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

After reading Alexis and Ron's reviews, I could not resist and ended up putting myself on the 7x36 backorder list. I don't see the often discussed issue on my 43mm ED1. I probably will not notice it either on this. Having been waiting to have 9x36 if they ever come out. But since I already have 8.5x EL, the small increase of 0.5x does not justify another pair. But the reported large DOF with 7x finally convinced me to hit the confirm button.

I had the 8x43 ED1 and was not disturbed by stray light in that one. I tested it under similar circumstances, too. If the ED2 version of that bin was built to the same general specs and standards, as I suppose it should be, I don't think I would have a problem with it either.

The 7x36 is a new design with different geometry, and it needs some debugging. Most of the time it delivers a great wow factor and the defects are minor and tolerable, like any very good bin. But it's "personality," as Alexis puts it, is schizophrenic--it has an 80's vintage Tasco lurking inside, waiting to assert itself when least desired.

close focus for 7x36

it may sound a bit nit-picking. I have seen several reports that confirm 7x36 has about 4-4.3ft close focus. But the zen-ray website indicates the close focus is 5.1ft. The difference is more than a measurement error, I suppose. Initially, I thought they may measure from eyepiece vs from objective ends. but 0.8 ft difference seems to exceed the length of the barrel. My other question is why 36mm has a closer focus than 43mm ED1 I have. It can only go down to around 6 ft. :-C

Fireform said:

But it's "personality," as Alexis puts it, is schizophrenic--it has an 80's vintage Tasco lurking inside, waiting to assert itself when least desired.

Click to expand...

I still believe such statements are overly harsh given the number of folks who aren't experiencing the glare/flare "problem." Actually it would appear that the vast majority are unaffected. Making folks aware that they may experience such an issue is one thing; wholesale indictment of the model as Tasco-like is quite another.

it has an 80's vintage Tasco lurking inside, waiting to assert itself when least desired.

Click to expand...

It is funny Bob but I chose to quote the same statement. The response I was going to post was...

...."Now there is no need to get insulting now...."

update to my earlier post in this thread

I'm still trying to decide between returning versus returning for exchange of my Zen-Ray 7x36 ED2. The optics collector in me says "no way!" to giving these up. Optically, they continue to impress (in both an absolute stand-alone sense, and in comparison to my other binos). For what it's worth, as I said in my original post, I love everything about the view they provide, veiling glare crescents excepted, and even with the crescents I still find the view awesome most of the time. Non-optical issues and veiling crescents excluded, I have no reason to favor my alphas over these bins for birding. I've had a chance to test them in a variety of very tricky lighting conditions side by side with some of my alphas, and the Zen-Rays generally do as well as anything I own (veiling crescents excepted). I like the wide true FOV, though it isn't a "wow" for me because most of my bins are fairly wide, and the apparent FOV is about the same as higher power bins with slightly smaller true field. I really enjoy the greater DOF of the 7x. I don't find the edge performance unacceptable or distracting in the way I do with many cheap binos. The fall-off is fairly gradual except very near the edge, and most of the issue is field curvature. Maybe if I didn't still have youngish eyes, which are able to compensate for the curvature to a great extent, I'd perceive the sweet spot as much smaller and the edge poorer.

As good as they are optically, my other issues remain, and they are probably deal breakers. Strangely, the vertical alignment of my unit doesn't seem as far off as it was when I first checked it (traditional crude test, by eye). That's disturbing if it indicates that the alignment is unstable, but maybe it's just that my eyes/brain are learning to quickly compensate. I don't think the prisms are set quite right relative to the housing because besides being offset from one another, the views (through the two barrels) of a horizontal line are slightly canted relative to one another. Mind you, none of this is so bad that most people would notice, but they aren't as good as they need be to ensure eye comfort after hours of use.

Obviously, the alignment issue could be dealt with through replacement with a better unit. As for the focus knob operation, it has definitely become smoother and a bit easier to turn with use. In its current state, it's stiffer (though always fluid) than I prefer, but I could put up with it. It's the cold weather performance that is the serious problem. I reported earlier on my freezer test. Yesterday, I tried just the refrigerator (i.e. above freezing) and was disappointed to find it stiffen to an unacceptable (for me) degree.

I'm still also disappointed with the eye-relief and how it prevents me from fully enjoying the wide FOV and large exit pupil. With respect to the possibility for redesign in a future version, I imagine it might be hard to eliminate the inset of the outer ocular lens relative to the lip of the metal tube that holds the lenses, but it seems to me that the design of the outer metal housing might be able to altered a bit to where the eyecup rubber could lie flush with the tube in which the ocular lens is held, rather than above/behind it. That would gain a critical 2+mm of eye-relief.

--AP

Alexis Powell said:

I'm still also disappointed with the eye-relief and how it prevents me from fully enjoying the wide FOV and large exit pupil. With respect to the possibility for redesign in a future version, I imagine it might be hard to eliminate the inset of the outer ocular lens relative to the lip of the metal tube that holds the lenses, but it seems to me that the design of the outer metal housing might be able to altered a bit to where the eyecup rubber could lie flush with the tube in which the ocular lens is held, rather than above/behind it. That would gain a critical 2+mm of eye-relief.

--AP

Click to expand...

strange.... Fireform said the binoculars has too much excessive eye relief in another different post. You think the eye relief is barely enough. Maybe the facial and head shape do come into play and explain why a couple of people have issues with it while most of them don't.

falcondude said:

strange.... Fireform said the binoculars has too much excessive eye relief in another different post. You think the eye relief is barely enough. Maybe the facial and head shape do come into play and explain why a couple of people have issues with it while most of them don't.

Click to expand...

I use glasses and need the eyecups to go down as far as possible. I presume Fireform has the opposite problem and finds that they do not extend far enough. As I've explained elsewhere, in my opinion, a well designed eyecup should allow a user to make full use of the ocular's potential by being adjustable from all the way flush with the ocular to all the way out (or ideally, beyond) and everywhere in between. Such an eyecup would meet the needs of _more_ users than most eyecup designs do currently. Most eyecup designs meet the needs of most users. Of course there is still the issue, for those who do not wear glasses, of how wide an eyecup is. That's a problem for which there is no easy design solution except making different interchangeable sizes for a given bino.

--AP

Guys, I think you are selectively focusing on my criticisms and ignoring the many aspects of these bins I've justly praised. My FLs aren't perfect either. I sent the $1800 EDGs back, too.

The good news is that the flaws appear easily remedied and not inherent to the design of the bin. For the first release of a new model of a $400 binocular, it's an impressive achievement and I will look forward to the next iteration, likely with cash in hand.

falcondude said:

strange.... Fireform said the binoculars has too much excessive eye relief in another different post. You think the eye relief is barely enough. Maybe the facial and head shape do come into play and explain why a couple of people have issues with it while most of them don't.

Click to expand...

You're misunderstanding me, falcondude. In my original review I said they had enough ER for me with my bifocals, and they do. The comment about having excessive eye relief was made in the context of looking through them without my bifocals and with the eyecups retracted all the way to try to reduce the glare. I would not normally use them that way, but I was exploring Alexis' observation that the gray crescents went away when he reduced his eye relief. It turns out it didn't work for me--set up that way I went directly from seeing the glare to blackouts because my eyes were too close to the ocular.

Fireform said:

You're misunderstanding me, falcondude. In my original review I said they had enough ER for me with my bifocals, and they do. The comment about having excessive eye relief was made in the context of looking through them without my bifocals and with the eyecups retracted all the way to try to reduce the glare. I would not normally use them that way, but I was exploring Alexis' observation that the gray crescents went away when he reduced his eye relief. It turns out it didn't work for me--set up that way I went directly from seeing the glare to blackouts because my eyes were too close to the ocular.

Click to expand...

Thank you for explaining this. I understand this better now. I never had luck looking at binoculars without eyecups up, for any binoculars. It always brings out blackout since I cannot keep the gap constant between eyes and lens. Resting on eyecups helps a lot for my case.

Bob A (SD),
Your reply is very helpful. The comparisons with the SLC make a big impression. Wow.


FrankD,

FrankD said:

1. This reminds me of being similar to the "blackout issue" with the Nikon SE 8x32s. I don't see the blackout issue with those either and I believe that had to do with how the bins are used/the level of eye relief/facial dimensions.

Click to expand...

Any chance though that this is a sample variation issue (unlike SE)?

FrankD said:

It is funny. You would think it would have popped up sooner if it was that significant.

Click to expand...

Yes but this is a 7x36 (different arrangement), right?

FrankD said:

I will spend more intensive time with them over the next day or two and post something this weekend.

Click to expand...

Looking forward to it.


The mighty EII Frank mentions is finally showing some weaknesses: 1) bridge flex, 2) a slight bit of contamination internally probably due to no seals(?). I've thought for some time that IF I could get a reasonably similar view in a roof (without objectionable faults) for $1K or less, I'd do it. The closest I've gotten so far is the Leica BN 8x32. This ZR 7x36 looks to be the right design; I'm just slightly concerned about the execution thereof. (Glare resistance is high on my list.) The other options I'm considering are the (beloved by Frank) Meopta 8x42, and Leica BR 7x42. Of course, much higher cost than ZR. But hey, I think most of the folks looking at these ZR ED2 are willing to pay double+ what they're selling for to get what they may well offer in performance. The low price just makes them easy to give a try.

Thanks, APS

It may be stretching things a bit to call the 7x36 a new design. It is the same design as the 8x43. Uses the same prisms. The rest is just downsized to fit the package.

Hi All,

I had not been bothered at all by the glare issue but since it is overcast, but still bright here, I took some time trying various conditions to see what would happen.

I think I can finally cause the glare to appear at will, but it may be unique to my sample and/or face conditions, and would like to see if others can reproduce it.

If I look in the extreme bottom of the exit pupils I can see the glare, the lower I go the worse it gets. Since I do not normally look that low in the exit pupil, I had not seen it to now. I have to be low enough that the field stop or exit pupil edge starts to appear in my view.

I think someone else had had mentioned the bottom of the exit pupil.

Going out for awhile to check this out some more.

Best
Ron

Fireform said:

You're misunderstanding me, falcondude. In my original review I said they had enough ER for me with my bifocals, and they do. The comment about having excessive eye relief was made in the context of looking through them without my bifocals and with the eyecups retracted all the way to try to reduce the glare. I would not normally use them that way, but I was exploring Alexis' observation that the gray crescents went away when he reduced his eye relief. It turns out it didn't work for me--set up that way I went directly from seeing the glare to blackouts because my eyes were too close to the ocular.

Click to expand...

Did you try the intermediate stop?

Surveyor said:

If I look in the extreme bottom of the exit pupils I can see the glare, the lower I go the worse it gets. Since I do not normally look that low in the exit pupil, I had not seen it to now. I have to be low enough that the field stop or exit pupil edge starts to appear in my view.

Best
Ron

Click to expand...

As it happens, I went home for lunch and tried the very thing Surveyor mentioned. There has been some discussion about this and that suggestion came up. I can see a bit of the dreaded crescent doing that. But boy does it seem like a funny and un-natural eye position for me. Maybe this is a face shape issue. At least I now have a bit of an inkling of what is being seen.

Kevin Purcell said:

Did you try the intermediate stop?

Click to expand...

Yes, but moving my eye back from the ocular didn't help with the glare, and the intermediate stop is too far out for me to see the whole field with my bifocals anyway.

Steve C said:

Maybe this is a face shape issue. At least I now have a bit of an inkling of what is being seen.

Click to expand...

Wouldn't surprise me. I'm often complimented on my Neanderthal good looks.

I think Fireform has done an excellent job of tracking down the cause of the glare, a bright edge on the focusing lens cell visible in his photo. I know from using other binoculars with the same problem that a number of variables will affect when such a reflection is going to be visible. Among them are eye pupil dilation and position, darkness of the field, focusing distance and the incident angle and intensity of the light that induces it. It's just the sort of thing that leads to endless debates of the "it's there! No it isn't!" variety. If I can speculate, perhaps there was a change in the focusing lens or it's cell in the ED2 models that caused the glare to become worse and has lead to more complaints about the ED2. It can probably be fixed to everyone's satisfaction with a 2 cent baffle of the right size placed in the right spot.

henry link said:

] If I can speculate, perhaps there was a change in the focusing lens or it's cell in the ED2 models that caused the glare to become worse and has lead to more complaints about the ED2.

Click to expand...

does not look like it is the case.

http://birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=1563053&postcount=68