That what they said at the Jim Jones Kool-Aid party
-
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.
Alpha-class binocs? (6 Viewers)
- Thread starter phiba
- Start date
What a load of bo###cks.
Don't worry about it.
EL's are superb. (and no, I don't own them)
Sure, in some circumstances, they may produce glare, perhaps a tad more than some, but all binos have their weaknesses.
This forum is the very best at looking for problems in optics.
I'm pretty sure the gentlemen who used to run Focus Optics used EL8x32's as his choice, and he had a shop full of all of them to choose from.
I've looked through 8x32EL's several times, and they are legendary optics for good reason. I don't ever remember thinking 'ooh I can't see a thing for all this glare'.
If i'm correct, I think Swarovski know a bit about building binos😏, and these were their top of the line not so long ago.
They will be awesome, enjoy your purchase.
Famous last words? (Hope not)
Really! I don't think so. I had several EL 8x32's and used them extensively under different lighting conditions. They have more glare than possibly any binoculars I have used outside of the Swarovski Habicht 8x30 W and the NL 8x32, which are all glare mega-monsters! In fact, I would call them the 'Godzillas of Glare'. Swarovski's are excellent binoculars. They are very transparent, clear, bright, they have huge FOV's, and they have probably the sharpest edges of any binoculars. But some models have problems with glare and where I live at Northern Latitudes at high altitudes with a lot of sunny days per year and a lot of mountains glare control is very important. That is the main reason I switched to Nikon's. They handle glare better. It is really too bad because an NL 8x32 without the glare would be a perfect binocular.
jackjack
"Yes, the 8x32mm Swaro is a glare monster. It can be really distracting while seeing birds against bright light."
EL 8x32
Last edited:
Paultricounty
Well-known member
I think you and Jackjack need to get a room. Did you fall out of good graces with albinos? You do know that he has a higher percentage rating on the EDG than MHG. Why is it that you agree with one reviewer on one binocular but dismiss another? Wait, don't answer; I know because you're going to be selling something. Dennis, do you think it might be getting to that time for your yearly sabbatical? 🤭I don't know why your reaction score is so high, it certainly isn't because you know anything!Most probably agree with your findings about the EDG because you are paying for lunch!
I won't miss you at first 😆.
I don't care about the overall percentage rating. I care about the things that are important to me. Two things that are important to me are on-axis sharpness and FOV, and the MHG beats the EDG in both of them. I agree with jackjack and Allbinos 99% of the time, so I know they are correct, and jackjack backs up his reviews with well done pictures which don't lie. I don't agree with your reviews because all they are is your subjective opinion. It comes down to personal preference also. You like the Leica view and I don't so we will never agree on binoculars and that is ok. It is just a matter of choice.
Last edited:
No, but Swarovski does charge $2500 for the leather-wrapped version of the $1500 8x30 CL Companion. I don't recall Leica ever marking up the BL Ultravids that much over the BR versions.
Montereyman
Well-known member
As a practical matter I prefer several binoculars that have their individual strength and weaknesses. As my eyesight has been reduced I find a 10x to always be better for my needs than any 8x binocular. I have a $2100 Swarvo 10x32 that I like with its smaller size and lighter weightl but it tends to stay at my house.
For hiking I now use the 10x25 Swarvo pocket mountain which weigh only 12 ounces and fit in their case in a jacket pocket. My most recent bino purchase was the Sig Sauer Zulu HDX 16x42 image stabilized binoculars that work very well. More than 12x and I need image stabilization. At a weight of 22 ounces the Sig Sauer are not a burden to hang off my neck. What I also like it that there are two levels of IS with one for glassing an area and a higher setting for stationary subjects. With 16x I have no need to use my scope and tripod.
It is still subjective and I bought a well reviewed pair of very expensive Zeiss binoculars but the color fringing was too severe for my eyes and I returned them. With the many binos I have purchased over the past 45 years the one aspect that is safe to generalize is that the greater the image magnification the more important to avoid the very bottom tier of sub $500 binoculars.
As a long time wildlife photographer I also appreciate the value of exceptionally sharp optics which is in part their ability to provide a higher level of image contrast which is only partly associated with MTF values. Few people appreciate that up into the 1980's the optical formulations were still done by hand with a calculator. There was a tremendous increase in lens formulations with the advent of inexpensive computers. Gains in the past 20 years have largely been with better coatings of the lens elements and despite the marketing hype this has changed little over the past 10 years.
I have bought the "old"design and the newest one and my sample group is small but my eyes prefered the older design every time.
For hiking I now use the 10x25 Swarvo pocket mountain which weigh only 12 ounces and fit in their case in a jacket pocket. My most recent bino purchase was the Sig Sauer Zulu HDX 16x42 image stabilized binoculars that work very well. More than 12x and I need image stabilization. At a weight of 22 ounces the Sig Sauer are not a burden to hang off my neck. What I also like it that there are two levels of IS with one for glassing an area and a higher setting for stationary subjects. With 16x I have no need to use my scope and tripod.
It is still subjective and I bought a well reviewed pair of very expensive Zeiss binoculars but the color fringing was too severe for my eyes and I returned them. With the many binos I have purchased over the past 45 years the one aspect that is safe to generalize is that the greater the image magnification the more important to avoid the very bottom tier of sub $500 binoculars.
As a long time wildlife photographer I also appreciate the value of exceptionally sharp optics which is in part their ability to provide a higher level of image contrast which is only partly associated with MTF values. Few people appreciate that up into the 1980's the optical formulations were still done by hand with a calculator. There was a tremendous increase in lens formulations with the advent of inexpensive computers. Gains in the past 20 years have largely been with better coatings of the lens elements and despite the marketing hype this has changed little over the past 10 years.
I have bought the "old"design and the newest one and my sample group is small but my eyes prefered the older design every time.
I beg to differ. Current optics are significantly better than those of 10 years ago, in large part because high-resolution mirrorless cameras are more revealing of lens flaws. Certainly Nikkor Z S-line lenses are far superior to their older F-mount equivalents.
Okay, I should have said “…… identical $1000 binoculars” to preclude such a comparison, which is not what I was talking about.
Thank you, my wording was not precise enough.
Last edited:
Yarkho
Optics afficionado
Well not always, and depends on the use case. (I find the FF corner performance of the newest Nikkor S f/2.8 28-75mm inferior to the 24-70mm E).
Back to binoculars: It is my understanding that Swarovski (and a few other EU-based manufacturers) make very precise optical surfaces, which leads to increase in both sharpness and contrast. The EL certainly is superb, not only optics, but also haptics..
The
That lens is made by Tokina and is not a S-line lens, by the way, you can’t compare an entry level lens to a former alpha. The Z 24-70/2.8S wipes the floor with the F-mount version.
Yes, but the NL with its contoured barrels is far better in haptics than the EL SV, and almost any other binoculars other than the leather-clad Leicas.
Yarkho
Optics afficionado
Sorry, I meant the 24-70 S:
www.lenstip.com
The edge performance leaves something to be desired.
Nikon Nikkor Z 24-70 mm f/2.8 S review - Coma, astigmatism and bokeh - LensTip.com
Best digital cameras and lens reviews. If you are looking for the information about digital cameras and lenses you are in a right place. We have many professional tests of digital photography equipment.
The edge performance leaves something to be desired.
Isthatascratch?
Well-known member
As I always say:
The sensor is X
The print is Y
Your eyes are Z
The reality and weakness is ‘Z’ no matter how good X and Y may be!
The sensor is X
The print is Y
Your eyes are Z
The reality and weakness is ‘Z’ no matter how good X and Y may be!
Sorry, I meant the 24-70 S:
Nikon Nikkor Z 24-70 mm f/2.8 S review - Coma, astigmatism and bokeh - LensTip.com
Best digital cameras and lens reviews. If you are looking for the information about digital cameras and lenses you are in a right place. We have many professional tests of digital photography equipment.
The edge performance leaves something to be desired.
james holdsworth
Consulting Biologist
Any discussion of haptics is going to be individual opinion.
I think the comparison between binocular use and photography is fundamentally flawed.
The thing that bugs me is that I am not able to articulate why.
It has something to do with the fact that photography is a second order process.
Addendum:
Copied from above.
The sensor is X
The print is Y
Your eyes are Z
For photography
For a binocular, the sensor is your eyes (retina to optic nerve to brain) and that is the only step, whereas photography is a three-step process.
A poor analogy, but sort of like the difference between a sailplane and an albatross.
The thing that bugs me is that I am not able to articulate why.
It has something to do with the fact that photography is a second order process.
Addendum:
Copied from above.
The sensor is X
The print is Y
Your eyes are Z
For photography
For a binocular, the sensor is your eyes (retina to optic nerve to brain) and that is the only step, whereas photography is a three-step process.
A poor analogy, but sort of like the difference between a sailplane and an albatross.
Last edited:
Are we discussing haptics, or user comfort? I agree choosing between the NL Pure, EL, and other models is going to be personal. For me, choosing the EL 8.5x42 over the NL Pure 8x42 was based on cost, magnification, and esthetics. I have no complaints about how the EL feels in my hands. It actually feels lighter than I was expecting; I feel like I am holding a bottle of beer 🙂
Last edited:
Paultricounty
Well-known member
Lmao. Except if it’s the 7x Habicht’s that you’re not selling yet.
I use them multiple times a week , overall the EDG is on another level whether you see it or not. I’ve taken out many of the binos Jackjack took photos of and tried to see exactly what was in the pictures and many times in the field we could not duplicate with eyeballs.
You seem to have an issue reading or retaining information from the forum. I never asked you to agree with my subjective opinions. I just post the opinions of myself and close to over a dozen observers of all ages using the binoculars on multiple occasions, under different lighting conditions, and many times side by side in the field using actual eyeballs to make opinions. You can stick to photos and old reviews. At least until you're ready to sell something.
Of course it’s a preference and I primarily enjoy and like Swaro, Zeiss and Nikon very much for what they bring to the the table. Your personal preference primarily in choosing or discussing binoculars seems to always be a set up for a sale.
Paultricounty
Well-known member
So let me see if I got your math right. The MHG FOV is hardly any smaller (15 feet) than the NL32, but the MHG is so much bigger at 435 (15 feet) than the EL at 420. Ok, I see the difference; got it. Of all the people on these forums, you are quite a character, even more than me. 🤭😉✌🏼.
