8x32 roof with least glare (1 Viewer)

[pbjosh]

Then again, if the Nikon 8x30MHGs controlled stray light better they'd make a great birding bin indeed.

I'm curious when you purchased your MHG Kevin? I purchased mine in late 2018. I don't think they have excellent glare control, but I find it to be pretty good - certainly good enough that I view them as "a great birding bin."

These things are of course subjective, but it is curious if there's sample variation, manufacturing changes, or just that much difference between how people use their bins and how much they are noticed by whatever glare they might encounter?

 

[pbjosh]

My question, which 8x32 has least glare seems to be answered: Zeiss SF Nikon EDG
Both currently available, similar prices and picking over the pros and cons I've read, my feeling is that both would be great in use:

I've only ever once looked through the EDG 8x32 but by reputation I should think it will probably outperform the SF on glare control. The SF will DEFINITELY outperform the EDG in terms of what kind of service you can get for it. An EDG that needs service is, unfortunately, likely to be refunded or replaced with a Monarch HG anymore, from the reports here and from friends of mine who have or had EDGs.

At the end of the day, both binoculars are first rate and the rest of the differences (size/weight/FOV/ergonomics/rolling ball/etc) are hard to judge without using them personally.

 

[PeterPS]

Kevin, that's helpful, and photos for comparison always so.

Peter, two years would certainly be recent enough, however a search found this:

-------------------------
Sept 23, 2019
This was the email and answer I received from Nikon Support. I asked Nikon if the EDG's were discontinued.
"Your question was answered.
Hello Dennis,
Your support question has been answered by one of our team members.
Question details:
Are the Nikon EDG Binoculars discontinued?
Created: 09/20/2019 by Email | Reference #: 03745698
Response from Gabriela M.
Thank you for contacting Nikon. The EDG binoculars have been discontinued for over 7 years. For further questions or concerns, feel free to call us in at 1-800-NIKON-US.

Regards,
Gabii M

Nikon Tech Support"
-----------------------------

Nikon UK lists only the EDG 8x32 as discontinued (nothing about the other EDG models), and their list of discontinued sport optics starts with the WX models. Nikon US does not list the latter as discontinued. It seems that the answer depends on whom you ask. But the sale of the EDGs was rather slow, and I agree that it is quite likely that an EDG set bought today was produced several years ago.

Regarding glare, how well the eyecups fit your face appears to be a very important factor: indeed if the eyecups are a good fit, then you might not notice too much glare even if objectively there is a lot of it at the bottom of the EP.

 

[Dennis Mau]

My question, which 8x32 has least glare seems to be answered: Zeiss SF Nikon EDG
Both currently available, similar prices and picking over the pros and cons I've read, my feeling is that both would be great in use:

SF
Open bridge, bit larger size, view bit brighter (but colour & glare resistance v slightly worse?), possibly nicer ergonomics, larger FOV with some globe effects

EDG
Closed bridge, bit heavier weight, view bit darker (but colour & glare resistance v slighty better?), possibly nicer eyecups



There's this mammoth sat very quietly in the corner whispering "a new EDG will have sat on a shelf for over a decade".
Probably last manufactured in 2011/12? Any thoughts as to this?




Edited to add , the Nikon HG-L 8x32 might be next choice for glare control after these two, but again at least 5 years on the shelf?

If it is a choice between an SF and a EDG definitely get the SF. You are right the EDG is probably 10 years old because they haven't made any of them for 7 years. The seals are probably old on them if you buy one. If anything happens to the EDG Nikon has no parts and can't fix it. Nikon's service is not the best either IME.

 

[CharleyBird]

https://www.juelich-bonn.com/jForum/file.php?9,file=1467,filename=streulicht8x30.pdf

Spreadsheet courtesy of Canip

 

[yarrellii]

How, that's interesting. I don't recall seeing that. Canip's contributions whether here, over at Jüelich-Bonn or in his own website are just amazing.
After a quick look, the only model that stays on "wenig" (low/little) is the Nikon HG-L, interesting. Well, maybe is no wonder given that it's one of the 8x32 that compromises less in terms of size/bulk/weight.

 

[Conndomat]

I haven't seen that. Do you notice it just on astro use or in the daytime also? I haven't used mine a lot yet for astro but the baffling looks superb in the Fujinon. I am not sure where that would be coming from. Do you have any streetlights near where you observe? It could be incident light. When you say a veil that flits I assume you mean it moves across the FOV. Are you panning when you see it?

Dennis you don't need street lamps to see the scattered light!

Place the moon at the outermost edge so that it is just invisible, then you can see scattered light very well on the Fujinon, the whole optics will be affected.
Ghost lights arise when the sun goes down and has a pale light, possibly when thin layers of cloud hang over it.
Light coming in from the side leaves "ghost lights" behind on the Fujinon!
I compared both situations (moon, pale light) with the FL 10x56, this glass is significantly better with scattered light and with ghost lights.

Topic: As good as the EDGs are, I wouldn't buy a new one, Nikon sometimes doesn't have any spare parts anymore, so it doesn't make much sense to buy such a glass.

Andreas

 

[Kevin Conville]

I'm curious when you purchased your MHG Kevin? I purchased mine in late 2018. I don't think they have excellent glare control, but I find it to be pretty good - certainly good enough that I view them as "a great birding bin."

These things are of course subjective, but it is curious if there's sample variation, manufacturing changes, or just that much difference between how people use their bins and how much they are noticed by whatever glare they might encounter?

I bought them Feb. 2019
I didn't have to go hunting and pecking to find problems with flare and glare, it found me. One example I'm recollecting was when I was attempting to view some White Crowned Sparrows in the corner of my yard taking baths. The birdbath was in full shade with shady foliage background. The sun was moderately low (afternoon) and at about 45 degrees to the objective lenses. The view was so washed out I could hardly see the critters. I also saw faint ghostly facsimiles of the bird bath. They were noticeably worse in this regard to the other bins I was comparing them to that day which were Leica 8x32 BNs, Vanguard 8x32 Endeavor IIs, and Zeiss 8x25 Victory Compacts.

 

[pbjosh]

I bought them Feb. 2019
I didn't have to go hunting and pecking to find problems with flare and glare, it found me. One example I'm recollecting was when I was attempting to view some White Crowned Sparrows in the corner of my yard taking baths. The birdbath was in full shade with shady foliage background. The sun was moderately low (afternoon) and at about 45 degrees to the objective lenses. The view was so washed out I could hardly see the critters. I also saw faint ghostly facsimiles of the bird bath.

Interesting. I've tried to induce glare in my MHG various times and never been able to induce anything so bad, and certainly haven't stumbled on it. If I purposefully mis-align my eyes with the exit pupils, it's a bit worse and I can get some crescents when looking within 10-20 degrees of very bright lights. But just now (night here) I've turned out all the lights except for one bright desk light, pointed directly at me. I can look into the shadows with no glare until I get within about 10 degrees of the lamp. I get a bit of lens flare just about the same time I get some veiling glare, but the veiling glare isn't particularly bad. I've just re-tested the bins I have sitting out with this make-shift test, and it more or less confirms my prior impressions.

Ranked best to worst:
1. 8x32 SF
2. 8x42 SF
3. 8x30 MHG
3. 10x42 EL (no lens flare like the MHG but a touch more veiling glare)
5. 6,5x32 BDII (though this is more like 6x than 6,5x)

I don't doubt your experience, or the experiences of others in the least, and I'm not trying to argue that either of us is wrong or right. But it is a bit odd to see such differing impressions, and reinforces again that no one can definitely say how any bin will perform for another person. It would seem that some combination of differences in how much our eyes dilate, how different bins align to our faces, sample variation, and subjective categorization of results all add up to very different experiences and opinions.

 

[Dennis Mau]

Dennis you don't need street lamps to see the scattered light!

Place the moon at the outermost edge so that it is just invisible, then you can see scattered light very well on the Fujinon, the whole optics will be affected.
Ghost lights arise when the sun goes down and has a pale light, possibly when thin layers of cloud hang over it.
Light coming in from the side leaves "ghost lights" behind on the Fujinon!
I compared both situations (moon, pale light) with the FL 10x56, this glass is significantly better with scattered light and with ghost lights.

Topic: As good as the EDGs are, I wouldn't buy a new one, Nikon sometimes doesn't have any spare parts anymore, so it doesn't make much sense to buy such a glass.

Andreas

Holger Merlitz really doesn't agree with you about ghosting and stray light in the Fujinon 10x50 FMT-SX. From his review.

Review: Fujinon 10x50 FMTR-SX vs. Docter Nobilem 10x50 B/GA vs. Zeiss Jenoptem 10x50W

"Ghost images: If, at night, a bright object (street lantern, moon) is positioned into the field, reflections on the air-to-glass surfaces take place, which can lead to multiple 'ghost' images of the light source. With some distance, the Fujinon performs best here. Even when observing the full moon, there are no reflections of any relevance visible. At partially full moon, this binocular is able to display the extremely high contrast between the illuminated and shadowed parts of the moon craters, and this is, combined with the high degree of sharpness, an impressive experience. The Nobilem exhibits essentially one diffuse spot of rather low intensity when observing a bright point-like light source. The suppression of ghosting is thus on a high level, too. The Jenoptem displays one bright spot and a couple of diffuse spots at the same object. The bright spot, however, is quickly leaving the field when moving the light source away from the center. Compared to the Jenoptem 7x50, the 10x50 leaves a better impression."

"The Fujinon was supposed to be a new player in the game of high-end Porro binoculars, and this test is clearly supporting its claim. Its only weakness is a minor sensitivity to stray light. This test also confirms the Fujinon's reputation to be especially suitable for astronomy. The excellent ghost image suppression, and the corresponding high contrast, is a key feature for observing bright objects with dark background. The moon through the Fujinon was the best I have seen so far in any hand-held instrument."

 

[Conndomat]

Holger Merlitz really doesn't agree with you about ghosting and stray light in the Fujinon 10x50 FMT-SX.

http://www.holgermerlitz.de/test10x50fgl.pdf

"If one observes at dusk, the susceptibility to diffuse scattered light plays an important role. The scattered light occurs when light sources outside the field of view illuminate the inner walls of the lens tubes. In this regard, the Nobilem scores very well with its effective interior coating. The Leica behaves similarly well with an effective stray light suppression through internal apertures. The Fujinon is a bit more sensitive in this regard."

Andreas

 

[A2GG]

The Nikon MHG 8x30 can have serious glare issues at times from my experience. I had one especially awful experience with morning sun to the point the bin was temporarily unusable. I had to move position to cope with the glare and it was still bad. Most times it's not nearly that bad, but it can still be annoying occasionally. Overall, glare is not a deal breaker for me, but I wouldn't say this binocular has good glare control. It's just ok most of the time and sometimes it can be bothersome . I've been using it now for 4 months.

Leica Ultravids are much better; on another level for glare control.
I don't ever recall having even one serious issue with my 42mm Uvid which I used for about 4 years. I've never had the view disabled like I did that time with the 8x30 MHG. Comparing the Nikon vs Ultravid 8x32 for a couple hours a while back confirmed for me that the Leica is a lot better at controlling glare.

 

[pbjosh]

The Nikon MHG 8x30 can have serious glare issues at times from my experience. I had one especially awful experience with morning sun to the point the bin was temporarily unusable. I had to move position to cope with the glare and it was still bad. Most times it's not nearly that bad, but it can still be annoying occasionally. Overall, glare is not a deal breaker for me, but I wouldn't say this binocular has good glare control. It's just ok most of the time and sometimes it can be bothersome . I've been using it now for 4 months.

It increasingly sounds like I'm either less effected and/or more tolerant of glare, at least with this bin. I do see glare, and dislike it. I notice the differences in glare handling in my bins. But I almost never experience the total milk-out conditions that others are describing except with two of my cheapest bins. I think it's easy to understand the lack of horrid glare when birding in the tropics, but I've spent months on boats, months in very southern latitudes, birded on snow and wetlands with low sun a lot... and just not suffered that much. The only two bins that I ever really get enough veiling glare in to put me off are the 8x30 M7 and the 6,5x32 Kowa BDII.

 

[Dennis Mau]

http://www.holgermerlitz.de/test10x50fgl.pdf

"If one observes at dusk, the susceptibility to diffuse scattered light plays an important role. The scattered light occurs when light sources outside the field of view illuminate the inner walls of the lens tubes. In this regard, the Nobilem scores very well with its effective interior coating. The Leica behaves similarly well with an effective stray light suppression through internal apertures. The Fujinon is a bit more sensitive in this regard."

Andreas

It sounds to me like Holger still preferred the Fujinon overall. Keep searching it is hard to find criticism of the best 10x50 binocular made.

http://www.holgermerlitz.de/test10x50fgl.pdf

"Ghosting from bright light sources can also make observing difficult. This is important when looking at the moon, star occultations by the moon or objects observed at a short distance from the same. The Fujinon has an advantage here. A streetlamp at night or the moon show only a very weak reflex. The Leica behaves similar, but with a bright light source you can see two bars crossing each other - apparently a diffraction effect on the roof edge. This effect was not visible on the moon. The Nobilem shows slightly more noticeable reflections, but these only interfere with very bright light sources. The suppression of such reflexes is generally an indicator of the quality of remuneration and which is at Fujinon and Leica at a very high level."

"The Fujinon shows thanks excellent resistance to ghosting and the best contrast. The ash-gray moonlight stands out clearly from the sky background even with a half moon. The Leica is running out behind it, with the Nobilem, a few diffuse multiple images cause a slight loss of contrast. If the moon is just outside the field of view, it happens with the Fujinonnoticeable reflexes. In practice, this only matters if you are in the wants to observe an object at the appropriate distance to the moon. With a view of deep sky that is Fujinon is the clear favorite because of its excellent edge sharpness. In comparison, the edge blur on the Leica can almost be described as noticeable and the Nobilem cuts again a bit weaker. With hands-free use, one looks primarily in the image center and so you can live with the edge blur of the other two binoculars. If you put your binoculars on a tripod, your eyes can go through the entire area at your leisure wander the field of view. And that's when the Fujinon is the better choice. At theDetection of the faintest stars, the visibility of details in the Orion Nebula and theFinding M81 / 82, M33, M51 or M101 all binoculars do equally well. In addition to the excellent edge sharpness, the use of speaks for the FujinonMist filters. The characteristics of the Fujinon filters roughly correspond to those of a broadbandFog filter. The strength of a combination of binoculars and a fog filter should be used in weak, extensive gas nebulae. In the test period where dream objects like North America or unfortunately, the cirrus fog is not visible, and so we cannot say whether the purchase is worthwhile."

 

[Conndomat]

It sounds to me like Holger still preferred the Fujinon overall. Keep searching it is hard to find criticism of the best 10x50 binocular made.

But it doesn't change the fact that the Fujinon has the worst stray light suppression among the three test candidates!

By the way, in another test, Holger assumes that the Fujinon 10x50 has a maximum of 90% transmission, do you agree with Holger here too?

Andreas

 

[CharleyBird]

Well I haven't bought anything quite yet.
Heart says wait for an EDG, head says just get an SF, which has everything going for it except size.

From Canip's water surface/forest edge research (below) the Nikon HG-L would also rate quite highly in all areas, followed by a few rated similarly, the Eschenbach Trophy, Pentax DCF ED, Moepta Meostar, Swaro CL & Zeiss Conquest.

Sincere thanks to all, and may I say how enjoyable binocular photos are

Andy

 

[Dennis Mau]

But it doesn't change the fact that the Fujinon has the worst stray light suppression among the three test candidates!

By the way, in another test, Holger assumes that the Fujinon 10x50 has a maximum of 90% transmission, do you agree with Holger here too?

Andreas

I don't know where Holger got his transmission figures but 90% transmission isn't too bad. Holger doesn't say the Fujinon has "awful" stray light suppression like you are implying. He says "The Leica behaves similarly well with an effective stray light suppression through internal apertures. The Fujinon is a bit more sensitive in this regard." Here is a review of 10 10x50 binoculars by Dr.EdZ from Cloudy Nights. He liked the Fujinon quite a bit.

"Just a few notes on the benchmark model included here. Fujinon FMT-SX - 10x50, 6.7°, er=13mm, IPD=57-76, close focus 50ft, lens FMC/prisms FMC,
None of these other binoculars come close to the performance of the Fujinon FMT-SX 10x50. When I find myself searching for a difficult object like M1 or M78, I pull out the Fujinon 10x50 to locate it. When I’m trying to see a faint star and need to confirm if it is at the location I suspect, I pull out the Fujinon to verify it. Contrast and light transmission in the Fujinon is immediately apparent as better than any other binocular in this group. The Fujinon has no aperture reduction. The field of view is a dramatic 6.7°, wider than any other 10x50 here, and in fact, wider than advertised. The field sharpness is truly sharp to the edge. It has the least overall aberrations and the least field curvature, yet it still has some decent apparent depth of field. It is by far the heaviest at 49oz. (1400g.) and has short eye relief of 13 mm, but these seem a small price to pay for such excellence. Focus is precise and achieves pinpoint stars that are excellent. Limiting magnitude exceeds most of the other 10x50s by 0.3 to 0.5 magnitudes. Internal vignette is extremely well controlled, illumination is quite high and resolution ranks among the best. Let there be no doubt, these are all reasons why the Fujinon FMT-SX scored the highest of all binoculars out of 34 in this study, and you can see the difference the moment you put them up to your eyes!"

Small Binocular Reports The 10x50s - Binoculars - Cloudy Nights

Small Binocular Reports The 10x50s - posted in Binoculars: Small Binocular Reports The 10x50sFujinon FMT-SX – 10x50, 6.7°, er=13mm, IPD=57-76, close focus 50ft, lens fmc/prisms fmc,Oberwerk Mariner 10x60 – 10x52, 5.1°, er=21mm, IPD=61-73, cf 50ft, fmc/fmc Pentax PCF WP - 10x49, 5.0°...

www.cloudynights.com

 

[mbb]

Well I haven't bought anything quite yet.
Heart says wait for an EDG, head says just get an SF, which has everything going for it except size.

From Canip's water surface/forest edge research (below) the Nikon HG-L would also rate quite highly in all areas, followed by a few rated similarly, the Eschenbach Trophy, Pentax DCF ED, Moepta Meostar, Swaro CL & Zeiss Conquest.

Sincere thanks to all, and may I say how enjoyable binocular photos are

Andy



View attachment 1366062

Thank you for sharing that interesting overview which I hadn't seen before! Canip's experience is always interesting to read. Based also on other feedback on the UV on this forum, including this thread, I am still wondering how comes that he identified that weakness with the Ultravid 8x32 HD in that specific veiling glare test. He reported it in this overview and on Binoculars Today, thus it must not be a typo. I should try a test as identical as possible as his test (or maybe someone else already did?), because I have never had any such issue with the UV on the field in challenging situations, also when it was exactly that which I wanted to check and compare to my other binoculars (as referred to in my previous post).
You mentioned that flare is also an issue according to Greatest Binoculars, but actually, reading back that review, the flare suppression and handling of difficult light is, on the contrary, mentioned there as one of the very strong points of the UV 8x32 HD+ (see section "flare suppression").
I have never tried a Nikon EDG or Zeiss SF though, thus I cannot compare with those. The only thing that I can say for sure, is that, based on different prior experiences with them (also side by side), I take my UV 8x32 without any doubt instead of my Kite Lynx HD 8x30 (according to some being optically (almost) identical to the Nikon Monarch 7) or my Habicht 8x30 from the moment I know there might be challenging light (not meaning lack of light). (Those binoculars have other strengths though!)

 

[CharleyBird]

I think Canip's 'sun/water' veiling glare test was something like binoculars pointed over water, with sunlight directly onto the objectives. The UV obviously did well in all other respects, much like the FL.
Tobias mentions his UV having glare looking towards a high sun (and I thought something about peripheral flare but can't find that now). He likes them well enough to buy a pair, always a good sign.

 

[eitanaltman]

The exact text of Tobias' comments:

Flare suppression (8x32)
A really outstanding performance, and even more so considering the small size of this glass. There can be some veiling glare viewing towards a high sun, but generally the image is very clean. It is fascinating to watch in difficult situations, for example towards a low sun, and still have the highest contrast with very black shadows. I could scan very bright backlit water without glare in the view.

So considering the lede is "a really outstanding performance", I would say it's not fair to characterize that as though the little Leica had glare problems, just that he pointed out the one situation where it's not great.

This conversation caused me to grab my wife's 8x32 UVHD and take them out for a walk the other afternoon, and it reaffirmed my impressions that they have similar outstanding glare control to other Leicas (including my 7x42).

In my experience the ONLY time glare is a real glare "problem" with the Ultravids is the situation Tobias describes -- pointing in the same direction of a very bright light source (i.e. setting sun) there are sometimes "veiling crescents" along the edge of the FOV. However (unlike some bins like the M7 8x30) the "crescents" stay at the edges, they don't produce a "milky" wash that obscures the image and reduces contrast.

You can see this by holding the binoculars out away from your face and tilting them so you can see the exit pupil at a distance -- with a bright light source off axis, you can see a crisp bright "rim" at the edge of the exit pupil opposite the light source. But the area around the exit pupil is black and the bright flare is confined to the rim.

My 8x32 and 7x42 behave this way, and so did the 10x42 Trinovid BR (which everyone knows is an Ultravid under the wrapper). Note that he describes a similar effect in his 8x42 review:

Flare suppression (8x42)
There is a bit more peripheral crescent flaring then in the other four. This makes the image a bit nervous looking against the sun. On overcast days and especially in the twilight the image is very quiet. Despite the peripheral flaring the Ultravid manages to keep very low veiling glare levels in the image center under most conditions, yielding beautiful high macrocontrast.

So I think this is an intentional design choice where Leica went for "mitigation" of veiling glare, perhaps it was more efficient to confine it to the edges than to try to kill it completely? But in all other respects they all seem to be virtually glare/flare free, including staring almost DIRECTLY at the sun (the peripheral crescent flares start up as you move the sun farther off the viewing axis).

CharleyBird - you have several Ultravids already, how do you find the glare control of those? Because I don't think the 8x32 will be any worse, I certainly don't find it to be worse than my 7x42 and in fact it might be slightly better. The 7x42 has those huge exit pupils so it's easier to keep the crescent flares out of sight, but leaving aside exit pupil advantage they might show a bit more of those flares vs the 8x32.

So long story short, if you're happy with the flare/glare control of your other Ultravids, I would expect similar performance from the 8x32 (especially compared to your 10x32).

THAT SAID -- you have three Ultravids alread, including the 10x32! That seems to point to getting something different, like the Zeiss 8x25, if only to add some variety and fill another niche that you don't have covered right now.