Of course, this kind of begs the question:
Would one be able to tell if one was looking through
an Abbe-Koening compared to a Schmidt Pechan
if one were not told about it in advance? :cat:
-
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 questions out of curiosity (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter SeldomPerched
- Start date
Of course, this kind of begs the question:
Would one be able to tell if one was looking through
an Abbe-Koening compared to a Schmidt Pechan
if one were not told about it in advance? :cat:
That's a bit like debating about watch movements. There are the heart of any watch but many people don't care if it is just a mass production industrial made movement or some more exotic piece of art or even handmade or similar. Many people just don't care or know. I think an AK-Zeiss is more classy than SP. And hopefully the performance proves it.
dries1
Member
The FL was likely more expensive to make than the new Mg casing so go with the cheaper alternative, additionally the FL did quite well in the Allbinos endurance test so it is a solid bino as made. I was just curious if a FL size bino, 8 and 10X42 can be made with AK prisms, why more glass X42 produced with SPs?
Perhaps SP prisms are used in more premium bino production because of the ability to use those prisms in 32s and 42s, one way to save expense?
Andy W.
Perhaps SP prisms are used in more premium bino production because of the ability to use those prisms in 32s and 42s, one way to save expense?
Andy W.
Pinewood
New York correspondent
Hello Andy,
AK prism binoculars are bigger and heavier than SP prism binoculars. This is contrary to the bird watchers' zeitgeist: light and small. Hunters who use stands might find AK binoculars, like an 8x56, appropriate.
Happy bird watching,
Arthur :hi:
My gut feeling is that if the transmittance is similar, you wont be able to tell. I sure did not see much of a difference in brightness between the SF and the HT 8x42 in low-light conditions
Check the "false pupils" if your binocular's oculars show them. They are curved for AK prisms. Triangular if they have SPs. Although not all oculars show these.
Other than that look at the shape of the objective tubes. They are straight for SPs. There is usually some kind of curve or swelling in them if they have AK prisms.
Many roof prism binoculars have oculars that show "false pupils" although there are some that do not show them. I can can see them in
my Zeiss 7x42 FL where they are large and curve shaped and in my Nikons and smaller Swarovski CLs where they are diamond shaped but my big SLC 7x42 B does not have them. My Nikon 32s and 42s have diamond shaped false pupils but my Leica 7x42 Trinovid and 8x42 Ultravid do not have any.
Hold the binoculars away from your eyes and look for the "false pupils" around the Exit Pupils.
Bob
Last edited:
hopster
Well-known member
I think so, the glass etc being equal. TIR prisms like A-K and Porro seem to me to have a better transparency, which is different from their brightness benefit.
Paultricounty
Well-known member
Myself and a small group (five people) did an informal subjective test of a half dozen so called alpha and upper mid-grade SP bins, in direct comparison with two AK binos, the Vortex UHD and the Zeiss FL all in 8x42 (and one 8.5x). I cant say in any definitive way that there was a difference in the image quality or characteristic directly related to the prism type, nor could anybody else. Certainly there were characteristic differences in color hue, brightness, sharpness, color saturation and so on but nothing discernible concerning prism type. If I had to pick one thing that a few noticed after being asked if they see it , was with the UHD, possibly having a slightly more three dimensionality than the others, but this wasnt noticed in the FL
Again this was all visual and not very scientific.
Paul
hopster
Well-known member
That's interesting. It's nice to know people still care enough about IQ to get involved. I would certainly volunteer.
I didn't know the vortex would hold up in this company, maybe I should look at them for my upcoming 10x42 purchase. They would be up against Habicht 10x40, Zeiss FL/HT and Opticron Aurora 10x42. Would like to add in the Noctivid too but I suspect the CA might get to me.
I wonder what would happen if you added in the Habicht to a group 10x test, perhaps with the HT for an A-K item and some top S-Ps.
I didn't know the vortex would hold up in this company, maybe I should look at them for my upcoming 10x42 purchase. They would be up against Habicht 10x40, Zeiss FL/HT and Opticron Aurora 10x42. Would like to add in the Noctivid too but I suspect the CA might get to me.
I wonder what would happen if you added in the Habicht to a group 10x test, perhaps with the HT for an A-K item and some top S-Ps.
Paultricounty
Well-known member
We were able to test the 10x42 Vortex UHD and the Nikon 10x42 SE porro before I settled on the 8x42 UHD. On that day we also had on hand a 10x42 EL, NL and the GPO passion HD. At that time we weren’t really comparing or looking for differences between the AK and SP, it was more just comparing all the binoculars for different characteristics. Of course the Nikon SE was the noticeable stand out because of the porro characteristics. The only vortex that is in the company of the HT and FL and a few other so called alphas is the UHD.
Paul
I’m thoroughly happy with my 10x42 Viper and in a recent comparison between the Viper and UHD, am considering one of them or an Ultravid for my upcoming 12x50. Very big difference between the Diamondback and the upper lines from Vortex.
