Leupold Gold Ring HD 8x32 versus SV 8x32 (1 Viewer)

jan van daalen · Oct 23, 2014

jgraider said:
I believe you're incorrect about that, but it's not worth arguing about. You do know that Meopta was the OEM for the previous generation Zeiss FL T spotting scopes, and some of the Leica spotters as well? They also were the OEM for some of the Zeiss hunting scopes.

To take it to the next level:
I read somewhere that TCI invested 40 million US$ in Meopta in 1998 and we all know who is behind TCI, but that does not mean Swarovski outsources their products.
AFAIK is Swarovski the ONLY optic giant that produces their optical products in house. Ofcourse they let an other firm make their magnesium body and optical glass suppliers deliver the glass, just like Zeiss does with the HT and SF.
It is correct that in the past Meopta made inhouse the complete scopes for Leica and Zeiss, but they also outsourced the production of the scope and bin housings.
The only thing these firms make inhouse are the tubes for the riflescopes. These are CNC constructed products to prevent tentionproblems.
100% PRODUCTION is impossible for every optic brand.

Jan

denco@comcast.n · Oct 23, 2014

jan van daalen said:
Zeiss, Leica, Swarovski, Schmidt&Bender, Meopta, Optolyth, Steiner (Porro) grind and polish Schott, Hoya and/or OHara optical glass. They buy glass in bulk and/or in blanks.
And believe it or not they all throw away the boxes. No secret about that!!

I find it hard to believe that a Swarovski employee would confide to a factory visitor, on the moment he finds normal trash, that Swarovski private labels.
But than again, this was 14 years ago.......

Jan

So none of these companies make their own glass. They buy it in blanks and grind their own lenses. Of course price determines the quality of the glass and the quality of the glass determines the quality of the optics.

denco@comcast.n · Oct 23, 2014

jremmons said:
I don't think the GR HD or McKinley HD give up much to the SLC HD (which I personally prefer to the SV), and I'd agree that if you put the GR and McKinley side-by-side it'd be hard to differentiate between the two, optically.

But everyone's eyes are different so discussion on optics often doesn't matter much when you are looking through a pair of binos, it seems.

Justin

It could be the optics are similar but the ergos on the two are different. At least on the first generation Mckinley.

jan van daalen · Oct 23, 2014

[email protected] said:
So none of these companies make their own glass. They buy it in blanks and grind their own lenses. Of course price determines the quality of the glass and the quality of the glass determines the quality of the optics.

Dennis,

Right.
A while ago an optical glass brand (Hoya) bought an optical manufacturer (Pentax) and much earlier coöperated Schott and Zeiss. So you are right and.....right.
There is no difference in quality between the products of Hoya and let's say Schott.
It's more an issue of price and availabilaty of the products from those suppliers that justifies the choice for Swarovski, Meopta etc. to buy that type of glass.

Jan

Steve C · Oct 23, 2014

One thing that sort of fascinates me is how people will "fixate" on a brand. For instance, since the discussion is optical glass, you see Schott glass elevated to a nearly mystical status. This is particularly true on a certain Hunting Optics forum I post on occasionally. If it has "SCHOTT GLASS" it has to be the holy grail. I wonder if people think Schott has some sort of magic pixie dust, or maybe some "known only to them" sort of proprietary mixture that makes Schott somehow better than, say Hoya, or (insert another optical glass maker). While certain processes and abilities may well make for mixing and curing a good batch of glass, it matters not who mixes and cures the pot. What is needed is the right type of glass with the correct optical properties to fill a need in whatever spot in the optical design that piece of glass will go. I think is is highly likely that any optical concern has multiple sources to get the materials it needs for the finished product.

Big time glass makers, like Schott have factories all over the planet.

I have enclosed an article about Steiner Optics from 2010. They clearly state that their glass came from Malaysia at that time. Interesting read and I doubt the general theme is much different if one were to remove Steiner from the article and replace it with another name.

Alexis Powell · Oct 23, 2014

What's really odd is that Swarovski would be throwing the boxes away. Every business I am familiar with recycles boxes. Someone needs to get to the bottom of this--is the story inaccurate or apocryphal, or does Swarovski engage in wasteful and environmentally irresponsible box disposal?

--AP

jan van daalen · Oct 23, 2014

Alexis Powell said:
What's really odd is that Swarovski would be throwing the boxes away. Every business I am familiar with recycles boxes. Someone needs to get to the bottom of this--is the story inaccurate or apocryphal, or does Swarovski engage in wasteful and environmentally irresponsible box disposal?

--AP

Since this event happened 14 years ago I suggest you go back in time via a time worp and get to the bottom of this:eek!:

Jan

jremmons · Oct 23, 2014

[email protected] said:
It could be the optics are similar but the ergos on the two are different. At least on the first generation Mckinley.

I definitely believe the ocular design caused ergonomic issues for some. Also, I think there was a bit of a QC failing from Leupold's source which likewise may have resulted in some problematic specimens.

bh46118 · Oct 24, 2014

If that is actually what you see, then I will agree with your last point, my eyes couldn't be more different than yours. I think the truth is that most people don't want to spend two grand on a set of binoculars, so they feel the need to tell everyone who has what a poor choice they've made.

jremmons said:
I don't think the GR HD or McKinley HD give up much to the SLC HD (which I personally prefer to the SV), and I'd agree that if you put the GR and McKinley side-by-side it'd be hard to differentiate between the two, optically.

But everyone's eyes are different so discussion on optics often doesn't matter much when you are looking through a pair of binos, it seems.

Justin

denco@comcast.n · Oct 24, 2014

jan van daalen said:
Dennis,

Right.
A while ago an optical glass brand (Hoya) bought an optical manufacturer (Pentax) and much earlier coöperated Schott and Zeiss. So you are right and.....right.
There is no difference in quality between the products of Hoya and let's say Schott.
It's more an issue of price and availabilaty of the products from those suppliers that justifies the choice for Swarovski, Meopta etc. to buy that type of glass.

Jan

Interesting. I don't think a lot of people realize how important the quality of the glass is to the optical qualities of a binocular. So Hoya and Schott are equivalent in quality but within the brand there are different quality levels or specifications and the brands like Zeiss and Swarovski use the higher end glass and the cheaper brands because of economics have to use the cheaper grades.

denco@comcast.n · Oct 24, 2014

jremmons said:
I definitely believe the ocular design caused ergonomic issues for some. Also, I think there was a bit of a QC failing from Leupold's source which likewise may have resulted in some problematic specimens.

Yes, for me anyway the oculars were too large for my eye sockets. Are the 2nd generations smaller? I would be willing to try them if they were.

etudiant · Oct 24, 2014

[email protected] said:
Interesting. I don't think a lot of people realize how important the quality of the glass is to the optical qualities of a binocular. So Hoya and Schott are equivalent in quality but within the brand there are different quality levels or specifications and the brands like Zeiss and Swarovski use the higher end glass and the cheaper brands because of economics have to use the cheaper grades.

As Jan points out, Schott or Hoya glass by itself means nothing. Glass is a mixture of materials, it comes in infinite variety. There are multiple individual offerings from each manufacturer, with their important parameters, such as refractive index or transparency at specific frequencies very tightly specified. Glass does not melt or cool smoothly, so uniformity is also an issue, something that the lens molding process must allow for.
In short, to make a good binocular, there is a marathon of details that must all be executed properly. The selection of the glass used is just one and by no means the preeminent one.

WJC · Oct 24, 2014

etudiant said:
As Jan points out, Schott or Hoya glass by itself means nothing. Glass is a mixture of materials, it comes in infinite variety. There are multiple individual offerings from each manufacturer, with their important parameters, such as refractive index or transparency at specific frequencies very tightly specified. Glass does not melt or cool smoothly, so uniformity is also an issue, something that the lens molding process must allow for.
In short, to make a good binocular, there is a marathon of details that must all be executed properly. The selection of the glass used is just one and by no means the preeminent one.

I may be outta line, but I just shot a page outta my Schott catalog. It might help those who just think there's just plate glass and "optical" glass.

Bill

bh46118 · Oct 24, 2014

So a lesser quality glass that is properly implemented will outperform the best glass that is used in a binocular that is less well thought out ? The very best glass I would assume also get the best coatings. Do Leica, Zeiss, and Swarovski apply their own coatings ?

etudiant said:
The selection of the glass used is just one and by no means the preeminent one.

WJC · Oct 24, 2014

bh46118 said:
So a lesser quality glass that is properly implemented will outperform the best glass that is used in a binocular that is less well thought out ? The very best glass I would assume also get the best coatings. Do Leica, Zeiss, and Swarovski apply their own coatings ?

Some of the cheapest binos, today, have better lenses and prism than even some of those older units so many get twitterpated over from the war years.

But beware of buzzwords and jargon. "Aspheric" for example. The word "aspheric" gives some people unbelievable bragging rights. BUT, was that ASPHERE designed correctly? Was it ground and polished correctly? Was the instrument tested against KNOWN clinical criteria? I've seen any number of asphere housed binos that didn't perform nearly as well as all-spherical units that were made with care and testing.

That's why I try to stop folks who get all squishy over some crap they read in a magazine. Most writers are freelancers who will write about fishing gear today, car stereos, tomorrow, and the best pizza in town on Friday. Do YOU feel lucky? :eek!:

Bill

NDhunter · Oct 24, 2014

bh46118 said:
So a lesser quality glass that is properly implemented will outperform the best glass that is used in a binocular that is less well thought out ? The very best glass I would assume also get the best coatings. Do Leica, Zeiss, and Swarovski apply their own coatings ?

Your thoughts are well recognized, and the reality comes in the total
package. There are many levels of binoculars available in the marketplace
today. I just made a post wondering about the Bushnell Ultra HD, they
now offer a value in the lower price point.

The top makers use the best glass and the best coatings.
And yes their coatings are applied in house. There is a difference.

Jerry

denco@comcast.n · Oct 24, 2014

NDhunter said:
Your thoughts are well recognized, and the reality comes in the total
package. There are many levels of binoculars available in the marketplace
today. I just made a post wondering about the Bushnell Ultra HD, they
now offer a value in the lower price point.

The top makers use the best glass and the best coatings.
And yes their coatings are applied in house. There is a difference.

Jerry

"The top makers use the best glass and the best coatings.
And yes their coatings are applied in house. There is a difference."

Exactly and that is the major difference between an alpha and a less expensive binocular. I have heard somewhere that Swarovski uses something like 35 layers of coatings on their binoculars.

denco@comcast.n · Oct 24, 2014

WJC said:
I may be outta line, but I just shot a page outta my Schott catalog. It might help those who just think there's just plate glass and "optical" glass.

Bill

Amazing really how many types and grades of glass there are.

jan van daalen · Oct 24, 2014

[email protected] said:
"The top makers use the best glass and the best coatings.
And yes their coatings are applied in house. There is a difference."

Exactly and that is the major difference between an alpha and a less expensive binocular. I have heard somewhere that Swarovski uses something like 35 layers of coatings on their binoculars.

35 layers says nothing as long as they are not of the right thickness to achieve the goal the manufacturer wants to achieve.
Everybody can put 35 or 100 layers on their lenses/prisms, but will it work?

It's what Etudiant wrote: The total combination of correct measures counts.

Jan

WJC · Oct 24, 2014

jan van daalen said:
35 layers says nothing as long as they are not of the right thickness to achieve the goal the manufacturer wants to achieve.
Everybody can put 35 or 100 layers on their lenses/prisms, but will it work?

It's what Etudiant wrote: The total combination of correct measures counts.

Jan

They're shooting for 1/4 Lambda in the visible spectrum--with the center point being about .580 microns.

Now then, how many understood that? But we can all understand "35 coats," especially if it is made to sound important, by an advertiser. There are SOOOOO many things in making an optical instrument work that good and intelligent people don't think about, or even KNOW they SHOULD think about. |:$|

Bill

Leupold Gold Ring HD 8x32 versus SV 8x32 (1 Viewer)

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Attachments

Natural history enthusiast

Well-known member

Wildlife Biologist

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Registered User

Well-known member

Attachments

Well-known member

Well-known member

Experienced observer

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread