• 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 introduces new Monarch HG 8x30 and 10x30 Binoculars (1 Viewer)

Excellent comparison Canip, thanks for all of your effort expended to inform us here!

Your comparison of the view with the 8X30 MHG vs the 8X30 CL is very consistent with what I saw in a brief evaluation.

The stray light flare that I noticed on the Nikon 8X30 MHG (as well as on the more limited test of the Swaro 8X30 CL) was only under rather severe conditions looking towards the sun (well out of the FOV) or towards areas of water with strong glare light from a low sun angle. During most viewing conditions this flare light from internal reflections in the binocular will not be detected.
 
Canip,

Thanks for the comparison on vignetting. I guess that torpedoes my theory on prism weight with the 450 g Monarch HG at the top of the list. It does leave the possibility of optical plastics, which I believe are used in some camera lenses, but I don't think any manufacturer is going to admit to it. How about some crowd funding to trash one of these lightweight 8x32s? ;)

John
 
Many thanks to everybody - Peter, MandoBear, Chuck, John, AltaVista, Dennis - for your feedback!!

John, your idea may become known as „trash funding“, are you sure you want your name linked to that?;);)

AltaVista, your experience of the stray light flare is interesting, as it shows that even in well designed optics, such as the ones in the Monarch HG, stray light suppression efforts have their limitations.

Canip
 
Canip. Nice picture of all the binoculars. Where did you get all those binoculars? I have tried many of those binoculars and I agree with you on the Swarovski CL being first overall. It is impressive that the CL and the HG beat the 32mm's with only a 30mm aperture. Stray light is just harder to control in the smaller apertures. For members with shallow eye sockets keep in mind the CL will probably work the best with it's optical box and the HG will be more prone to blackouts. That was my observation at least.
 
Stray light is just harder to control in the smaller apertures. For members with shallow eye sockets keep in mind the CL will probably work the best with it's optical box and the HG will be more prone to blackouts. That was my observation at least.
Denis, I'm not so sure it's necessarily the small aperture per se, I wonder if it's more to do with the shorter focal lengths that are used in the smaller binoculars to achieve a smaller proportioned instrument, rather than one which is merely as long but thinner, if you get my meaning. Shorter focal lengths give rise to shorter, "wider" light cones which are harder to baffle effectively, and also more curved optical surfaces (smaller radii) with more oblique light entry angles; also more prone to reflections and flare.

But yes, - the observed outcome would be the same - a greater tendency to flare under difficult lighting conditions.
 
Denis, I'm not so sure it's necessarily the small aperture per se, I wonder if it's more to do with the shorter focal lengths that are used in the smaller binoculars to achieve a smaller proportioned instrument, rather than one which is merely as long but thinner, if you get my meaning. Shorter focal lengths give rise to shorter, "wider" light cones which are harder to baffle effectively, and also more curved optical surfaces (smaller radii) with more oblique light entry angles; also more prone to reflections and flare.

But yes, - the observed outcome would be the same - a greater tendency to flare under difficult lighting conditions.

That is exactly right MandoBear, those are some of the challenges for controlling stray light in these compact binoculars that make it more difficult than on larger bins. Steeper ray angles make things more difficult to manage internal reflections. Also AR coatings have to be designed to handle the steeper ray angles and may not be as efficient. In addition the need to keep the lens barrel diameters small leaves less room at the periphery of the largest lenses to effectively baffle reflections from lens edges. What can be done to help independent of size is to use ultra low reflectivity materials on the internal surfaces and we see improved black paints and finishes on the newer bins.

You can be sure that the designers of these binoculars struggle to control the stray light while at the same optimizing performance and controlling size/weight/cost. Modern optical design software allows what is called "non-sequential ray tracing" to evaluate stray light paths in the system. That is light rays that don't necessarily travel from optical surface surface in the same linear order as the imaging rays. Regardless of sophisticated software the design of these systems is still a true art!

The newer designs on full size glasses by Leica (Noctivid), and (super sized) Nikon (WX) show what extraordinary good stray light control looks like. I admit to being badly spoiled by the amazing lack of stray light in the 8X42 Noctivid. My hope is that we see some 8x32 class binoculars with similarly good stray light control in the near future. Likely they will be physically longer than the bins in this current discussion to achieve better performance.
 
Last edited:
Interesting. The Leica Ultravid HD Plus 8x32's must have some exceptional baffling because even though the binocular is short and compact the flare control is excellent. The New Swarovski 8x30 CL is a little longer than the HG 8x30 so perhaps that is why the flare control is better?
 
Last edited:
Interesting. The Leica Ultravid HD Plus 8x32's must have some exceptional baffling because even though the binocular is short and compact the flare control is excellent. The New Swarovski 8x30 CL is a little longer than the HG 8x30 so perhaps that is why the flare control is better?

I have not had access to the 8x32 Ultravid HD Plus to evaluate but I would like to. The ER is probably not sufficient for my use (as I have the opposite problem from you as I need to use eyeglasses in viewing). The shorter ER does mean smaller diameter eyepiece lenses and probably allows for more effective baffling.

And the flare control on the 8X30 CL is really no better than the 8X30 MHG in my somewhat limited testing.
 
The other binocular that I would like to see in this comparison of premium compacts is the Zeiss 8X32 Victory FL. Not sure how it performs compared to bins evaluated by Canip but it is relatively compact and lightweight. It is an older design but has received good reviews. There seem to be few of these around at dealers in the US and I was told by a rep that this binocular is no longer in production. I also heard FWIW that Zeiss has an 8X32 SF in the works but it is not coming out anytime soon due to the high demand on the production line in Germany for the 8X42 and 10X42 SF. Take that with a grain of salt.
 
I am also sure that a bigger aperture binocular of the same magnification has better flare control because of the bigger exit pupil. There has been much discussion about it. Henry Link quoted here in his post on the advantages of aperture when explaining why the Zeiss 8x56 FL had such good flare control.

" The 7mm exit pupil also has a benefit in daylight. There is virtually complete freedom from “flare”. When bright reflections from the edge of the objective reach the eye they are out at the edge of a 7mm circle of light, so the flare tends to fall invisibly on the iris rather than entering the eye."

https://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=81438&highlight=bigger+aperture+flare
 
Last edited:
The other binocular that I would like to see in this comparison of premium compacts is the Zeiss 8X32 Victory FL. Not sure how it performs compared to bins evaluated by Canip but it is relatively compact and lightweight. It is an older design but has received good reviews. There seem to be few of these around at dealers in the US and I was told by a rep that this binocular is no longer in production. I also heard FWIW that Zeiss has an 8X32 SF in the works but it is not coming out anytime soon due to the high demand on the production line in Germany for the 8X42 and 10X42 SF. Take that with a grain of salt.
I have tested a lot of the binoculars in Canip's list and I have tested the Zeiss 8x32 FL and the Nikon 8x32 EDG and the Swarovski 8x32 SV side by side. If I put these three in Canip's list they would all be above the Swarovski 8x30 CL with the SV 1st and the EDG 2nd and the FL 3rd and then the CL 4th. The FL and the EDG are a little better at flare control than the SV but overall the SV is the best binocular and IMO the best 8x32.
 
That's certainly true Dennis, a larger exit pupil can be a benefit if the stray light is outside the exit pupil so that the smaller human eye pupil itself blocks that light. That's one of the challenges that the smaller bins have to deal with. Any extra-pupil stray light will be more noticed on a smaller exit pupil in use.
 
A larger EP obviously is an advantage when you want to avoid seeing glare, but the baffling also plays a major role and the FL 56mm is among the very best in this respect. I owned the NVs and, while I did not like them enough to keep them, I agree that their glare control is outstanding. But the glare resistance of my FL 10x56, which has a smaller EP than the 8x56 mentioned above, is even better (the best I have ever seen): when viewing the landscape under a low sun it shows no glare at all but a crystal-clear image (the details of which were completely obscured to the naked eye due to the strong light coming from the sun).
 
I have tested a lot of the binoculars in Canip's list and I have tested the Zeiss 8x32 FL and the Nikon 8x32 EDG and the Swarovski 8x32 SV side by side. If I put these three in Canip's list they would all be above the Swarovski 8x30 CL with the SV 1st and the EDG 2nd and the FL 3rd and then the CL 4th. The FL and the EDG are a little better at flare control than the SV but overall the SV is the best binocular and IMO the best 8x32.

Great info Dennis, thanks for the comparison. I may wind up getting the 8X32 SV eventually but have a hard time liking it enough to justify the 2x price over the 8X30 MHG or 8X30 CL. I would get the 8X32 EDG while they are still around if the close focus was as good as the MHG (not to mention the extra weight of the EDG) but surprisingly the 2.5m vs 2.0m close focus is a significant difference for my use.
 
I have tested a lot of the binoculars in Canip's list and I have tested the Zeiss 8x32 FL and the Nikon 8x32 EDG and the Swarovski 8x32 SV side by side. If I put these three in Canip's list they would all be above the Swarovski 8x30 CL with the SV 1st and the EDG 2nd and the FL 3rd and then the CL 4th. The FL and the EDG are a little better at flare control than the SV but overall the SV is the best binocular and IMO the best 8x32.

I basically agree: the 32mm SV, EDG and FL (I own all three) are in a different class, optically but also price-wise.
Allbinos ranks EDG the highest (I believe, haven't checked) but other people with different priorities may well rank them differently. Anyway, to answer AltaVista question, imo the FL 8x32 is a better glass than the binos reviewed by the OP, but you'd have to pay quite a bit for relatively small improvements.
 
Last edited:
A larger EP obviously is an advantage when you want to avoid seeing glare, but the baffling also plays a major role and the FL 56mm is among the very best in this respect. I owned the NVs and, while I did not like them enough to keep them, I agree that their glare control is outstanding. But the glare resistance of my FL 10x56, which has a smaller EP than the 8x56 mentioned above, is even better (the best I have ever seen): when viewing the landscape under a low sun it shows no glare at all but a crystal-clear image (the details of which were completely obscured to the naked eye due to the strong light coming from the sun).
I agree on the 10x56 FL's flare control. What didn't you like about the NV's?
 
I basically agree: the 32mm SV, EDG and FL (I own all three) are in a different class, optically but also price-wise.
Allbinos ranks EDG the highest (I believe, haven't checked) but other people with different priorities may well rank them differently. Anyway, to answer AltaVista question, imo the FL 8x32 is a better glass than the binos reviewed by the OP, but you'd have to pay quite a bit for relatively small improvements.
Those three the SV, EDG II and the FL are $2K alpha binoculars. They are the three best 8x32's made so they are better than the less expensive 8x30's.
 
I agree on the 10x56 FL's flare control. What didn't you like about the NV's?

I have posted a review of the NV some time ago but couldn't find it.
For people who want to use them without glasses, they have too much ER and thus blackout issues, especially the 8x42. Also their FoV leaves something to be desired, and they have a bit more CA than other alphas. Their open bridge design is somewhat useless, as one can hardly squeeze more than 2 or 3 fingers between the barrels, and at least for me they did not feel as well in the hand as the SV, SF, EDG or even FL.
 
Last edited:
Denis, I'm not so sure it's necessarily the small aperture per se, I wonder if it's more to do with the shorter focal lengths that are used in the smaller binoculars to achieve a smaller proportioned instrument, rather than one which is merely as long but thinner, if you get my meaning. Shorter focal lengths give rise to shorter, "wider" light cones which are harder to baffle effectively, and also more curved optical surfaces (smaller radii) with more oblique light entry angles; also more prone to reflections and flare.

But yes, - the observed outcome would be the same - a greater tendency to flare under difficult lighting conditions.

MandoBear and AltaVista,

The shape of a binocular objective lens light cone and the curvature of its lenses are determined by the lens's focal ratio, not the focal length. In many cases the focal ratios of small aperture binoculars are higher than their larger aperture siblings making their ray angles less steep. For instance, that's the case for one of Altavista's favorites, the Nikon E Series. The 8x30 has a 110mm FL objective (f3.67) while the 7x35/10x35 has a 126mm objective (f3.6).

In any case proper binocular baffling doesn't take a computer or a rocket scientist. Two or three knife edged baffles of the right size in the right places will do it for any size binocular. What's amazing is how often it isn't done well.

Henry
 
Warning! This thread is more than 4 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