• BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!

    Register for an account to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

8x32 roof with least glare (1 Viewer)

CharleyBird

Well-known member
England
What 8x32 has the most resistance to glare?
Don't have to be the latest or premium, happy to consider anything from SF to FL, EDG, Kowa

Cheers
Andy
 

A2GG

Beth
Supporter
United States
Ultravids control glare well. The little 8x32 has short eye relief, but if you don't wear glasses it shouldn't be an issue. The FL showed some droplets or spikes sometimes which may indicate internal reflections, but it wasn't real bad. I think the Ultravid would be better.
I compared the Ultravid to Nikon MHG 8x30 and the Leica was much better with glare control.
I've heard the EDG is very good with glare, but these are hard to find now at a reasonable price.
 

[email protected]

Well-known member
Supporter
You can find that on Allbinos under Internal Reflections. But the Ultravid is best followed by the FL, Conquest HD, Leupold GR, EDG, Vortex Viper HD and the SF. One thing to keep in mind usually as you go up in aperture size you will get less glare.

 
Last edited:

eitanaltman

Well-known member
I think all the premium 32mm roofs have at least “good” glare control. The only one you consistently hear complaints about are Swaro, and that’s only from a subset of users.

I own both 32mm Leica UVHD 8x32 and Nikon EDG 10x32, and can attest that their reputations are well earned in this regard. Both are terrific with glare control; you may see a little flare or flash at the periphery of the FOV in the very worst conditions, but for all practical purposes I use either one without ever thinking about glare. Just not something you have to really worry about with those two, it’s so minimal.

The new Zeiss SF seems to get good reviews here as well.

I’ve also owned Kowa Genesis 33, Meopta Meostar 32, Zeiss Conquest 32, Swaro CL 8x30, all of which I would describe as “good but not great”. Most of the time glare isn’t a problem, but there are certain conditions where it becomes more “glaring” (har har).
 
Last edited:

CharleyBird

Well-known member
England
I guess size limits the inner baffling, but 8x32's are for pockets and daylight, so I'm keen to find one that's small and glare resistant. This is from where my question arises.

Looking at the SF on paper, it is really too big, longer than my 7x42 UV+
And searching, the EDG 8x32 is as rare as hens teeth, nothing even used

So Leicas...the BA are pre Trinovid right? Amears, what 8x32 do you use now?


And any others that should be in the running?
 

eitanaltman

Well-known member
If "small" is a major factor, scratch off the EDG 32mm which is on the large side for a 32, almost as big the 7x42 Leica UV (and only 100g lighter). I included a photo below of 5 models I had in position at the time I was testing 32's, so you can see how tiny the little Leica is (quite a bit smaller than the 8x30 Swaro CL!) and how large the EDG 32 is. The Conquest HD and Kowa Genesis are in the middle, and pretty typical size for "normal" 32mm binoculars.

IMO - if you want premium optics, compact size / low weight AND good glare resistance, the Leica UV 8x32 is unmatched. Nothing is that small while also providing such premium optical quality and great glare control. Note that the older Trinovids (BA/BN) are a bit chunkier than the Ultravid, and ~100g heavier.

Literally the only flaw of the 8x32 UV in my mind is the finicky eye position / short eye relief. The eye relief makes it problematic for some who wear glasses (although my wife seems to be fine with it). And even if (like me) you don't wear glasses, it's not as "easy" a view as the 7x42 (which I also have). Ironically, despite having shortish eye relief, the eyecups could use an extra click of extension if you like to push them into the socket. After using the 7x42 (my main birding bin) switching to the 8x32 feels fussier, but once I adapt and get used to it everything is fine.

But other than that, you get a view that is very similar to the 7x42 but in a tiny 530g package. The 8x32 was a slightly lesser FOV but because of the higher mag it has a greater AFOV than the 7x42, but otherwise their views are more similar than different.

So, assuming you don't wear thick glasses such that you need long ER, I would just go with the Leica 8x32 and call it a day. If this will be a backup bin for you, I would recommend finding a used 8x32 HD (non plus) for a huge discount vs buying a new HD+.

1611355903012.png


Another shot showing the compactness of the 8x32 Ultravid (middle) vs 32mm EDG (right) and 42mm Trinovid BR (left):

1611356554580.png
 

eitanaltman

Well-known member
Also worth mentioning the 8x25 Zeiss Victory Pocket, which jumps way up the list if you literally want something small and light enough to put in a pocket. The optics are first rate, nearly as good as the Leica 8x32 UV, and they have remarkable glare resistance for such a small bin.
 

eronald

Well-known member
Also worth mentioning the 8x25 Zeiss Victory Pocket, which jumps way up the list if you literally want something small and light enough to put in a pocket. The optics are first rate, nearly as good as the Leica 8x32 UV, and they have remarkable glare resistance for such a small bin.
I think the 7x35 Leica is now the best small bin. I think it beats the 7x42.
The Zeiss has unbeatable optics in its size range, but horrible to use for longer periods.
 

CharleyBird

Well-known member
England
This is very helpful. I am a UV fan having the 10x32, 7x42 and 12x50, but reading around, both 'greatest binoculars' and 'binoculars today' reviews point to the 8x32 having peripheral and veiling flare issues, especially over a mirror lake with surrounding forest, which just happens to be the situation when walking our dog early morning/twilight.

The zeiss is a great idea, well liked and widely available, and smaller could be the best compromise. I'd forgotton about it! I have been looking at the Nikons, EDG, HG-L and HG Monarch.
Anyone have the Zeiss Pocket 8x25 and Nikon Monarch HG 8x30 to comment? I've tried neither and both look good on paper
 

pbjosh

missing the neotropics
Switzerland
I have the Monarch HG 8x30, but not any of the others you mentioned for direct comparison. I can say that for my use, the MHG controls glare pretty well. It is definitely not perfect, but I'm still happy with it and it has been my most used bin for about two years. I've written a fair amount about it on here and am a fan so I won't repeat all my opinions, but getting back to glare: it does about as well as my Swaro EL 10x42, and is a small step behind my 8x32 and 8x42 SFs. My very initial impression is that perhaps the 8x32 SF does a touch better with glare than my 8x42 SF but, as you have mentioned, it is a pretty large 8x32, nearing the size of 42mm UVs and Monarch HGs. I've just recently moved to winter in central Europe and gray skies with low angle sun and birds in the tops of deciduous trees are definitely more of a test of contrast and glare control than birding in Buenos Aires typically was. I do notice here that both my 32mm and 42mm SFs outperform the 42mm EL and the 30mm Monarch HG in terms of glare but also in terms of contrast. I'm slowly noticing that the SFs let me see more detail and color on small birds in the tops of bare trees against harsh gray skies. Still though, the Monarch HG is a terrific little bin for the price, and handily fits in the pocket of my various winter coats.
 

CharleyBird

Well-known member
England
Thanks for this pbjosh. Size, weight, glare control, view, I have lots to consider. The MHG seems to be the compact compromise and at a good price.
 

[email protected]

Well-known member
Supporter
I guess size limits the inner baffling, but 8x32's are for pockets and daylight, so I'm keen to find one that's small and glare resistant. This is from where my question arises.

Looking at the SF on paper, it is really too big, longer than my 7x42 UV+
And searching, the EDG 8x32 is as rare as hens teeth, nothing even used

So Leicas...the BA are pre Trinovid right? Amears, what 8x32 do you use now?


And any others that should be in the running?
"I guess size limits the inner baffling, but 8x32's are for pockets and daylight, so I'm keen to find one that's small and glare resistant. This is from where my question arises."

A bigger aperture binocular will always control glare better than a smaller aperture because the glare passes the field stop and never reaches your eyes.
 

[email protected]

Well-known member
Supporter
If "small" is a major factor, scratch off the EDG 32mm which is on the large side for a 32, almost as big the 7x42 Leica UV (and only 100g lighter). I included a photo below of 5 models I had in position at the time I was testing 32's, so you can see how tiny the little Leica is (quite a bit smaller than the 8x30 Swaro CL!) and how large the EDG 32 is. The Conquest HD and Kowa Genesis are in the middle, and pretty typical size for "normal" 32mm binoculars.

IMO - if you want premium optics, compact size / low weight AND good glare resistance, the Leica UV 8x32 is unmatched. Nothing is that small while also providing such premium optical quality and great glare control. Note that the older Trinovids (BA/BN) are a bit chunkier than the Ultravid, and ~100g heavier.

Literally the only flaw of the 8x32 UV in my mind is the finicky eye position / short eye relief. The eye relief makes it problematic for some who wear glasses (although my wife seems to be fine with it). And even if (like me) you don't wear glasses, it's not as "easy" a view as the 7x42 (which I also have). Ironically, despite having shortish eye relief, the eyecups could use an extra click of extension if you like to push them into the socket. After using the 7x42 (my main birding bin) switching to the 8x32 feels fussier, but once I adapt and get used to it everything is fine.

But other than that, you get a view that is very similar to the 7x42 but in a tiny 530g package. The 8x32 was a slightly lesser FOV but because of the higher mag it has a greater AFOV than the 7x42, but otherwise their views are more similar than different.

So, assuming you don't wear thick glasses such that you need long ER, I would just go with the Leica 8x32 and call it a day. If this will be a backup bin for you, I would recommend finding a used 8x32 HD (non plus) for a huge discount vs buying a new HD+.

View attachment 1365344


Another shot showing the compactness of the 8x32 Ultravid (middle) vs 32mm EDG (right) and 42mm Trinovid BR (left):

View attachment 1365345
"Literally the only flaw of the 8x32 UV in my mind is the finicky eye position / short eye relief. The eye relief makes it problematic for some who wear glasses (although my wife seems to be fine with it). And even if (like me) you don't wear glasses, it's not as "easy" a view as the 7x42 (which I also have). Ironically, despite having shortish eye relief, the eye cups could use an extra click of extension if you like to push them into the socket. After using the 7x42 (my main birding bin) switching to the 8x32 feels fussier, but once I adapt and get used to it everything is fine."

I agree with this on the UV 8x32. For me, it was deal killer. I couldn't use them because of the finicky eye position / short eye relief.
 

[email protected]

Well-known member
Supporter
This is very helpful. I am a UV fan having the 10x32, 7x42 and 12x50, but reading around, both 'greatest binoculars' and 'binoculars today' reviews point to the 8x32 having peripheral and veiling flare issues, especially over a mirror lake with surrounding forest, which just happens to be the situation when walking our dog early morning/twilight.

The zeiss is a great idea, well liked and widely available, and smaller could be the best compromise. I'd forgotton about it! I have been looking at the Nikons, EDG, HG-L and HG Monarch.
Anyone have the Zeiss Pocket 8x25 and Nikon Monarch HG 8x30 to comment? I've tried neither and both look good on paper
"Anyone have the Zeiss Pocket 8x25 and Nikon Monarch HG 8x30 to comment? I've tried neither and both look good on paper."

I have had both of those, and they are going to have way more glare than a good 8x42. it is all about the bigger aperture.
 

amears

Well-known member
I guess size limits the inner baffling, but 8x32's are for pockets and daylight, so I'm keen to find one that's small and glare resistant. This is from where my question arises.

Looking at the SF on paper, it is really too big, longer than my 7x42 UV+
And searching, the EDG 8x32 is as rare as hens teeth, nothing even used

So Leicas...the BA are pre Trinovid right? Amears, what 8x32 do you use now?


And any others that should be in the running?
Hi. I use the EL 10 32s, they are just lovely to use and look through despite the glare - and despite the strap, which is just awful. I’ll switch to either of the others if birding in forest and needing a wider field (Leica 8 32s, UV or BA). Unfortunately, the BA focussing is getting gritty but the whole design (pre new trinovid as you say) is some kind of genius. If Leica re issued them with a body made of a lighter alloy, and modern glass and coatings, I think they’d be hard to beat.

Good luck, hope you find the ones right for you,
Andy
 

pbjosh

missing the neotropics
Switzerland
Thanks for this pbjosh. Size, weight, glare control, view, I have lots to consider. The MHG seems to be the compact compromise and at a good price.

It is a compromise, yes. It doesn't have quite the alpha level optics of the EL or SF. But it really, really works for me as a birding bin and I like the ergonomics a lot. I still the the CL-B has slightly better optics, but I prefer the greater FOV of the MHG. I think that between the MHG and the CL-B it's all personal preference, they're both awesome little bins.
 

pbjosh

missing the neotropics
Switzerland
A bigger aperture binocular will always control glare better than a smaller aperture because the glare passes the field stop and never reaches your eyes.

While a larger objective size bin has a natural advantage for the designer to take advantage of, the actual real life glare performance of a bin has next to nothing to do with objective size unless you're comparing binoculars from the same model line that have the same optical design and the same manufacturing standards and interior treatment and vary ONLY in objective size... of which there are few examples, as most bins modify the optical design between sizes.

I 30-32mm bins from Zeiss, Nikon, and Canon that outperform my 42mm Swaro EL's in terms of glare...

The worst glare performer I have has the largest exit pupil of any binocular I own...
 

mbb

Well-known member
This is very helpful. I am a UV fan having the 10x32, 7x42 and 12x50, but reading around, both 'greatest binoculars' and 'binoculars today' reviews point to the 8x32 having peripheral and veiling flare issues, especially over a mirror lake with surrounding forest, which just happens to be the situation when walking our dog early morning/twilight.

The zeiss is a great idea, well liked and widely available, and smaller could be the best compromise. I'd forgotton about it! I have been looking at the Nikons, EDG, HG-L and HG Monarch.
Anyone have the Zeiss Pocket 8x25 and Nikon Monarch HG 8x30 to comment? I've tried neither and both look good on paper
I am quite surprised at reading this comment about the UV 8x32. I consider its great handling of challenging light conditions one of its biggest selling points, keeping good contrast and without disturbing reflections or glare in challenging situations where a Kite Lynx HD8x30 or Swarovski Habicht 8x30 can fail. Those otherwise great latter ones do have a worse reputation specifically regarding that, however, so they might not be the best reference. There is also the review of the UV HD 8x32 on Allbinos that seems to praise the great interior blacking and baffling, with an absence of any false exit pupils etc.

I also have the Zeiss Victory 8x25. It is realy impressive for its size. In decent daylight, I think its image quality is relatively comparable to the UV 8x32. Its smaller size and weight are its biggest assets. It is worse for longer observations though, but that is to be expected: I attribute it to the smaller exit pupils making a perfect eye positioning more important and the inherent impact of such a small size on ergonomics (but again, very impressive considering its size!). It also has given me a bit more veiling glare than my UV 8x32, but only occasionally and not to an extent that I would call it a significant flaw or a dealbreaker. It is still significantly better than the Lynx or Habicht to that regard. (While the ergonomics and bigger exit pupil can make e.g. the Lynx more enjoyable than the Victory 8x25 for longer observations, if the light condition/angle isn‘t causing any trouble...)
I guess perfect binoculars don’t exist... Good enough certainly do :)
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top