• 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.

Why no lens hoods for binoculars? (1 Viewer)

tingjunkie

tingjunkie

a.k.a. Richard Cissel
Another beginner question about optics... Since my experience with optics is limited to photography and camera lenses, please excuse my binocular ignorance.

I am wondering why bins do not have built in (or optional) lens hoods to block stray sunlight from the front elements. Anyone who's into photography knows that stray sunlight can seriously weaken the colors and contrast of a shot, regardless of how multi-coated the elements are. I would assume the same principle would be true with bins too. Since the solution of using cheap lens hoods can really improve the contrast/saturation of a camera lens in certain situations, then why don't we see them for binoculars? Considering how seriously some birders take their optics (and are willing to spend top dollar to make sure they have the best set-up), why not go the extra step and make sure side glare doesn't contaminate their view? Also, rigid metal or plastic hoods could also serve to protect the front elements from accidental scratches/smudges. Seems like it should be a win/win.

Please, what am I missing here?
 
tingjunkie said:
Bump. Surely someone must have some idea?
Click to expand...

I think you might get a better response if you posted to the binoculars forum, but here are my thoughts anyway.

My impression is that the bigger problem is at the other end of the binocular--stray light entering the system via the eyepieces, which can sometimes be very annoying particularly for glasses wearers. Winged eyecups are available for some models, but they don't seem very popular & I'm not sure how much good they do. I've personally had no experience with them.

One of the nice things about binoculars--& a reason why people care so passionately about them--is that the best of them are beautifully made self-contained machines without a lot of bits & pieces to fiddle with. (For my own part, I don't even like tethered lens caps). I certainly wouldn't want to bother with detachable hoods unless the effect on the image was truly startling & I don't know that it would be. (Is there anybody out there who does?). In any case, I would have thought that inexpensive detachable hoods would be easy enough to improvise for anyone who really wanted them, so I don't see a need for the manufacturer to supply them. Non-detachable built-in hoods? I would imagine that implementing these properly--so they don't jam or break-off or get in the way--is likely to add a lot to costs, & would probably look lousy as well.
 
Last edited:
fugl said:
I think you might get a better response if you posted to the binoculars forum...

I certainly wouldn't want to bother with detachable hoods unless the effect on the image was truly startling & I don't know that it would be. (Is there anybody out there who does?).
Click to expand...

Hey fugl,
Thanks for your thoughts. You make some good points. Yes, I should have posted in the bins forum, but to be honest, I never knew there was a general part of that forum until 5 minutes ago when I finally scrolled past all the manufacturer subforums! |8.| Is there a way to move this discussion?

Anyway, here is a link which explains the kind of sun flare I am talking about (though it may be a discussion of camera lenses, the principle is the same- simply replace "digital sensor" or "film plane" with "eyeball"). http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/lens-flare.htm

As you can see in the example photos, the flare can have a huge effect on the fidelity of the image. When I shoot with my camera, there is always a hood on my lenses for this reason. It's not going to help if the sun is actually in the frame, but it helps immensely for when the sun is out of frame and casting light on the front element. The difference can be "truly startling," as you say. In fact, just today I was lucky enough to get a good long look at a perched Rough-Legged Hawk, and for part of that time I was getting flare which greatly effected how well I could see his true color and markings- flare which could have easily been fixed by lens hoods.

As you say, some binoculars are truly marvels of form and design. However, no matter how well the "Zeicarovskys" are made or how much they cost, they can't disobey simple physics. If someone is going to spend upwards of $500-$1500 or more on bins, and a $10-$15 set of hoods could improve the image a mere 5% of the time they are being used, wouldn't they be foolish not to use them?

I've never used top end bins, so for all I know the manufacturers may have found some fancy internal solution which makes hoods obsolete. Perhaps someone who owns some can comment?
 
Last edited:
Yes, agreed, the physics are the same, but the circumstances of use differ. With binoculars the image is normally bright & sharp & it falls directly on the retina. If there is flare it is easily recognized & can often be controlled or eliminated by shifting position slightly or finding a patch of shade someplace. Under these circumstances, it's unclear to me how useful lens hoods would be. With cameras in contrast ad hoc measures of this kind are less practical because the viewfinder or screen image is generally dimmer & harder to evaluate than a binocular image, flare if present often not showing itself clearly until after processing. In these circumstances, a lens hood is obviously desirable.

Why don't you do some experimentation--rig up some lens hoods for your binoculars & see if the effect on the image is worth the trouble?
 
Most of the bins I've used do have the objective lenses recessed somewhat. I'd always thought that any depper recess would end up blocking some of the field of view. I've not tried that out though. It wouldn't be too hard - just make a tube of paper and see how long it can be before it interferes with the view.
 
I do occasionally see birders in the field with little extensions (made from plastic piping, suggesting it's regularly used) over the objective lenes of their binoculars.
Looks daft, and I'm sure it would be a hinderance in a low light scenario.
 
I occasionally use the hood on my scope when digiscoping, but haven't really noticed that much of a difference. With the bins I think it's usually easy enough to just use one hand to block the light a bit when it's interfering. This seems easier than having to fidget with a hood.
 
Ah, here's the topic.
I have done some experiments before posting on this topic.
Some binoculars are well-irised and others, up and down the price chain,
are not. This causes poorer performance with respect to contrast in overcast
or snow-based observations, and glare when light is just off-axis.

To see if your binoculars can benefit, you can make a sloppy "Elizabethan collar"
with roughly a 15-20 degree angle, using tape and black felt. If subtle shades and
colors are more distinct, removing the stray light has improved your performance.
If your image suddenly appears "brighter", that's just the effect of the dynamic
light range increasing (the black level drops down). It can be striking.

If the improvement looks worth it, you can often find a PVC pipe coupler that
exceeds your front barrels, a smooth-to-threaded coupler,
then spray paint the threads flat black. Then self-adhesive
felting can be picked (hopefully) to shim the smooth side to a nice slide-fit
on the binoculars. The threaded diameter has to clear the sight lines, obviously.

I was able to dramatically improve the contrast depth of my Leupold Yosemite
8x30s. They went from great to super on overcast days, and can pick out deer,
turkeys, doves and hawks from the background more easily.

I tried a test collar on my Jason Venture 4000 7x25s (a Bushnell Custom clone).
There was no difference. The Venture 4000s have a deep ribbed
flat black iris built in. The job is already done.

Many modern binoculars do not have all the irising they should, and can benefit
from hoods. I can only guess they thought all the better coatings would make
contrast-enhancement irrelevant. At least in my experience, that shouldn't be
taken for granted. Stray light can still reduce contrast and color saturation.

I am really happy with the boost in the Yosemites. I would be happier if I could
buy sleek manufactured hoods, but these don't weigh much,
and I place my priorities on the view out.
 
Last edited:
OPTIC_NUT said:
Ah, here's the topic.
I have done some experiments before posting on this topic.
Some binoculars are well-irised and others, up and down the price chain,
are not. This causes poorer performance with respect to contrast in overcast
or snow-based observations, and glare when light is just off-axis.

To see if your binoculars can benefit, you can make a sloppy "Elizabethan collar"
with roughly a 15-20 degree angle, using tape and black felt. If subtle shades and
colors are more distinct, removing the stray light has improved your performance.
If your image suddenly appears "brighter", that's just the effect of the dynamic
light range increasing (the black level drops down). It can be striking.

If the improvement looks worth it, you can often find a PVC pipe coupler that
exceeds your front barrels, a smooth-to-threaded coupler,
then spray paint the threads flat black. Then self-adhesive
felting can be picked (hopefully) to shim the smooth side to a nice slide-fit
on the binoculars. The threaded diameter has to clear the sight lines, obviously.

I was able to dramatically improve the contrast depth of my Leupold Yosemite
8x30s. They went from great to super on overcast days, and can pick out deer,
turkeys, doves and hawks from the background more easily.

I tried a test collar on my Jason Venture 4000 7x25s (a Bushnell Custom clone).
There was no difference. The Venture 4000s have a deep ribbed
flat black iris built in. The job is already done.

Many modern binoculars do not have all the irising they should, and can benefit
from hoods. I can only guess they thought all the better coatings would make
contrast-enhancement irrelevant. At least in my experience, that shouldn't be
taken for granted. Stray light can still reduce contrast and color saturation.

I am really happy with the boost in the Yosemites. I would be happier if I could
buy sleek manufactured hoods, but these don't weigh much,
and I place my priorities on the view out.
Click to expand...

That's an interesting post, with much to ponder, although it's a bit long for a haiku...;)
MJB
 
The objective lenses of bins are usually recessed to deal with the effect. The eye is better at adapting than a camera. Bins can usually be manoeuvred to keep the object to be viewed in sight while excluding any sunlight (often not an issue in the UK!)

In extreme cases, its usually less critical to be close with bins than camera, so moving yourself is often a sensible solution.

John
 
Hello John,

I have in front of me two binoculars: one has well recessed objective lenses; the other does not. The latter suffered from glare, meaning bright patches in the view, when pointed near the sun, which was never a problem in the summer but it is a problem in the autumn and in the winter. For the latter, I purchased lens hoods, made by Bushwacker, consisting of a rubber sleeve and covers which flip back. These hoods have ameliorated those bright patches, but did not eliminate them. My guess is that the manufacturer could have avoided the problems by providing deeply recessed objectives but decided to avoid both increased length and increased weight.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur Pinewood :hi:
 
The eye is better at adapting than a camera.
Click to expand...
When it comes to haze or general noise, the eye can't really recover all the lost
contrast and saturation. What happens is you become used to it, like all the
slightly smoky-looking photos from the early Olympus and Lumix days.

The recessing of the objective helps a lot, but having a real flat-black ribbed tunnel
behind the objective makes a huge difference, even if it's a stubby one.
It looks like a straight wall when viewed through the objective.
I might have a very clear vitreous in my eye, but I can see into shadows easily
and I expect binoculars that support that. Perhaps it's not as noticeable to
other eyes.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 10 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.

Similar threads

G
New March Drawing for Kowa Optics
Replies
12
Views
1K
gr8fuldoug
G
J
My First Experience Purchasing Birding Binoculars
Replies
11
Views
2K
tenex
tenex
F
Kite APC 16x42 … gimmick, replacement or addition? (my report)
2
Replies
26
Views
4K
fazalmajid
fazalmajid
MartinDCZ
Vanguard Endeavor ED IV 10x42 is a disappointment
Replies
4
Views
1K
Chris Pringle
C
G
Leica, Zeiss & Swarovski binoculars compared: A personal report
2 3
Replies
42
Views
4K
Paultricounty
P

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top