Yes, I didn't notice the haze so much at first, but once I did, I saw it all the time. I tried all the different models, and it was in all of them, so I would be wary of the Sig IS binoculars and their clones. I would say if you like IS binoculars, stick with Canon's.
-
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.
16x and steady views. Sig Zulu6 16x42 (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter rdnzl
- Start date
pat mitchel
Well-known member
could you make an objective lens hood to keep the light from striking the objective lens at an angle? The objective lens (or cover lens as some small binos have) gets pushed to the forward edge of the bino making the light hitting at an extreme angle - might that be the cause? Pat
We have discussed this before, and I believe Henry Link said the objective lens hoods would have to be at least 6 inches or more in length to do any good. He felt the glare was coming from the ocular side, so maybe something like a Binobandit would help.
Last edited:
Yup, the one I tried did. The APC 16x42 Kites also had a LOT of CA on the edges. I believe the Kite is just a clone of the Sig Sauer. They are all made by Kamakura.
Last edited:
The haze comes from the objectives, the binobandit would be used for light disturbances transverse or behind the eyepieces.
I know the APC Kite has more AC than the SIG, at least...
I was wondering if it always suffers from these intrusive glares.,. Thanks for the contributions.
I know the APC Kite has more AC than the SIG, at least...
I was wondering if it always suffers from these intrusive glares.,. Thanks for the contributions.
I am a recent owner of the SIG SAUER Zulu6 FDE HDX OIS 16X42mm binocular.
As some other users has already stated, it is a shame that the optical quality of the binocular and its low level of chromatic aberrations and distorsion are tarnished by a notable predisposition to flare and loss of contrast, starting and spreading from the lowest area of visión, as soon as the unit is oriented slightly against the light and the vision is moved vertically upwards. This defect is increased if the 2 stabilization modes are used.
Likewise, in a night-time use with lights in the field of view, for example in a cityscape with light sources in the observed area, continuous, annoying ring-shaped flashes occur around each light source at the lowest edge of the viewing area.
It is really difficult not to encounter such two issues in normal use, both outdoors or indoors with intense artificial light.
I own 2 other binoculars: an Olympus 10x42 EXWPI and a Vortex Diamondback 12X50, both of optical quality that could be described as medium/low. In neither of them is this type of incident visible.
Apart from what has been described, the general optical quality, stabilization modes and general construction are very correct, always safe from the aforementioned defects.
Best regards.
As some other users has already stated, it is a shame that the optical quality of the binocular and its low level of chromatic aberrations and distorsion are tarnished by a notable predisposition to flare and loss of contrast, starting and spreading from the lowest area of visión, as soon as the unit is oriented slightly against the light and the vision is moved vertically upwards. This defect is increased if the 2 stabilization modes are used.
Likewise, in a night-time use with lights in the field of view, for example in a cityscape with light sources in the observed area, continuous, annoying ring-shaped flashes occur around each light source at the lowest edge of the viewing area.
It is really difficult not to encounter such two issues in normal use, both outdoors or indoors with intense artificial light.
I own 2 other binoculars: an Olympus 10x42 EXWPI and a Vortex Diamondback 12X50, both of optical quality that could be described as medium/low. In neither of them is this type of incident visible.
Apart from what has been described, the general optical quality, stabilization modes and general construction are very correct, always safe from the aforementioned defects.
Best regards.
binomania
Well-known member
Hi Denco, here in Italy on my Forum, is born a small controversy has arisen regarding SIG SAUER. Nuovo binocolo stabilizzato SIG SAUER ZULU 6 con nuovi vetri HDX - Pagina 4 - Il forum italiano dedicato al mondo dei binocoli
An enthusiast resold it saying that it had a horrible glow, so much so that another Spanish enthusiast intervened and sent us a photo where you can see a truly incredible glow. In the sample I had tested, I had noticed some diffused light but not like this. could you give me your impression about it? Thank you
Attachments
Yes, that is exactly the type of veiling glare that I experienced with the SIG Sauer Zulu 6 16x42 binoculars. It appears as you tilt the binoculars from the horizon in the bottom of the FOV, and slowly floods the entire FOV. I noticed it in both the older Sig Sauer Zulu 6 and the newer HDX models in all the formats.
I also saw it in the APC 16x42 Kites, so I think it is a design flaw common to the Kamakura design since they are all similar. Perhaps having something to do with the close objective spacing or lack of inset, and that is probably why somebody suggested lens hoods as a solution.
I wouldn't recommend either the Kite or the Sig Sauer for that reason and if you have to have an IS binocular I would stick with Canon's but outside of the Canon 10x42 IS-L none of the Canon's really are the optical equal of a good high quality roof like the Nikon HG 8x42 or Zeiss Conquest HD 8x32.
The alpha roofs are considerably better optically IMO to any of the IS binoculars. You can see more detail with an IS binocular, but even with the slight shaking, the view of the bird is much higher quality as far as color, CA and contrast through an alpha roof. Characteristics that are very important to birding.
They never will. You will never get the quality of optics with IS you do with a normal binocular. There is always going to be the issue of artifacts that spoil the view.
Swarovski is not going to go through the trouble of manufacturing a near optically perfect $3000 to $4000 binocular and then put an IS system on it that sacrifices the image.
That would be like putting an IS system on a Takahashi or Astrophysics telescope. Almost a travesty for the optical purist.
Last edited:
I would put the Canon 10x42 IS-L on par with the mid-tiered binoculars like the Nikon HG 8x42 or Zeiss Conquest HD 8x32.
IMO they are not equal to the top alpha's especially now with the huge FOV's of the newer alphas like the SF and NL and even then the Canon 10x42 IS-L has artifacts and focuses and refocuses when you pan or move it slightly.
Also, none of the IS binoculars can equal the contrast of the top alphas, and that is one thing I really miss when I use an IS binocular. The Canon 12x36 IS III is especially lacking in contrast and brightness compared to say the Nikon HG 8x42.
Canon's transmissions in general are very mediocre, considering they are a porro, and they should have high transmission. It makes me wonder if their coatings are that efficient. From Allbinos.
Canon 12x36 IS III - binoculars review - AllBinos.com
The best binocular tests on the net. The comprehensive database of binoculars with their parameters and users opinions. Interesting articles and comparisons.
"You can praise quite flat shape that guarantees you very good color rendering, but it is slightly worrying that at no point the binoculars reach 90% or higher. Why are we so demanding in this area? Firstly, you deal here with the Porro II system, in which the prisms operate on the principle of total internal reflection. To put it simply, there are no losses here. What's more, such a system is not divided with air, unlike some Porro I systems, so the losses can really be minimized. Add to that a 1-element objective lens and a 4-element eyepiece. Overall, in the whole binoculars you deal with just 6 optical elements, so 12 air-to-glass surfaces.
 The most efficient contemporary multilayer antireflection coatings lose about 0.3% on one air-to-glass surface. With 12 such surfaces, the overall loss should amount to about 3.5%. Add to that light absorption factor in glass that, with such a number of elements, shouldn't exceed 2%. As you can see, the overall losses of light should have been about 5.5%; it means that in some parts of the visible spectrum the transmission of this instrument should be able to exceed 94%. The problem is it never exceeds 90%, and it's a slip-up that shouldn't have happened to a pair of binoculars manufactured by such a renowned producer and sold at this price point." |
Last edited:
Never say never. I bet we will see soon the IS on Swarovski.
I could possibly see IS on a mid-level Swarovski like the CL or EL, but I don't think you will ever see it in the NL. It would spoil the perfect optics unless they can figure out a way to develop an IS system without artifacts.
If they had an IS binocular that worked as good as a binocular on a tripod, I would buy one. An NL on a tripod is something to behold.
I do not think that IS is suitable for the top segment of the alpha brands, but for example a Zeiss Concuest with IS would certainly be welcome. And from my own experience I know that having IS can be just as important a feature of a binocular as the other features such as good contrast. In fact, a nice, stable image has so much added value that the other properties could be reduced if there is no other option.
Does this mean that alpha brands give up portable binoculars with magnifications above 12x? I find it strange, electronics enter every sector except alpha binoculars? Swaroski has already introduced electronics on its AIX Visio. I asked Swaroski if the camera has IS and this was the answer:
"Currently the imaging stabilization is not available but we hope to be able to offer this in future updates."
So the camera will have the IS, but the bino not.
"Currently the imaging stabilization is not available but we hope to be able to offer this in future updates."
So the camera will have the IS, but the bino not.
Zeiss has the mechanical 20x60:
ZEISS 20x60 S | Unique mechanics and optical performance
The technically unique mechanical image stabilisation system of the ZEISS 20 × 60 T* S ensures a perfect viewing experience.
www.zeiss.com
I tried the Zeiss 20x60 S. I found a pair for about $4K that were like new, and they were pretty nice because they don't have any artifacts like the electronic IS binoculars, but the stabilization just negates small hand movements and doesn't stop large hand movements, as well as, the electronic IS binoculars like the Canon's.Zeiss has the mechanical 20x60:
ZEISS 20x60 S | Unique mechanics and optical performance
The technically unique mechanical image stabilisation system of the ZEISS 20 × 60 T* S ensures a perfect viewing experience.
Also, they don't stabilize well when used in a vertical position when trying to use them on astro so the one area where they would be beneficial to have because of the big 60mm aperture and high 20x magnification they fail.
Additionally, even though their AFOV is good for a 20x, I didn't care for the narrow FOV and shallow DOF, especially when used for terrestrial viewing.
Also, they are quite heavy and large handheld, and you have to continually keep the IS button depressed on the top of the binocular, which makes it even worse for viewing any longer periods.
I sold them for about $4K, so I didn't lose much. The build quality is very high on them, but I just feel they are kind of old technology, even though they are unique in the binocular world being the only stabilized binocular that doesn't use a battery.
