ZEN ED2 9x36 (1 Viewer)

I have tried to make another graphic illustration of the binoculars' 3D-area , based on the thoughts above. I cannot guarantee they conform to scientifical proofs, however. I make no claims that the drawing is according to scale or proportional.

It needs to be pointed out that the 3D-area is not actually a flat area within the visual field, but rather a virtual volume with loose boundaries.

a= Left barrel's FOV
b= Right barrel's FOV
c= Joint sweet spot of both barrels (a floating value, dependent from judgement of sharpness)
d= Depth of field - another floating value
Red arrow= Direction of view (drawing shows the FOV and DOF from above)

I make the assumption that not the entire joint sweet spot will provide maximum 3D clues, since a minor image separation will be diminished or hidden when the viewing angle is oblique.

Furthermore, I assume that the 3D-volume expands slightly behind and in front of the depth of field, since a major image separation will overrule a minor blur.

In Anycase...not a single report, or a review on the 9x model of the Zen..gosh the 7x was the big rebinolution,and this SO MUCH expected incarnation,has not made a single entry in this forum..You know if has been reviewed in any other forum,or ..?

mayoayo said:

In Anycase...not a single report, or a review on the 9x model of the Zen..gosh the 7x was the big rebinolution,and this SO MUCH expected incarnation,has not made a single entry in this forum..You know if has been reviewed in any other forum,or ..?

Click to expand...

Is it out yet? I was really interested in it but then Nikon really discounted their 10 x 32 EDG and.........................


Bob

Apparently these things are more than a month late now. Glad I didn't decide to wait for a pair...

I saw on their site that these are available now. I already have a couple of 10x. don't know if I need 9x.

looksharp65 said:

I have tried to make another graphic illustration of the binoculars' 3D-area , based on the thoughts above. I cannot guarantee they conform to scientifical proofs, however. I make no claims that the drawing is according to scale or proportional.

It needs to be pointed out that the 3D-area is not actually a flat area within the visual field, but rather a virtual volume with loose boundaries.

a= Left barrel's FOV
b= Right barrel's FOV
c= Joint sweet spot of both barrels (a floating value, dependent from judgement of sharpness)
d= Depth of field - another floating value
Red arrow= Direction of view (drawing shows the FOV and DOF from above)

I make the assumption that not the entire joint sweet spot will provide maximum 3D clues, since a minor image separation will be diminished or hidden when the viewing angle is oblique.

Furthermore, I assume that the 3D-volume expands slightly behind and in front of the depth of field, since a major image separation will overrule a minor blur.

Click to expand...

Looksharp!

Thanks for the replies and accompanying graphics explaining the "3-D Effect" (or what I call it, anyway).

I might need another enzyme tablet to digest it all, but it seems to make sense.

We definitely need a technical report section, otherwise, information like this gets lost, because it's buried in a thread that is unrelated to the topic.

I'm going to bookmark this thread so I can find it again when I need it.

Brock

Thanks Brock,

and I have a correction to one detail of my own theory. When the viewing angle gets more oblique, the image separation increases. Thus, the 3D-effect should not really be diminished towards the "edge" of the sweet spot. However, it seems as the modern eyepiece design does not allow too oblique view (at least not by just turning the eyes , possibly more by putting the bin in an oblique angle to the face).

And I have also found that what makes up for the lion's share of the 3D-effect is the image separation. The wide-angle, wide sweet spot, deep DOF porro is unbeatable here.

I received Zen Ray 9 x 36 ED2 binoculars on 10/6/10 and am pleased. They are a "poor man's Swarovskis." Here are some impressions:

They have a solid, well-built feel in most regards. The screw-down eye cups are sturdy and seem unlikely to get off track and jammed as I've seen happen with Nikon Monarch and Eagle Optics Platinum Rangers. However, when you thump the focus mechanism with a finger the faceplate, which appears to be plastic, makes a rattling sound and makes me wonder how long it will last. Also, the screw-on cap over the hinge at the objective lens side of the binoculars appears to be plastic and is likely to be lost should it come loose, as I've seen happen with Platinum Rangers.

The case that the binoculars come in are sturdy and functional, however, who uses a case for their high end binoculars? It appears that Zen Ray has cut corners slightly with the neck strap and associated plastics parts. They're not obviously cheesy; they just contrast with otherwise solid feel and smooth focussing of the binoculars themselves. The rain guards provided for the eye pieces and objective lenses are similarly shy of top quality.

The focus is smooth and precise and the clarity is excellent. Compared to my 20+ year old Zeiss Classic 10 x 40, the Zen Ray's have better contrast. However, the Zeiss win on sharpness at the very edge of the field of view. Edge sharpness must be a particularly vexing problem for binocular manufacturers because it seems best achieved by only the highest end binoculars. The right eyepiece adjuster turns too easily, making me wonder if it will drift from where I set it from rubbing against my shirt as I walk. Also, the mark on the ring used as a reference is very difficult to see, especially if light is poor.

The biggest difference between the Zen Ray 9 x 36 ED2 and Swarovski EL binoculars is, of course, the price. The Swarovskis are clearly better, but are they worth an additional $1,500 to $1,900 for edge to edge sharpness (differences within the central 80-90% of the FOV are subtle to non detectable) compared to these $400 ZR binoculars?

Perhaps the most significant difference between Swarovski and Zen Ray, the one that is hardest for me to reconcile, is that Austria would celebrate any one of its citizens for winning the Nobel Peace Prize, not keep them in prison for disagreeing with their government.

Larry Barnes
Hailey, ID

lbarnes

thank you for sharing your impressions from the ED2. Like you I have a Zeiss Classic and I am in constant search for something better, phase-coated, long ER and waterproof.
The view of the Zeiss is quite relaxing, really, though the edge sharpness is not as impressive as yours seems to be.

So I don't seem to immediately need to run away and buy the ED2.
A complication for me is that I want the focusing wheel to go clockwise to infinity, which seems to narrow down the options with 95%, leaving the EDG, Meopta and the Big Three as the sole options.

Brock,

Just a thought, but if your standard of reference for 3-D effect in midsized (32mm) roofs is the Nikon HG/L, that binocular model actually does have less of it than most. This is due to the prism assembly, albeit a Schmitt-Pechan, offsetting the optical axis a little bit, whereby the optical axis of the eyepiece is not quite in line with the axis of the objective lens. And, in this case, the objective spacing is narrower than the eyepiece spacing. I don't recall how much, but when I tested the binocular a long time ago I noted that it apparently was enough to make the image flatter in the 3-D sense than other 8x32's I compared it with, in which the objective spacing was usually a little wider than the eyepiece spacing. So, one cannot automatically assume that all roofs are the same in this respect.

Kimmo

I was quite tempted by these, but in the end did not order a pair because a) they were delayed so long, and b) I realized that the strong field curvature that bothered me so much in the 7x version would only be more prominent at higher magnification because of the shallower depth of field. I'm sure their center field performance is impressive, though. Dazzling would not surprise me.

I have used the 7x a lot,and i dont think that has a Strong field curvature ..i mean..IT does NOT have a strong field curvature..It has been mentioned that the Zen 7X has an incredibly well corrected field,FREE of distorsion mostly..for such a wide angle binocular...focus the binocular in a flat wall,and you would agree,..now the Swift Audubon 820..for instance,have a strong field curvature,but not the Zen ED´s 7x or 8X ,that i have owned...

Fireform said:

I was quite tempted by these, but in the end did not order a pair because a) they were delayed so long, and b) I realized that the strong field curvature that bothered me so much in the 7x version would only be more prominent at higher magnification because of the shallower depth of field. I'm sure their center field performance is impressive, though. Dazzling would not surprise me.

Click to expand...

If you say so. I do know that in the pair I had the centerfield and the field edge coexisted in very different planes of focus...

Like Larry Barnes, I recently got a pair of Zen ED2 9x36, and I can echo most of his comments. In my case they are a poor man's Leica 10x32 Ultravid HD. Comparing the Zens to the Leicas I found the centre sharpness essentially equal, but noticeable field curvature in the Zens makes the edges quite fuzzy. As Larry pointed out, edge sharpness seems to be an area where only the highest end binoculars excel, particularly in the mid-size models. As has been said here before, if you are concentrating on focusing on a bird, the edges become less important. On the whole I like the Zen 9x36 very much - it is a nice size and weight and feels comfortable in my hands. It is the one I keep in the trunk of the car (and at the price, wouldn't break the bank if it got stolen...).

Roger

SmithRJ said:

Like Larry Barnes, I recently got a pair of Zen ED2 9x36, and I can echo most of his comments. In my case they are a poor man's Leica 10x32 Ultravid HD. Comparing the Zens to the Leicas I found the centre sharpness essentially equal, but noticeable field curvature in the Zens makes the edges quite fuzzy. As Larry pointed out, edge sharpness seems to be an area where only the highest end binoculars excel, particularly in the mid-size models. As has been said here before, if you are concentrating on focusing on a bird, the edges become less important. On the whole I like the Zen 9x36 very much - it is a nice size and weight and feels comfortable in my hands. It is the one I keep in the trunk of the car (and at the price, wouldn't break the bank if it got stolen...).

Roger

Click to expand...

What happened to them?

I notice Zen Ray doesn't list them any more. Did they just make one small speculative run of them and then drop them?

The perils of being a small company in a big business I guess. Hope they stay in business long enough to keep their guarantee valid.

Bob

I just opened their web page and the 9x36 is there....menu,binoculars,ZEN ED2,7x8x9x10x...390$.....I hope bussines stays in bussines...

I was a 9x fan for a while, and the favorite may have been 9x reverse porros.

But actually, I had some relucatence to go for 10x, as most small 10x have been poor. Changed my mind. Now I am leaning more toward 10x36 and 8x36 as the sizes I find more convenient. So I am not leaning much toward 9x anymore. I will take an 8.5x over an 8x if it gives fantastic views and 400f t fov.

ceasar said:

What happened to them?

I notice Zen Ray doesn't list them any more. Did they just make one small speculative run of them and then drop them?

The perils of being a small company in a big business I guess. Hope they stay in business long enough to keep their guarantee valid.

Bob

Click to expand...

Bob, it has always been listed on our site

http://www.zen-ray.com/shop/binoculars/zened2.html

Thanks

ZEN-RAY said:

Bob, it has always been listed on our site

http://www.zen-ray.com/shop/binoculars/zened2.html

Thanks

Click to expand...

I clicked on your advertisement on the top of the Binocular Sub-Forum page and did not see them there in the associated links so I assumed they had been dropped. The ad shows 14 binoculars listed.

Nice to know they are still available.

Bob

It does look quite attractive, but as I mentioned, I did not have 400 to spend. I ended up with my 10x36 in a bit of a complicated way, so I am using them. Cost me 200.