Are Zen Rays 8x43 ED's really that good? (1 Viewer)

[[email protected]]

Dennis ..
How contrast compares between the ZEN and the LXL..?...I know that sharpness and CA control are better in the ZEN all the way...But the Contrast in the LXL ,if i remember well was just amazing...I still debating whether the Front focus action of the ZEN,and the exposed bright shinny grease exposed,is a bit of a reflection magnet .The large Exit pupil is very forgiving and by now i am quite good at placing the binocular in the right position and "navigating" the reflections,but if you look inside the binocular ocular from a distance you can see some halos and reflections(Henry Link pointed this to me ,and really ,you can see exactly what and where is illuminated inside the binocular),Perhaps more(internal reflections) than on the LXL or the Pentax ED...and Dennis,since you mentioned the pentax ED 8x32,the ZEN is definitely Sharper but the Pentax seems to me to have MUCH better coatings,and that translates in Contrast/flare control advantage,that is noticeable..it (the Pentax)perhaps has even less chromatic aberration,but they are both so close to none,that the difference is nothing worth to mention.
The Pentax eyecups are VERY similar in fit/feeling of those of the ZEN,and the ZEN focuser is better and feels more solid and better build than the Pentax ED..In fact Build quality seems better in the ZEN,.The ZEN is also easier to hold steady,it has the right mass and perfectly balanced.. The Pentax 8x32 was nice in size when you had to put it in a backpack,but to hold it steady,Was not very comfy(hands too close for me,got a bit shaky sometimes).
One thing is for sure,The ZEN is very,very easy to like a lot.

To my eyes the contrast and flare control were both superior on the 8x43 Zen HD than on the Nikon 8x32 LXL. I was looking near the sun also just as it was setting. The contrast on the Zen seems better to me and the total view of the Zen just blows the Nikon away(And my Leica's 7x42 BN's). The coatings on the Zen look excellent to me and I see no internal reflections inside so maybe they have improved the coatings already. The view is superior to almost anything I have seen so they are doing something right. Zen seems to be very receptive to feedback from customers so they might have made some changes already.
Mayoayo, so you still have your 8x32 Pentax ED? Would you want to trade it back for your Nikon 8x32 LXL. I am kind of liking this ED thing and you seem to still be in love with your Nikon 8x32 LXL's. Let me know. What would be a good 8x32 ED that would perform like the 8x43 ED Zen Ray? I still want to keep an 8x32 for the compact size.

Dennis

Dennis

 

[Tero]

The 8x32 of any series will control stray light worse than a similar 8x42, but there may be more factors involved. Field of viw for example.

 

[APSmith]

How is the "sweet spot" on these Zen-Rays?

Thanks, APS

 

[[email protected]]

How is the "sweet spot" on these Zen-Rays?

Thanks, APS

They have a huge FOV and the sweet spot is very large also. I think that is one reason I like the view so much. You have this big tack sharp viewing window you are looking in which is also very bright. Awesome view and binoculars especially for the money. I really wish they made an 8x32 ED!

Dennis

 

[mooreorless]

"I really wish they made an 8x32 ED!"

Dennis do you think they will take the hint?

Regards,Steve

 

[Tero]

So far, the only affordable one is a Pentax 8x32 ED.

 

[FrankD]

The Vero Vellini strap worked very well.

Dennis,

I am using the same neckstrap for my Zen EDs as well.



...and, in reference to the Nikon EDG comparison...I have heard that the EDGs were better optically but not by much.

Haven't done the comparison myself yet though.

 

[Steve C]

I think it is safe to say we have their attention. But even if they decided to act yesterday, it's going to take a while for the first ones to even get to a theoretical prototype stage. I'd say be patient. If what we see here is any sort of reliable indicator of success, I think they are more likely than not to be somewhere on a list of next things to do. But I have no idea how long development of something like that takes.

Untill that happens, the best compacts in the ZEN price range are the Swift 7x36 and Vortex Viper 8x32. The Viper has ED glass.

 

[Redeye171]

"I really wish they made an 8x32 ED!"

Dennis do you think they will take the hint?

Regards,Steve

Or a 7x36 ED.

 

[[email protected]]

I think it is safe to say we have their attention. But even if they decided to act yesterday, it's going to take a while for the first ones to even get to a theoretical prototype stage. I'd say be patient. If what we see here is any sort of reliable indicator of success, I think they are more likely than not to be somewhere on a list of next things to do. But I have no idea how long development of something like that takes.

Untill that happens, the best compacts in the ZEN price range are the Swift 7x36 and Vortex Viper 8x32. The Viper has ED glass.

Which 8x32 do you think is superior the Vortex Viper 8x32 or the Pentax 8x32 ED. I am trying to decide between the two. Would they be better optically than my Nikon 8x32 LXL? Thanks!

Dennis

 

[Steve C]

Which 8x32 do you think is superior the Vortex Viper 8x32 or the Pentax 8x32 ED. I am trying to decide between the two. Would they be better optically than my Nikon 8x32 LXL? Thanks!

Dennis

Good question Dennis. But I can't help much. I've never had any combination of the three side by side. All I can say is that they all seem to have nice bright images.

 

[mayoayo]

Dennis,..I like the LXL,but mostly in the mechanics/materials/ergonomics..For a full hinge design,they are my favorite to hold...The image is also good,i think contrast was top(still dont believe that the ZEN has better contrast )and easy of view evident,,BUT chromatic Aberration was way to much for a binocular in that class...I will Not trade the Pentax ED for the LXL ,if i still had the Pentax though...The Pentax is a Sweet binocular..very low chromatic aberration and sharp views,and the Coatings they use are superb,and YES,they control flare better than the ZEN and they have superior contrast ,i believe..BUT ,i prefer the ZEN overall as a workhorse,anyday

 

[Kevin Purcell]

FWIW, flare/veiling glare control is about the design of the baffling in the bin not the "quality" of the AR coatings.

 

[mayoayo]

FWIW, flare/veiling glare control is about the design of the baffling in the bin not the "quality" of the AR coatings.

Kevin,
The "quality" of an anti-reflection coating ,at least in my experience with photo lenses,has some important effect in overall flare/veiling glare and contrast in the image...When Pentax introduced the S-M-C (super multi coated)Takumar lenses,in the 60's,they had an advantage over the previous series of lenses ,based in the quantity and quality of the coatings..Later they changed to the K,M and A series of lenses all of them featuring more and more complex Pentax SMC(supermulticoated)coatings...S-M-C Takumar lenses are excellent ,BUT they flare,and get some veiling effect,that translates in loss of contrast ,in some instances,because their S-M-C coatings were somehow primitive..more modern lenses manage better these problems using more complex AR coatings,(better "quality"?).
Of course baffling( blocking the stray light ) and flocking(controlling the reflectivity of the surface) also has a part,i suppose..

I thought these was true also for binoculars.

 

[kabsetz]

Like Mayoayo said, flare/veiling and glare control are influenced both by the design and execution of the baffling and by the quality of the AR coatings. A third factor is the reflectivity of those surfaces which the implemented baffling does not completely block away. Put in simplified terms, lower-quality coatings mean that more of the unwanted internal light keeps bouncing around rather than finding the shortest path out, and this increases veiling and also reduces contrast.

Concerning other aspects of this thread, although I have not seen the Zen-Ray version of these Chinese ED's, based on the Hawke Frontiers that I have seen I think Dennis' assessment of the binocular seems for the most part reasonable. However, being almost the distant cousin of the "All-seeing eye," I must jump on the unwarranted use of the phrase "blows away" a few posts up. Also, when it comes to brightness, although these Chinese binoculars are very good and hold their own well against older Leica Trinovids or the Nikon LX's, they do not quite equal roofs with dielectrically coated prisms such as the Ultravid HD's, let alone the Zeiss 42mm FL's. However, the difference is more of the order of being perceptible than really meaningfull. I don't know if the Zen-Ray version has a larger sweet spot than the Hawke, but the latter has a narrower sweet spot than the SE and LX Nikons. However, since very few binoculars have truly large sweet spots and good resolution all the way to the edges, and since these Chinese ED's have wide fields-of-view in comparison to most of the competition, the less-than-stellar edge performance is honestly not something that can be held against them. For one, I'm not going to make a fuss about it, since the easiest way for the manufacturer to "correct" this problem is by reducing the field stop to narrow the field of view (something that Kevin suggested, if I remember correctly), and in my opinion this would be a shame since my personal preference is for wide viewfields as long as the image quality around the edges is sufficient to reveal a potential bird even as a blob that can be centered for proper viewing. If the edges are so bad that the bird would need to be the size of an airplane to be seen, then by all means cut away the excess field, but otherwise I'd rather see it. This is one of the reasons why I have preferred the Nikon EII image over the SE image, although the latter is slightly sharper and better baffled and has a larger sweet spot.

Kimmo

 

[Jaeger70]

If all the superlative comments about the Zen-Ray 8x43ED are indeed true, the implications for European, and to a lesser, degree Japanese manufacturers are serious. One of the arguments I hear about the benefits of purchasing from high-end and well known manufacturers is that if the product fails you have the luxury of knowing that those companies will stand behind the product and replace or repair if needed. However, is this comfort worth $1,000+? The question becomes more relevant when one considers that the service offered by two of those companies has been suspect (as evidenced by other threads) in that it can take months for repairs (I have personal experience with one German manufacturer who took far too long to repair a focus wheel). In fairness, however, this same company quickly mailed off a replacement eyepiece for my scope when it was discovered that the piece showed internal dust that compromised the view.

Certainly marquee names like Leica, Swarovski and Zeiss will always generate interest and appeal and rightly so based upon long-term presence and quality pieces. It seems, however, that the times are a changin' in that the Chinese are rapidly catching up in terms of quality. Is this 'good' or 'bad'? Good for optics buffs certainly...

I'll refrain from touching upon the possible economic, environmental and social implications. I suppose there's good reason why economics is called 'the dismal science.'

 

[mayoayo]

Kimmo,

I would not say that the ZEN edge performance is less-than-stellar..

The ZEN is actually pretty much the equal of the LXL 8x32 in terms of edge resolution/sweet spot size.And having a FOV pretty much half a degree wider this means excellent performance in this regard..This(ZEN) binocular has a large sweet spot,and it only looses a little of image quality ,towards the edge of the (LARGE)field of view..Looking at the Night sky is a good test,and the ZEN shows great performance .
It has considerably better edge performance , than the Swift 820 which is the only full size wide angle(more than 8˚)that i have used..Both have similar size FOV,and excellent center resolution,but the ZEN image doesnt "breaks",the way the 820# does towards the edge.
It also performs better than the mentioned Pentax 8x32 ED in that aspect,and this is with an advantage of one degree of FOV.,..
The SE 8x32 has better edge performance but The ZEN offers One more degree of FOV than the SE.

 

[[email protected]]

Like Mayoayo said, flare/veiling and glare control are influenced both by the design and execution of the baffling and by the quality of the AR coatings. A third factor is the reflectivity of those surfaces which the implemented baffling does not completely block away. Put in simplified terms, lower-quality coatings mean that more of the unwanted internal light keeps bouncing around rather than finding the shortest path out, and this increases veiling and also reduces contrast.

Concerning other aspects of this thread, although I have not seen the Zen-Ray version of these Chinese ED's, based on the Hawke Frontiers that I have seen I think Dennis' assessment of the binocular seems for the most part reasonable. However, being almost the distant cousin of the "All-seeing eye," I must jump on the unwarranted use of the phrase "blows away" a few posts up. Also, when it comes to brightness, although these Chinese binoculars are very good and hold their own well against older Leica Trinovids or the Nikon LX's, they do not quite equal roofs with dielectrically coated prisms such as the Ultravid HD's, let alone the Zeiss 42mm FL's. However, the difference is more of the order of being perceptible than really meaningfull. I don't know if the Zen-Ray version has a larger sweet spot than the Hawke, but the latter has a narrower sweet spot than the SE and LX Nikons. However, since very few binoculars have truly large sweet spots and good resolution all the way to the edges, and since these Chinese ED's have wide fields-of-view in comparison to most of the competition, the less-than-stellar edge performance is honestly not something that can be held against them. For one, I'm not going to make a fuss about it, since the easiest way for the manufacturer to "correct" this problem is by reducing the field stop to narrow the field of view (something that Kevin suggested, if I remember correctly), and in my opinion this would be a shame since my personal preference is for wide viewfields as long as the image quality around the edges is sufficient to reveal a potential bird even as a blob that can be centered for proper viewing. If the edges are so bad that the bird would need to be the size of an airplane to be seen, then by all means cut away the excess field, but otherwise I'd rather see it. This is one of the reasons why I have preferred the Nikon EII image over the SE image, although the latter is slightly sharper and better baffled and has a larger sweet spot.

Kimmo

"I must jump on the unwarranted use of the phrase "blows away" a few posts up. "

"Blows Away" is a current term which to me describes perfectly how I felt about the performance of the Zen Ray 8x43 ED compared to the Nikon 8x32 L-XL's. It is not unwarranted in any way in my opinion!

"Also, when it comes to brightness, although these Chinese binoculars are very good and hold their own well against older Leica Trinovids or the Nikon LX's, they do not quite equal roofs with dielectrically coated prisms such as the Ultravid HD's, let alone the Zeiss 42mm FL's."

How did you come up with this statement? Did you read in some optical theory book somewhere that dielectrically coated prisms are supposed to be brighter. You can't always believe what you read it could have been written by Zeiss. I am basing my observations on what I see through the binoculars and how I feel about the view. You said you have never even seen a Zen Ray but yet you know they can't be as bright as a Zeiss FL. You can't base your judgement on A Hawke Frontier or never having done a actual comparison. Optical theory is fine but I think people on this forum would rather hear what somebody actually thought about a certain binocular compared to another one instead of this prism can't be as bright because somebody says so or I read it in my optics book. I know optics and theory and all about eyepiece design and prisms. I have been an amateur astronomer for years. Show me actual proof that Zeiss FL's or Leica Ultravids are brighter then I will believe you.

"the less-than-stellar edge performance is honestly not something that can be held against them"

That is not true again. Against all the binoculars I have had including the Zeiss FL I find the edge performance of the Zen Ray to be just as good if not better than any of them. In fact I sold my Zeiss FL's because of the poor edge performance. Again how are you making this judgement?

I have compared the Zen Ray 8x43 HD directly to several top Alpha binoculars and it stacks right up their with the best of them. I have not compared it too the Leica Ultravid HD or the newer Nikon EDG so I don't know about those. I am not saying that Zen Ray 8x43 HD's are the best binoculars out there. I am saying that they by far represent the best value I have yet seen with price/performance being my primary consideration. They are the best bargain I have seen to come down the tube and one of the best views I have seen in quite a long time.

Dennis

 

[Steve C]

I will add my signature to the above quoted statement from Dennis. I will also add that in my brief side by side comparison of the ZEN and EDG that the two stack up in a quite similar manner.

When it began to dawn on me how good the Promaster ELX ED and the ZEN ED really are (the Promaster has to be put in the discussion too as does the Hawke, although it seems to be that the Hawke is softer at the edge than the other two) I was in a quandary about actually coming out and saying how close the images seen were to the high end alpha binoculars. I could just hear laughter in the halls upon reading such a statement. But their image is what it is. That image is too close to call for the vast majority of folks who recreate with a binocular in their possession. That is the strength of this binocular.

I think there is room for discussion of the technical merits of optical design, the construction, the workmanship, company reputation and longevity, and even warranty and service issues. There has to be something that justifies the extortionist prices charged for these binoculars and the reason people pay it. Paying that difference based on image alone is no longer a valid alpha argument.

Actually, when we get to images of this general quality level, nothing really gets blown away by something else. Surely there are individual image preferences that will be profound for some people. But while I would not claim the ZEN blows away one of the alphas, the alpha cannot similarly blow the ZEN away either.

 

[rjwims]

Happy with ZEN's so far

Well, I just received my ZEN 8x43 ED's and initially, they seem very nice, although I have only much cheaper glass to compare to.

Here are my initial impressions fwiw

1) They don't look or feel as big as I expected

2) focus ring is very smooth, not real stiff or loose and no binding anywhere

3) Nice fov, and pretty clear image...makes looking thru nikon action 7x35's almost unbearable by comparison (which is expected, I guess).

4) No slop in left eyecup, a little in right, but no more than maybe 1/64 on periphery.

5) Even the objective lense caps don't appear to be too loose, as noted in other posts.

Good recommendation by you guys, so far...no surprises as far as qc goes.

Thanks

Richard