• 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.

Habicht 8x30 vs new CL companon 8x30 B (1 Viewer)

How high does the Abbe No. have to be to qualify a glass as ED? How long is a piece of string?
The Abbe No. of Schott N-FK5 is 70, that of Ohara S-FPL53 95. The glass used is only half the story.

John

How long is a piece of string? About as long as Brexit negotiations!
Unfortunately there seems to be no agreement on what constitutes ED glass as a minimum but then the necessary Abbe number is probably dictated by the overall optical train design.

Lee
 
How long is a piece of string? About as long as Brexit negotiations!

The difference is that you can do something useful with a piece of string... ;)

Personally, I would be very surprised if Swarovski didn't use some kind of ED glass in the new CL Companion. Certainly cost can't be a reason, given that Nikon use it in their £260 Monarch 7 8x30s. And whilst Swarovski's ED glass might be somewhat more expensive, I can't think they wouldn't be able to provide it in a binocular with an £830 street price. Clearly, though, the use (or not) of ED glass in the objective lenses is but one part of the optical path, and the design of the oculars also has a critical role to play.
 
How high does the Abbe No. have to be to qualify a glass as ED? How long is a piece of string?
The Abbe No. of Schott N-FK5 is 70, that of Ohara S-FPL53 95. The glass used is only half the story.

John
The modern standard is usually set at 80.
Yes you are right, but half the story is still 50% weight, so large that it easily has an impact on the final result.
 
The difference is that you can do something useful with a piece of string... ;)

Personally, I would be very surprised if Swarovski didn't use some kind of ED glass in the new CL Companion. Certainly cost can't be a reason, given that Nikon use it in their £260 Monarch 7 8x30s. And whilst Swarovski's ED glass might be somewhat more expensive, I can't think they wouldn't be able to provide it in a binocular with an £830 street price. Clearly, though, the use (or not) of ED glass in the objective lenses is but one part of the optical path, and the design of the oculars also has a critical role to play.

Chinese bins below $100 use ED glass these days...however they cannot compete with CL companion. But what I mean is that CL could easily have used some ed glass and achieve even better CA control.
 
Thanks Lee!

Now maybe you can tell me what kind of ED or LD glass is used in the Swarovski EL.

We know they have the same coatings on the glass in the CL Companions and on the EL but is the same glass used in both of them?

You are welcome Bob. Alas, none of the brands give details of the grades of glass they use. I would think it unlikely the CL uses the same grade of glass as EL. One hopes and presumes the top models of binos from all brands use better and therefore more expensive grades of glass than more affordable models.

As John pointed out the type of glass we call ED has multiple grades within it and some are more ED than others. This isn't necessarily a bad thing providing the overall result reaches the standard desired by the brand and this satisfies the part of the market it is aimed at, at the right price level.

Lee
 
Thanks again Lee.

As for me, I'm happy that I normally don't see it when I am using my binoculars, although I have seen it showing on Turkey Vultures circling overhead in a bright, overcast sky while I was using an inexpensive Vortex Diamondback 7x36 that had a lagging focus in one of its tubes. It was pretty obvious and pretty bad.

It may always be there as some argue but if I don't see it it isn't there. o:D

https://www.allbinos.com/1118-Vortex_Diamondback_7x36-binoculars_specifications.html

Bob
 
Last edited:
Thanks again Lee.

As for me, I'm happy that I normally don't see it when I am using my binoculars, although I have seen it showing on Turkey Vultures circling overhead in a bright, overcast sky while I was using an inexpensive Vortex Diamondback 7x36 that had a lagging focus in one of its tubes. It was pretty obvious and pretty bad.

It may always be there as some argue but if I don't see it it isn't there. o:D

https://www.allbinos.com/1118-Vortex_Diamondback_7x36-binoculars_specifications.html

Bob

The lack of ability to achieve decent focus would have made the bands of CA even wider and more obvious Bob.

I can usually find CA if I look for it apart from in models like Zeiss FL, SF and Kowa Genesis and while I understand that it is there in other models, if it doesn't spoil the view then effectively for me it doesn't exist. For sure there have been models that have been awful to view a white swan against dark water but I am not talking about gross examples like that.

Lee
 
Tell us more, what are you carefully comparing to ?

Jerry
I compared to Zeiss sf 842, victory 825, victory 742, terra 825, leica 742hd, canon 1550is, steiner commander 750...and some of the bigger ones, too, basically all the binos I have at hand. The ca of cl is only better than canon 1550. The image becomes a bit dirty due to spilled colors when looking at a backlit object like branches.
 
Last edited:
The difference is that you can do something useful with a piece of string... ;)

Personally, I would be very surprised if Swarovski didn't use some kind of ED glass in the new CL Companion. Certainly cost can't be a reason, given that Nikon use it in their £260 Monarch 7 8x30s. And whilst Swarovski's ED glass might be somewhat more expensive, I can't think they wouldn't be able to provide it in a binocular with an £830 street price. Clearly, though, the use (or not) of ED glass in the objective lenses is but one part of the optical path, and the design of the oculars also has a critical role to play.

Mando Bear,

Regarding the "design of the oculars:" Since its introduction the oculars on the new CL Companion 8/10x30B have been a subject of discussion.

They are 'rumored' (should we say?) to have an "Optical Box" that allows the users to place their eyes closer or further from the ocular while using the binocular, much like people aiming a rifle with a scope on it can place their eyes closer or further back.

I know from personal use of my own CL Companion 8x30B that I can place the eye cups up against my Brow Ridge or back further into my eye sockets without having any problems like blackouts using it. When I use other binoculars I have to brace them on my brow ridge to get the proper eye relief, with the single exception of my Pentax 9x32.

Bob
 
Last edited:
Bob,
I'm familiar with the "optical box" concept used on the new CL - I have a pair, and I've also used rifle-scopes which, necessarily, employ a generous eye-relief. In use, I find the new CL to provide a very easy view, perhaps lacking the absolute snap and sparkle of my ELs, but nonetheless very good for an instrument of that size and price. Personally, I haven't been troubled by chromatic aberration in the view through them - I wouldn't have purchased them if that had been the case.

My comment about ocular design wasn't so much about the "optical box" on the CLs, but more general, about the role the ocular can play in introducing its own aberrations, or potentially working with the design of the objective as a complete optical system. Unlike an astonomical telescope where it's practice to swap out eyepieces regularly, in a binocular the objectives and oculars can be designed to work together.

Michael
 
Bob,
I'm familiar with the "optical box" concept used on the new CL - I have a pair, and I've also used rifle-scopes which, necessarily, employ a generous eye-relief. In use, I find the new CL to provide a very easy view, perhaps lacking the absolute snap and sparkle of my ELs, but nonetheless very good for an instrument of that size and price. Personally, I haven't been troubled by chromatic aberration in the view through them - I wouldn't have purchased them if that had been the case.

My comment about ocular design wasn't so much about the "optical box" on the CLs, but more general, about the role the ocular can play in introducing its own aberrations, or potentially working with the design of the objective as a complete optical system. Unlike an astonomical telescope where it's practice to swap out eyepieces regularly, in a binocular the objectives and oculars can be designed to work together.

Michael

Thanks for your clarification Michael. CA is a difficult subject to focus on!;)
(Lousy pun intended:smoke:)

Bob
 
To those not sensitive to CA, it's never going to be an issue. To those that are, it's genuine.

I accept that James.

I was actually replying to Range who said: 'Actually CA is the single biggest issue of CL series', although he hasn't really explained how a big a problem this is for him and I don't recall new CL being called out for poor CA control before. Should have made that more clear.

Lee
 
Personally I am not particularly concerned about CA, but I can perceive different levels of CA control.
CL is near color free at the center but mediocre at pheriperal.
 
A quick thought: I've got both the CL 10x30 (new version) and a fairly recent Habicht 10x40.

Of course the CL is in many ways much easier to use in the field, it has a convenient size, a decent focuser and pretty good image quality up to the edges of the field of view. No problems with CA, but then I'm not susceptible to CA anyway. Once you set it up for your eyes the glare is manageable although nowhere near as well surpressed as in a few other binoculars. And, an important consideration IMO, it's light. Very light, actually. As much as I like the 10x50s, I can't imagine carrying on on long hikes. No way. In short: The CL for many purposes almost ideal, e.g. on long hikes in the mountains when I don't want to carry a scope+tripod.

However, the Habicht 10x40, one of the true dinosaurs of the binocular world with a construction dating back well over half a century, albeit with up-to-date coatings, does have a better image in the centre of the field of view. Higher contrast, higher transmission, better resolution ("sharpness"), better colour reproduction, less glare. That's to my eyes quite obvious even handheld, when you put both binoculars on a tripod it becomes very obvious. Talk about the porro advantage.

Anyhow, on my next long trip in the summer I'll once again take the CL (of course) - but I'll probably put the Habicht in the bag as well, just for grins. The one 8x32/10x32 I'm waiting for impatiently to replace the CL still won't be on the market by then, I'm afraid ... o:D

Hermann
 
Warning! This thread is more than 5 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