid with use, but the amount of resistance did not lessen. After 20 minutes in my freezer (~17 degrees F), the movement remained movable (and fluid) but the resistance increased tremendously. This may be a deal-breaker for me (I currently live in Minnesota, where winters are long and cold). I despise slow focus in binos (e.g. the original Swarovski EL) so I was braced for disappointment after so many comments from previous reviewers that it is slow in the ED2 (though improved over the ED). As it turns out, I was very pleasantly surprised to find the focus ratio and amount of travel needed for focusing just fine. I can focus from nearest biding distance (~10 feet) to infinity without lifting my index finger from the wheel (i.e. in one "pull"). For dedicated birding, the resistence, even as much as exists at room temperature, is annoying but maybe forgivable since little adjustment is needed (and at 7x, DOF is large). The ratio could stand to be a tad quicker, but again, it's the high resistance that is the big issue when it comes to, say, getting on a bird quickly after looking a butterfly, or vice-versa. That's really quite a shame, because these would otherwise be outstanding butterflying/birding binoculars. The close focus limit is an awesome 4 foot 3 inches (Correspondingly, there isn't much travel beyond infinity, so beware if you're near-sighted and like to use binos without glasses).

My second big negative is the eyecup design and its consequent shortening of the usable eye relief. I can use the Zen-Ray 7x36 ED2 with my glasses and see the whole field when I look straight forward but there's not much room to spare. That makes the performance similar to the Swarovski 8x32 EL and maybe a bit inferior to the Zeiss 8x32 FL. The extremely unfortunate consequence of this is that I cannot look side to side in the field without suffering significant vignetting (as is possible if my eye is closer to the ocular in the Zen-Ray 7x36 ED2, or in binos with more eye-relief). I say extremely unfortunate because for me, the whole point of having a wide FOV and a 5+mm exit pupil is to allow for this easy off-axis viewing. It's perhaps a quirk not shared with everyone, but I really like to dart my eyes around the FOV rather than using the bino as if it were a rifle sighting device. When I can't, I feel like I'm in an optical straight jacket, so for me, this may be a deal breaker. Why carry a full-sized bino (the Zen-Ray 7x36 ED2) if it effectively only delivers a 2/3 sized bino ease of view? This situation is tragic because the ocular lens design itself has the potential for 18+ mm eye relief, but the recessed ocular and the eye-cup design reduce this to probably about 14 mm (I didn't measure it, but that's what it feels like). If I keep these, I'll look into removing the rubber eyecups to get a couple mm back.

I'd better conclude, so here's a potpourri of other disappointments and miscellaneous observations/oddities:

Unfortunately, by my measure, the minimum IPD of the 7x36 ED2 is the industry standard 56 mm. It's limited by the hinge, not the objectives (there is still ~7mm to spare before they contact one another), so we have yet another bino in the world that unnecessarily excludes a significant minority of potential users. I'd sure like to see the industry take this issue seriously, or as the case may be, put it on their radar screen. Right now, only Zeiss seems to be concerned with designing full and 2/3 sized roof prism binos that accommodate folks with narrow IPD (Thanks Zeiss!).

The overall quality of manufacture finish/cosmetics of the bino are substandard in my opinion. Certainly, they are not up to the level of the alpha models, or even the more pedestrian offerings from the major brands. I find this quite surprising because the finish on binos these days is almost universally quite good (e.g. I consider my Browning 8x32, made for Bushnell, to be as beautifully assembled and finished as any bino I own). The rubber armor is fine (though there were a few stray bits of glue), but I'm not a fan of how it extends over the neckstrap lugs (similar to some Vortex labeled products). Why do this? It just interferes with a clean strap attachment, and it might possibly lead to loosening of the rubber armor since the strap twists against the armor at the lugs. The diopter adjustment is fine, but I sure wouldn't mind if it locked in the down position more securely (e.g. like the Nikon Venturer LX design), and I'd do way with the thin, unevenly applied, textured rubber ring on it (just use a ribbed plastic part) which is likely to loosen in time and fall off. The bins look nice internally (clean and precisely assembled), but some of the exterior bits and labeling are rather poorly made. Some of the metal edges of parts (like the odd sharp edge on the front of the focus wheel, and one of the metal rings around the right ocular lens) are imperfectly blackened, so the bright and slightly uneven looking metal edges show where they shouldn't. Similarly, the silver printing on the focus knob badge and around the ocular is done very poorly--there are places in the shallowly embossed lettering that aren't filled in with the silver color, and the silver color looks to be very thinly applied and so easily worn off. Maybe that's a good thing, because with respect to silver lettering, I'd say get rid of it all--it looks cheap and cheesy--why does a bino need all this printing on it? Most ridiculous is the all-caps DIELECTRIC COATING printed in large letters around the barrel below the left ocular. The aesthetics would be much improved if all this were eliminated. An odd feature is that the name badge (which is kind of thin and insubstantial looking) on the focus knob can be unscrewed--it doesn't come off all the way, but it loosens so that by moving it and the focus knob opposite one another, the point at which it tightens can be adjusted so that the wording can be oriented however you like relative to the position of the rest of the bino. I haven't explained that properly, but turn it with your thumb and you'll see what I mean. You can also completely unscrew the flat cover on the other side of the hinge on the ocular hinge (I'm not sure if it has any affect on anything but it is possible!). The ZR-labeled cover on the front hinge can be removed to reveal a tripod mounting socket.

I don't have anything to say in summary (said it all at the beginning), so for what it's worth, that's all folks!

--AP

PS The Zen ED2 smell funny too, maybe from the glue for the rubber armor? It isn't the petroleum or car tire smell that I've experienced in some other binos.

Great review, Alexis--very informative and objective. Nothing there I'd really take issue with. Have you noticed any backlash in the focusing yet?

Fireform said:

Have you noticed any backlash in the focusing yet?

Click to expand...

I added a comment on that, as well as on pincushion to my post. --AP

Alexis,

Thank you from me as well on the review. I have not looked at some of the areas you mentioned as intensely as you have. I will do so now.

I wonder if some of the issues you found fault with aren't unique to your particular unit (quality control) versus something universal across all units (design issue). I have my 7x36 in hand and do not see any inconsistancies with the paint on the lettering (for example). I do agree on the "dielectric coating and ED2" just "south" of the eyepiece though. I have a feeling it would look "classier" if both of these words were removed.

The eye relief comments I tend to agree with. I can just barely see the full field of view (I don't wear glasses but because of the shape of my noise/eye separation I need a certain level of eye relief). I run into the same problem of trying to move my eye around the 5 mm exit pupil and not being able to as "comfortably" as I can with the 8x43, for example. You did a nice job of summarizing why that is occurring.

I have yet to actually share my full thoughts on the bin but your review has started me in the right direction.

Thanks.

Thanks Alexis. That was a pretty good read for unorganized thoughts. I think it pretty well summarizes the ZEN ED binoculars. Pretty close to alpha in many respects, less close in others.