• 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.

Binoculars Habicht 10x40 and Zeiss Fl 10x42 vs. Nikon SE 10x42 and HGL 10x42 (1 Viewer)

PHA

Well-known member
Hello,

Yesterday in late evening I made some quick tests between these Binoculars looking at far buildings. My findings and a friend with me were:

Zeiss 10x42 FL non-Locutec: Best overall performance. No question: Best resolution, best CA control, perfect collimation in this unite, largest field of view. A pleasure to use and look throught it!
Nikon 10x42 SE and Swarovski Habicht 10x40 W GA almost identical performance with a slight advantage (between these two examples...) for the Habicht in resolution and CA control. And the famous (or infamous) Sweet Spot very simmilar. Both very well collimated. We found the collimation in these two Porro binoculars is rather different than the other two, roof: There is some lateral convergence, almost the same in the SE and the Swaro Hab. Anyway perfect vertical collimation. No problem with prolongued viewing.
Nikon 10x42 HGL: The worst performance: Worst resolution and a high CA present. We didn´t like this unite. Perfect collimation, anyway.
The colours were natural in all. Slight differences but not great. Like the yellow tint present in the older Swarovski Habicht I have had.

I don´t know if this test means anything. But the differences at late evening were absolutely clear for the two of us. At least between those examples.

Regards

PHA
 
Hello,

Yesterday in late evening I made some quick tests between these Binoculars looking at far buildings. My findings and a friend with me were:

Zeiss 10x42 FL non-Locutec: Best overall performance. No question: Best resolution, best CA control, perfect collimation in this unite, largest field of view. A pleasure to use and look throught it!
Nikon 10x42 SE and Swarovski Habicht 10x40 W GA almost identical performance with a slight advantage (between these two examples...) for the Habicht in resolution and CA control. And the famous (or infamous) Sweet Spot very simmilar. Both very well collimated. We found the collimation in these two Porro binoculars is rather different than the other two, roof: There is some lateral convergence, almost the same in the SE and the Swaro Hab. Anyway perfect vertical collimation. No problem with prolongued viewing.
Nikon 10x42 HGL: The worst performance: Worst resolution and a high CA present. We didn´t like this unite. Perfect collimation, anyway.
The colours were natural in all. Slight differences but not great. Like the yellow tint present in the older Swarovski Habicht I have had.

I don´t know if this test means anything. But the differences at late evening were absolutely clear for the two of us. At least between those examples.

Regards

PHA

Thanks for that four-way shoot out. Try doing a daytime comparison. I'm surprised the HGL was last. Probably first in edge performance. My sample was sharp to 95%+ on the horizontal edges. Only the very, very edge had astigmatism.

I had an 10x HGL briefly, but didn't like the way the coatings made colors overly warm (reds were orangey) and how on brightly lit objects, contrast and detail was overwhelmed by the apparent brightness (though I've read this same criticism about the FLs).

Too bad you didn't have an earlier HG on hand to compare. I compared a 10x42 HG to the 10x42 SE and it matched it in terms of resolution and blew it away in terms of color saturation and contrast. I later bought a 10x42 HG myself, but unfortunately it was defective so I returned it.

Of course, I should mention that the SE was an older 00 serial # model. So the coatings were behind.

I was very impressed with the resolution, contrast, and color depth of the 10x42 HG. If it weren't for the "rolling ball" I would have one in my small stable of bins and bite the bullet on the CA. My only other beef was the 36 oz. weight.

Brock
 
Last edited:
Hello,

Yesterday in late evening I made some quick tests between these Binoculars looking at far buildings. My findings and a friend with me were:

Zeiss 10x42 FL non-Locutec: Best overall performance. No question: Best resolution, best CA control, perfect collimation in this unite, largest field of view. A pleasure to use and look throught it!
Nikon 10x42 SE and Swarovski Habicht 10x40 W GA almost identical performance with a slight advantage (between these two examples...) for the Habicht in resolution and CA control. And the famous (or infamous) Sweet Spot very simmilar. Both very well collimated. We found the collimation in these two Porro binoculars is rather different than the other two, roof: There is some lateral convergence, almost the same in the SE and the Swaro Hab. Anyway perfect vertical collimation. No problem with prolongued viewing.
Nikon 10x42 HGL: The worst performance: Worst resolution and a high CA present. We didn´t like this unite. Perfect collimation, anyway.
The colours were natural in all. Slight differences but not great. Like the yellow tint present in the older Swarovski Habicht I have had.

I don´t know if this test means anything. But the differences at late evening were absolutely clear for the two of us. At least between those examples.

Regards

PHA[/QUOT

I have looked through these four and I would agree with your findings. Zeiss FL first and the Nikon HGL definitely last.
 
I think these were subjective tests and are honest opinions by the people who did the tests. I don't think the resolution tests mean much under the circumstances in which they were done because of the late light conditions. I would prefer to use the term "perceived sharpness" here rather than resolution which is based on technical objective rather than subjective testing. Binoculars that are brighter would give a sharper view of the subject. Ages of the binoculars and the coatings used on the prisms would also be a factor. CA in my experience, if I look for it, (I'm not prone to it)is best seen under bright overcast skies or against the brightly lit edges of light colored buildings. And I don't understand what you mean here by lateral convergence of collimation and how it is different between roofs and porros. Sweet spot sizes in binoculars with similar FOVs are not hard to compare.
Bob
 
Hi,

Of course this is an entirely subjective test! But we are long, long term binoculars and scopes entusiasts and without use resolution charts we can use some parts of the buildings in the same way, like lines on the air conditioners, both vertical and horizontal, and so on. And we chose to compare those at evening, looking at the edges of the building with backlight to "exagerate" the CA.
 
Sorry I send the post without finishing...
I was the first surprised by the poor Nikon HGL performance, indeed! But was there and, at the test conditions the shortcomings were evident for the two of us: Worst resolution and worst CA control!
The sweet spot was another surprise. The Zeiss FL was expected to be the worst in this but it wasn´t. Of course in our extremely short sample of each of the four models tested. It compared favorably with the HGL and the vision was outstanding! We think the infamous sweet spot in the Zeiss FL has something to do with the relation between the incredible center view and the view off the center. But in no way was bad the sweet spot. We couldn´t find any big difference between the four tested. We have another confirmation about the very good performance of the Swarovski Habicht Porro. This unit is one of the last versions with true colours. Is a pleasure to look throught it! And for the two of us, slightly better in all aspects than the Nikon SE...! We experienced some blackout with the SE. But we found the problem, at least in this sample, was the rubber eyepiece a little too short for the eye releif! If the user don´t press the superciliar bones against the eyepiece, the blackout tend to dissapear.
I also like to know more about the collimation we found. I make a question: is a common situation on all Porro binocular to see what we se in this? Looking for the collimation, puting the binocular at 50 cm of our eyes and looking at a distant point, we see a latteral convergence seeing two images in the two Porros separated by, roughly, the same distance. In the examples of the Zeiss FL and the Nikon HGL, the collimation was, for our eyes, perfect, seeing une image totally clear. I have saw another examples of new roofs, includiing the top brands, where the collimation wasn´t so perfect !!

Regards

PH
 
I too use buildings and tree bark to test bino's. I have an old willow at the back of my property which is almost exactly 100yds from my garage and the old withering bark will test the limits of resolution or sharpness. 2nd place is normally easy to find.

I will say that I find it harder to compare bino's in low light unless it's purely to test brightness.

Dave
 
Hello DHB,

The light at the test moment was good enogh to test resolution. When I said late evening I mean our comparition started well before sunset with the sun still in the sky and ended just after sunset.
We thought would be useful to do the test we did in a rather critical light situation.
Anyway, this is a very subjective, entirely cualitative and limited in the number of samples, test.

Regards

PH
 
I love "scientific measurement", and think it can tell a lot about a binocular. But often what can be isolated and accurately measured is unfortunately not completely relevant to what is seen, because of complicating factors which may not be well understood.

So I am not one to discount this kind of comparison, if the tester says he's an experienced observer, any more than I'd discount a scientific measurement, which the experimenter swears was done right. There's always a chance of error of course.

While some things, especially ergonomics, and value judgments like whether a binocular is "good enough" for some purpose or not, are almost entirely subjective, I think a carefully done comparison like this is the best thing we have right now. And I don't think it's that hard either. I am willing to trust that PHA, in comparing CA, for example, looked at the same high contrast edge, the same way, in all the binoculars. That would only be common sense, not rocket science.

Thanks for the effort and the enjoyable report, PHA!
Ron
 
Warning! This thread is more than 14 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