8x32 roof with least glare (1 Viewer)

[John A Roberts]

I'll second the comments in relation to the Ultravids . . .

I have a view to the west from my front door, so I can easily check for the effects of a low facing sun in the afternoon
Both my 7x42 and 8x42 UV HD's (pre-Plus) perform in relation to veiling glare as described by Eitan and Tobias,
the view essentially remans clear, with at worst only narrow peripheral flaring

This is in marked contrast to many other binoculars, where there is uniform veiling of the image, and so significantly lower contrast:
like looking though a transparent white veil


John

 

[eitanaltman]

On a whim I grabbed the little Ultravids just now and decided to do some torture testing vs a couple of other bins I have on hand.

Torture test = point the binoculars almost directly at the canned lights in my kitchen ceiling and see what happens.

This is obviously highly unscientific, but hopefully sufficiently illustrative as a proxy for staring in the direction of the sun.

First, the Ultravid vs the Opticron. You don’t even have to look at the label on the focus knob to figure out which is which....



When you hear people complain about glare with the M7 8x30, now you can get a sense of the problem. And the Opticron version is better!

Now the Ultravid vs my 10x32 EDG:



Much closer — but the Leica still beats the EDG on this test. The EDG is much better than the Opticron as expected, the area around the exit pupil is for the most part quite black, but there are still a few visible reflections down the barrel. More pernicious in my view is not the blackening of the barrel, but the reflection off the eye lens from light behind the ocular! I have noticed this in the field with the EDG, I get some glare spots and I can’t figure out why and then I shade the side of the eyecup and boom they are gone! No wonder they ship them with winged eyecup slip-ons!

So, hopefully this assuages any notion that the UV 8x32 is not superb with glare handling. The worst it shows is a couple of pricks of reflection (which I think are off the eye lens again) and a teeny tiny sliver of glare at the bottom of the exit pupil (which is the “peripheral crescent” discussed above):



That intensely black area around the exit pupil is I’m sure a major contributor to the awesome contrast this bin is known for. Like an impenetrable pool of blackness! I’m impressed.

 

[CharleyBird]

Eitan,

Thank you. You couldn't repeat this over a large silver tray of glittering water could you?

Seriously thank you. Your posts hit the nail on the head in a number of ways.
To answer your question, I am happy with my UV's. For birding I now use the 12x50 whenever possible, the 7x42 for woodland and generally. The lightweight 10x32 I use in the house for our bird feeders and slip into my pocket for travel.

 

[mbb]

Eitan,

Thank you. You couldn't repeat this over a large silver tray of glittering water could you?

Seriously thank you. Your posts hit the nail on the head in a number of ways.
To answer your question, I am happy with my UV's. For birding I now use the 12x50 whenever possible, the 7x42 for woodland and generally. The lightweight 10x32 I use in the house for our bird feeders and slip into my pocket for travel.

You seem to have a very nice set of binoculars! (I would love to try the 7x42.)
Maybe did I missed in somewhere in this thread, but for which specific use, situation or goal are you looking for a 8x32? Is it to replace your 10x32 or to complement it? Looking for more brightness, larger (real) FOV or more stable view?

I have to agree with Eitan that considering a very good 8x25 is a good idea to complement your current setup if you plan to keep your current setup. I don't own a 10x32 and don't think I will (maybe rather a 10x42 or 10x50 in the future) because I prefer having the 4mm exit pupil of the 8x32(30) format, but I do use my 8x25 with its smaller exit pupil regularly because of its form factor: it is very complementary, for situations where I want something compact and light enough to 'carry anyway/anywhere', while it still performs impressively well optically(!).
The difference in form factor with the 8x30-32's is very noticeable. It don't find the difference important regarding size when around my neck, but more regarding weight (I can sometimes forget it's hanging around my neck, while actually the UV 8x32 is still very much OK around my neck for long walks and use), but, most important, is the difference regarding compactness when folded and put away (e.g. in my jacket, a small bag). If you already get along well with the 3,2mm exit pupil of your 10x32, I suppose you will also with that of a good 8x25.

 

[CharleyBird]

Aim: to use as a pocket binocular for birding. One that has a wider FOV, larger exit pupil and is easier to hold steady than my lightweight 10x32. One that is smaller and lighter than the 7x42 UV but with equal optical quality.
Must not glare over a 'silvery lake in setting sun'.

Shall mull it over for a while.

 

[[email protected]]

On a whim I grabbed the little Ultravids just now and decided to do some torture testing vs a couple of other bins I have on hand.

Torture test = point the binoculars almost directly at the canned lights in my kitchen ceiling and see what happens.

This is obviously highly unscientific, but hopefully sufficiently illustrative as a proxy for staring in the direction of the sun.

First, the Ultravid vs the Opticron. You don’t even have to look at the label on the focus knob to figure out which is which....

View attachment 1366153

When you hear people complain about glare with the M7 8x30, now you can get a sense of the problem. And the Opticron version is better!

Now the Ultravid vs my 10x32 EDG:

View attachment 1366154

Much closer — but the Leica still beats the EDG on this test. The EDG is much better than the Opticron as expected, the area around the exit pupil is for the most part quite black, but there are still a few visible reflections down the barrel. More pernicious in my view is not the blackening of the barrel, but the reflection off the eye lens from light behind the ocular! I have noticed this in the field with the EDG, I get some glare spots and I can’t figure out why and then I shade the side of the eyecup and boom they are gone! No wonder they ship them with winged eyecup slip-ons!

So, hopefully this assuages any notion that the UV 8x32 is not superb with glare handling. The worst it shows is a couple of pricks of reflection (which I think are off the eye lens again) and a teeny tiny sliver of glare at the bottom of the exit pupil (which is the “peripheral crescent” discussed above):

View attachment 1366159

That intensely black area around the exit pupil is I’m sure a major contributor to the awesome contrast this bin is known for. Like an impenetrable pool of blackness! I’m impressed.

Nice pictures! The M7 is terrible! No wonder it is a "Glare Monster!"

 

[zdr]

On a whim I grabbed the little Ultravids just now and decided to do some torture testing vs a couple of other bins I have on hand.

Torture test = point the binoculars almost directly at the canned lights in my kitchen ceiling and see what happens.

This is obviously highly unscientific, but hopefully sufficiently illustrative as a proxy for staring in the direction of the sun.

First, the Ultravid vs the Opticron. You don’t even have to look at the label on the focus knob to figure out which is which....

View attachment 1366153

When you hear people complain about glare with the M7 8x30, now you can get a sense of the problem. And the Opticron version is better!

Now the Ultravid vs my 10x32 EDG:

View attachment 1366154

Much closer — but the Leica still beats the EDG on this test. The EDG is much better than the Opticron as expected, the area around the exit pupil is for the most part quite black, but there are still a few visible reflections down the barrel. More pernicious in my view is not the blackening of the barrel, but the reflection off the eye lens from light behind the ocular! I have noticed this in the field with the EDG, I get some glare spots and I can’t figure out why and then I shade the side of the eyecup and boom they are gone! No wonder they ship them with winged eyecup slip-ons!

So, hopefully this assuages any notion that the UV 8x32 is not superb with glare handling. The worst it shows is a couple of pricks of reflection (which I think are off the eye lens again) and a teeny tiny sliver of glare at the bottom of the exit pupil (which is the “peripheral crescent” discussed above):

View attachment 1366159

That intensely black area around the exit pupil is I’m sure a major contributor to the awesome contrast this bin is known for. Like an impenetrable pool of blackness! I’m impressed.

I tried this today with my EL 8x32s and eek! Was probably somewhat better than the Opticron but not near as good as the UV. I did notice it was significantly better with the eyecups all the way out though, but maybe that just masked the glare some.

 

[[email protected]]

I tried this today with my EL 8x32s and eek! Was probably somewhat better than the Opticron but not near as good as the UV. I did notice it was significantly better with the eyecups all the way out though, but maybe that just masked the glare some.

Do you get a lot of glare with your EL 8x32's?

 

[zdr]

I guess I really didnt notice it until Eitan posted his pics and I tried his method of holding them up to a bright light. but while using them in the field, I dont see it but time will tell.
I want to try his test with the EL, CL-B and my wife's trinovid BA. Her leica's are really nice bins for being so old. It will be interesting to see. If I can get decent pics, I will post them here.

 

[eitanaltman]

To your point -- those internal reflections down the barrel might not show up as visible "flares" or "glare" in the actual FOV when you are using the binocular. The visible "veiling glare" would be that bright area right at the rim of the exit pupil (red arrow pointing to it in the image below).



The lack of full blacking in the interior would, I presume, be seen more as a loss of "global contrast", where (due to additional ambient light in the viewing tube) the blackest black isn't as black as the blackest black would look on the Leica.

So you might not see an obvious flare or spike or crescent or whatever, but instead the overall image would appear a bit "flat" or "washed out" with reduced contrast vs a binocular with better blackening in the interior of the barrel. Thing out loud here, but I'm now wondering if that is the real reason why I always felt the Nikon Monarch HG felt "flat" vs my Leica and EDG. I remember when I tried to use them to stargaze, the black background of the night sky was more "milky" than through other binoculars. Hmmmm

As a crude analogy, if you're using a projector to watch a movie, the image will have higher contrast in a light controlled room with black walls and ceiling. If you turn a light on, or open the curtains, the ambient light will wash out the image because it raises the black level (the blackest black is now gray).

 

[zdr]

Thanks Eitan, your description is helpful. I'll check that out tonight.
Here are some pics I took of my ELs, CL and my wife's trinovids' To my un-trained eye, I would say the Leicas are much better.
EL:
CL:

Trinovid:

 

[[email protected]]

These are not 8x32's but look at how spectacular the Nikon 10x50 WX is. The Fujinon FMTR-SX 10x50 is excellent also, as well as the Steiner Shadowquest 8x56 for a big exit pupil Porro. The Swarovski EL 10x50 not so good. In that order.

 

[PeterPS]

These are not 8x32's but look at how spectacular the Nikon 10x50 WX is. The Fujinon FMTR-SX 10x50 is excellent also, as well as the Steiner Shadowquest 8x56 for a big exit pupil Porro. The Swarovski EL 10x50 not so good. In that order.


View attachment 1366782View attachment 1366783View attachment 1366784View attachment 1366785View attachment 1366786
View attachment 1366787View attachment 1366788View attachment 1366789

Unfortunately these pics, which are similar to those posted on the Allbinos site, are not very useful when it comes to judging the glare resistance. The reason is that they are taken with the light on axis, or nearly so. To be able to see any existing bright spots at the very edge of the EPs, which is what causes glare, the light must be off axis so that the EP is not too bright. Eitan's pics are much better: in them the EPs are darker.

 

[[email protected]]

Unfortunately these pics, which are similar to those posted on the Allbinos site, are not very useful when it comes to judging the glare resistance. The reason is that they are taken with the light on axis, or nearly so. To be able to see any existing bright spots at the very edge of the EPs, which is what causes glare, the light must be off axis so that the EP is not too bright. Eitan's pics are much better: in them the EPs are darker.

They still give you a good idea of the quality of the blackening inside the objective tubes and I think that was Allbinos primary intention. Good blackening equals good glare resistance. Off axis incident light is very good but so is on-axis light in telling you how the binocular is going to perform with glare and especially contrast. Most of the time light is going to come on-axis.

 

[dries1]

So are we to come to the conclusion that the Leica 8X32 is the king of conquering glare in that specific format. I also think that actual use of the glass in the field will one practical results. Both the EDG 8X32 and MHG 8X42 are a fine glass IMO when it comes to glare, but then it is all subjective anyhow.

Andy W.

 

[zdr]

Unfortunately these pics, which are similar to those posted on the Allbinos site, are not very useful when it comes to judging the glare resistance. The reason is that they are taken with the light on axis, or nearly so. To be able to see any existing bright spots at the very edge of the EPs, which is what causes glare, the light must be off axis so that the EP is not too bright. Eitan's pics are much better: in them the EPs are darker.

Good point. I might re-try it just out of curiosity. Thanks for feedback!

 

[Canip]

So are we to come to the conclusion that the Leica 8X32 is the king of conquering glare in that specific format. I also think that actual use of the glass in the field will one practical results. Both the EDG 8X32 and MHG 8X42 are a fine glass IMO when it comes to glare, but then it is all subjective anyhow.

Andy W.

My own conclusion, based on practical use, would be that the EDG and the SF share the position of king (queen???) with regard to glare control, but that is just one opinion, of course. The Leica (and, by the way, the Zeiss FL) provide excellent stray-light suppression in many situations, except for a few critical ones.
Canip

 

[[email protected]]

Two other 8x32's that have excellent glare control that I have owned are the Leupold Gold Ring HD 8x32 and the Zeiss Conquest HD 8x32. The Leupold is just as good as EDG and SF for glare and the Zeiss Conquest HD I would say is better than all of them except for the "king" Leica Ultravid HD.

 

[tenex]

My own conclusion, based on practical use, would be that the EDG and the SF share the position of king (queen???) with regard to glare control, but that is just one opinion, of course. The Leica (and, by the way, the Zeiss FL) provide excellent stray-light suppression in many situations, except for a few critical ones.

Perhaps we hear most about the Leica in this regard because the EDG is rare, the SF 32 quite recent.

I'll just add for those interested that the 10x32 UV (my own preference) is also great at controlling glare.

 

[[email protected]]

Perhaps we hear most about the Leica in this regard because the EDG is rare, the SF 32 quite recent.

I'll just add for those interested that the 10x32 UV (my own preference) is also great at controlling glare.

Good tip! If I ever decide to get a 10x32 again. The EL 10x32 is poor with glare. The EDG 10x32 is good though.