What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
New review items
Latest activity
Forums
New posts
Search forums
Gallery
New media
New comments
Search media
Reviews
New items
Latest content
Latest reviews
Latest questions
Brands
Search reviews
Opus
Birds & Bird Song
Locations
Resources
Contribute
Recent changes
Blogs
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
ZEISS
ZEISS Nature Observation
The Most Important Optical Parameters
Innovative Technologies
Conservation Projects
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
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.
Forums
Binoculars & Spotting Scopes
Binoculars
Alpha Spectacles
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="looksharp65" data-source="post: 3380823" data-attributes="member: 83771"><p>The top brands always compete at the highest possible level, and there is not one single brand that stands out. I'd guess that the German brands Zeiss and Rodenstock can provide transmission characteristics, but that might be true for other brands as well.</p><p>Any smear, dust or raindrop/fog will reduce the contrast a lot more than the difference between the best and the worst multicoating.</p><p>When I'm at it, this reminds me about the fogging problem caused by breathing. The image loses contrast significantly and the colour bias turns towards brownish like an old Jena Notarem roof or worse.</p><p></p><p>It might be intriguing to learn that the devices used for applying the multicoatings are exactly the same regardless of the brand names of the lenses and coatings. This does not mean that the coatings are identical, since the preparation steps may differ, the lens materials differ and the machines are set to different settings for every individual brand. </p><p>Even within the brands, fine-tuning may be performed to achieve the desired result.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>That's exactly what I meant.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>In general, I for safety reasons never advocate using mineral lenses. </p><p>Dropping and breaking them may lead to a personal disaster.</p><p>But this does not preclude the possibility to have one pair of mineral lens spectacles, dedicated for use with binoculars.</p><p></p><p>Remember what I wrote about the plastic's reduced transparency?</p><p>If you consider the difference in edge thickness vs. central thickness, you understand that the periphery of the lens will be darker than the centre.</p><p>Furthermore, and this is true for both plastic and mineral lenses, their <em>Abbe</em> number is more or less low compared to standard lens materials.</p><p>As a result, they can produce significant chromatic aberration which degrades the image quality. I'm thinking that your plastic lenses have a low Abbe number and your mineral lenses a higher.</p><p></p><p>//L</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="looksharp65, post: 3380823, member: 83771"] The top brands always compete at the highest possible level, and there is not one single brand that stands out. I'd guess that the German brands Zeiss and Rodenstock can provide transmission characteristics, but that might be true for other brands as well. Any smear, dust or raindrop/fog will reduce the contrast a lot more than the difference between the best and the worst multicoating. When I'm at it, this reminds me about the fogging problem caused by breathing. The image loses contrast significantly and the colour bias turns towards brownish like an old Jena Notarem roof or worse. It might be intriguing to learn that the devices used for applying the multicoatings are exactly the same regardless of the brand names of the lenses and coatings. This does not mean that the coatings are identical, since the preparation steps may differ, the lens materials differ and the machines are set to different settings for every individual brand. Even within the brands, fine-tuning may be performed to achieve the desired result. That's exactly what I meant. In general, I for safety reasons never advocate using mineral lenses. Dropping and breaking them may lead to a personal disaster. But this does not preclude the possibility to have one pair of mineral lens spectacles, dedicated for use with binoculars. Remember what I wrote about the plastic's reduced transparency? If you consider the difference in edge thickness vs. central thickness, you understand that the periphery of the lens will be darker than the centre. Furthermore, and this is true for both plastic and mineral lenses, their [I]Abbe[/I] number is more or less low compared to standard lens materials. As a result, they can produce significant chromatic aberration which degrades the image quality. I'm thinking that your plastic lenses have a low Abbe number and your mineral lenses a higher. //L [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes...
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Binoculars & Spotting Scopes
Binoculars
Alpha Spectacles
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more...
Top