stereotruckdriver
Well-known member
I would like to here from user's of the above how the edges are on these. Does the fov drop quickly or is it gradual? Do you find it annoying and obvious or just soft? Thanks, Bryce...
-
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.
Zen 8x & 10x ED's (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter stereotruckdriver
- Start date
denniswaugh
Well-known member
I have the Zen 10x43ED2. Edge fall off is slight, probably due to the higher magnification and narrower FOV.
I also have the Zen 7x35 ED2, Hawke 8x43 Frontier ED and Nikon HGL 8x32.
My order of preference regarding edge fall off:
Nikon 8x32 HGL - Very slight edge fall off, hardly noticeable
Zen 10x43 ED2 - Slight but acceptable
Hawke 8x43 - More fall off than the above bins but just acceptable
Zen 7x36 ED2 - Somewhat more edge fall off than the others, irritating to me
I appreciate the Zen 7x36ED2 has the widest FOV and in other optical areas this binocular is excellent, but I find the edge fall off very noticeable.
Steve C
Well-known member
Both the 8x and 10x43 are sharper on the edge than the 7x36. Even then they will not be considered edge to edge sharp. None of the three will satisfy those who want "edge to edge sharpness". Their forte is excellent center field resolution, brightness, and contrast.
To my eye, when I bother to look toward the edge there is, on the 7x36, an outer ring of pincushion distortion and an inner ring of what appears to be curvature. For my eye my 8x and 10x have the pincushion, but less of the curvature.
The 10x43 ED2 edge is slightly better than the 7x36. Another trade off in design? They are gradual and not intrusive, better than other binoculars I have tried. The edge softness is all from field curvature.
brocknroller
porromaniac
Dennis,
Thanks for that comparison.
I'm a big fan of sharp edges on binoculars, which goes back to me using bins first for stargazing. It's also why most of my binoculars have been Japanese-made Nikons, which all have very good edge performance (SEs, EIIs, 7x35 E, 8x35, 7x35, and 12x40 WFs, 8x Sporter, 8-16x40 XL Zoom).
Perhaps I have (on loan) an exceptional sample ZR 7x36 ED2, because the edge performance for daytime use is quite good, best at the bottom of the field where objects stay sharp until about 80% off axis.
The other edges are 70%+, which is very good, considering the wide 9* FOV. I'm sure a more critical star test would reveal the edges aren't as good as they appear during the day, but I plan to use these for birding and general daytime observing.
I can refocus some of the off-axis blurriness since it's mostly field curvature, but given the ample "sweet spot" and wide FOV, there's no need.
The fall off at the edges is far enough off axis not to be distracting. So I'm quite pleased with this sample's edge performance.
You might have worse focus accommodation than i do, which would show more fuzziness at the edges due to the field curvature, however, my focus accommodation is not that great.
The pincushion distortion in the 7x36 ED2 is more noticeable while tilting rather than panning. So I can pan smoothly looking at a distance at the mountain ridge, but when I look at a tree close by and tilt the binoculars vertically up and down the tree, the tree appears to curve inwardly.
This is also apparent when I look at the road in front of me. A slight dip will look like a deep gully.
This does not affect the view of the bird, so for birding, it's inconsequential.
The 8x32 LX/LX L has very sharp horizontal edges (nearly to the edge), but the vertical edges, particularly at the top, are not nearly as good.
I've had two 8x32 LX samples, and on both, there was noticeable astigmatism on top that couldn't be refocused and it started not far off axis. This was most noticeable while watching birds on my tube feeder.
As Bawko mentioned in his review, the 8x32 LX has a lopsided sweet spot - wider horizontally than vertically.
The LX/LX L also shows appreciably more CA than the ZR 7x36 in high contrast situations.
The ZR is much easier for me to hold steady with its open bridge design.
So I don't think I lose much if anything in terms of resolution, perhaps I gain because of the steadier views.
The detail through the ZR's is excellent. That seems to be consistent from various comments I have read.
It also has better depth of field, better depth of focus, and gives an appreciably better 3-D representation than the LX, which compresses the image.
One area where the LX triumphs is in color saturation. Colors appear a bit more vivid and "warmer" in the LX. Another area is the focuser, which, provided you don't get a loose one, is the smoothest turning focuser I've used.
The 7x36 ED2's focuser is quite stiff and gets even stiffer in cold weather, which makes it difficult to use for close in birding. It's the bin's "Achilles Heal".
However, when I stack up the pluses and minuses, given a choice between the 8x32 LX L and the 7x36 ED2, I would take the ZR (and that's from a diehard Nikon fan).
Pinewood
New York correspondent
Hello Bryce,
I am going to make a pronouncement, ex cathedra, if you will.
There is no such thing as edge to edge sharpness, as edges are always poorer than the center. Virtually all binoculars, especially those with anything like a wide field, will exhibit loss of resolution, at the edges. This may be measured. The question is whether the loss of resolution is acceptable, which may be rather subjective.
Your inquiry is well phrased but it may get a range of answers. To my mind, a good measure is do the edges still allow the user to detect a target either by colour, or by movement?
Happy bird watching,
Arthur Pinewood :egghead:
stereotruckdriver
Well-known member
Agreed Arthur, my reasoning and question was because I have 2 samples of the 7x36. One sample seems like it has a larger sweet spot and the fall off to the edge is gradual, not distracting to say the least. In actual field use don't notice it. The second sample has the same center field resolution but, a much smaller sweet spot? Very noticable and anoying, drastic fall off that bothers me to the point I wouldn't use it at all. So I figured before I got one of the other Zen's I wanted some consise input from other user's? I'm pretty particular when it comes to edge performance as a general rule, I'm one who will sacrifice fov for a better pronounced edge! I'm not expecting edge to edge sharpness with the Zen, I just don't want rapid fall off where it becomes an anoyance and I wouldn't use it. Thanks, Bryce.
Arthur,
I agree with you. It's the best explanation I've seen on the subject!:t:
Cordially,
Bob
Pinewood
New York correspondent
Hello Bryce,
Your experience does not reflect well on Zen's quality assurance, but there have been similar problems with alpha binoculars.
Happy bird watching,
Arthur
brocknroller
porromaniac
Bryce,
In your case, the bad edges seem to be due to sample variation. Why not contact ZR and ask them to repair, or better yet, upgrade it to v. 2 if you have the original version.
I don't like sharp fall off at the edges either, I find it very distracting while panning since my eyes tend to dart ahead and are always looking into the "fuzz".
What concerns me is that I have heard some other 7x ED2 owners mention the bad edges on their 7x ED2 samples. I suspected this was due to their eyes' poor focus accommodation.
However, now that I've read that you own one sample with good edges and one with bad edges, that shoots that theory.
As Pope Arthur declared (and as I discovered myself first hand), sample variations occur even with premium binoculars, but my feeling is that companies should stand behind their products and repair or replace bad samples.
The ZR 7x36 sample I'm trying is the original version. Is the sample you have with bad edges the original version or v. 2?
In your case, the bad edges seem to be due to sample variation. Why not contact ZR and ask them to repair, or better yet, upgrade it to v. 2 if you have the original version.
I don't like sharp fall off at the edges either, I find it very distracting while panning since my eyes tend to dart ahead and are always looking into the "fuzz".
What concerns me is that I have heard some other 7x ED2 owners mention the bad edges on their 7x ED2 samples. I suspected this was due to their eyes' poor focus accommodation.
However, now that I've read that you own one sample with good edges and one with bad edges, that shoots that theory.
As Pope Arthur declared (and as I discovered myself first hand), sample variations occur even with premium binoculars, but my feeling is that companies should stand behind their products and repair or replace bad samples.
The ZR 7x36 sample I'm trying is the original version. Is the sample you have with bad edges the original version or v. 2?
stereotruckdriver
Well-known member
Brock, I have the upgraded ED 2's both models. I have talked to Charles and he feels it's unacceptable! So I do want to purchase another but, I'm a little hesitant! I don't want something that is going to be a distraction hence my question to other user's about the edges on the 8x & 10x? If the majority find it a non issue then it will all fall back on a bad sample which we all know this happens! Bryce.
I will be watching where this thread goes with interest. I bought some ZRS 10x last spring and have been quite disappointed with them and have been lurking since then on here watching what has been said about the ed2's. Every time I get close to ordering a pair, there's more of this reporting of problems. I would abandon the whole enterprise and look elsewhere were it not for all the good stuff I have read about ed2 performance at this poor folks' price point. Seems like consistency eludes. Sort of maddening, really.
Pinewood
New York correspondent
Hello Bob,
I would add that edge sharpness should allow detection by color, by movement and by mass. Occasionally, I see something, which blends into the background, which is absolutely still, but just does not belong, like a a red-tailed hawk. I would think that edges with a binocular, are like our own unaided peripheral vision.
Happy bird watching,
Arthur :egghead:
Kammerdiner
Well-known member
I'll quickly weigh in on the 8x43 ED2. The sweet spot is nice and big on mine, and the edge sharpness is entirely acceptable. At least as good as my Zeiss FL, but of course the Zeiss isn't exactly known for its edges. Overall, it is one sweet view.
From what I've gleaned, the 8x seems to be consistent from sample to sample (except maybe focus feel). I've only looked through two 8x42/43 Chinese ED's (not side by side). From memory, I'd say they were nearly identical.
Considering that Zen still has 8x43 ED's for $290, I'd probably get that rather than the ED2 if I had it to do over again, and save the $110. I'm not sure you'd really see any difference.
Mark
From what I've gleaned, the 8x seems to be consistent from sample to sample (except maybe focus feel). I've only looked through two 8x42/43 Chinese ED's (not side by side). From memory, I'd say they were nearly identical.
Considering that Zen still has 8x43 ED's for $290, I'd probably get that rather than the ED2 if I had it to do over again, and save the $110. I'm not sure you'd really see any difference.
Mark
:t:
Both ZEN ED2 show slight softness at the edg wih gradual rolloff. Much better than other binoculars I have tried before. I call that softness because the edge image is not completely blurry, especially for such a wide angle binoculars. It is just softer, which does not obscure the view at all.
spitfiretriple
Well-known member
Interesting.
Can anyone shed any light on why two supposedly identical binoculars would show this variation? Assembly sloppiness? The factory swapping to different (cheaper) glass, or different (cheaper) coatings without Charles at Zen-Ray knowing?
Kevin Purcell
Well-known member
It's nothing to do with changing the glass or the coatings (they're not going to do either). Those components are made by multiple suppliers on batch basis.
It's probably down to the EP assembly (where small differences in position can have large effects) in getting the lenses into exactly the right positions. The machine of the EP assembly might have small variations that cause these problems. Small tilts in the roof prisms can be an issue too.
If you are really curious dig out a opto-mechanical text book. People spend a lot of time working out how to build them reproducibly. The more precise the greater the cost.
It's probably down to the EP assembly (where small differences in position can have large effects) in getting the lenses into exactly the right positions. The machine of the EP assembly might have small variations that cause these problems. Small tilts in the roof prisms can be an issue too.
If you are really curious dig out a opto-mechanical text book. People spend a lot of time working out how to build them reproducibly. The more precise the greater the cost.
Last edited:
Surveyor
The more I understand, the more I understand why I
More or less along the lines of Kevins comments. Alignment.
Since Bryce says center field resolution is about the same, I would, first, suspect the collimation is approaching the limits for his vision, or that the magnification difference between tubes is above allowable.
Those are the two parameters that usually affect sweet spot and edge differences for me.
Collimation is usually the first parameter to go south on most binoculars in my experience.
The only two checks I routinely make of bins that I use regularly is collimation and limiting (boosted) resolution.
Best
Ron
spitfiretriple
Well-known member
Can you recommend a good one? I've been trawling Amazon for a while, but haven't seen anything that says "Buy me, I'm the right book for you".
I have reasonable memories of schoolboy trigonometry, geometry and calculus. Not university level. And I enjoyed Feyman's QED. The first half at least, then I got out of my depth!
Last edited:
