Binoculars with near 70deg AFOV? (1 Viewer)

[Northman]

I was wondering if anybody has recommendations for a binocular pair, with emphasis on AFOV, Apparent FOV.

6-10 magnification
AFOV above 65deg.. more is better.
Sharp to 90% of field
Center focus
Waterproof
Less then $2000

Intended use is with walking the dog, so should be easy to look through, comfortable, light.

 

[qwerty5]

Nikon Monarch HG has 60-62°, depending on whether you get the 8x or 10x. They are light and excellent optics for $1000. I'm not sure if there is a binocular with a wider FOV for under $2000.

 

[casscade]

The NL’s are about the only game in town for those requirements that I know of. The Zeiss Sf’s wound get pretty close as would the Leica 10x50 UV’s.

 

[wllmspd]

Not quite sharp to the edges but old Porro (eg Bushnell Rangemaster) do a reasonable job. If AFOV is key then my APM 70 with ultrawide astro eyepieces is in the game, though probably a little over magnification and cost. Getting into the 70s degree AFOV does make the view nice and immersive. A few old binocukars got close to 80degrees but the edges were fuzzy and the eyerelief usually very short.
Peter

 

[Binastro]

The Canon 10x42L IS has a 6.5 degree field but is heavy and bulky. Very good image. Waterproof.

The Swift HR/5 8.5x44 has a field from memory of 8.26 degrees. It isn't waterproof and not sharp to the edge.

The 10x42 Conquest HD has a 6.65 degree field and is very sharp and waterproof.

Minolta 7x35 Standard MK has a field of 11.05 degrees, but isn't waterproof and isn't sharp to the edge.

Nikon 8x30 EII 8.85 degree field. Not waterproof.

The Russian 8x30 as a field of 8.5 degrees and is fairly waterproof.

There are numerous old 10x50 Porros with 7.5 to 7.9 degree fields, but not waterproof and short eye relief.

6x30 Libra 11 degree field.

B.

 

[dorubird]

Carl Zeiss Conquest 8x32 HD
Meets all your conditions with one small exception: 64deg. instead of 65deg.
or
Nikon Monarch 7 8x30
Meets all your conditions with one exception: Sharp to 75% of field instead of 90%

 

[Conndomat]

Carl Zeiss Conquest 8x32 HD
Meets all your conditions with one small exception: 64deg.

Hi,

I think something is wrong here!

ZEISS Conquest HD 8x32 | Kompakt und mit hoher Auflösung

Mit seinem geringen Gewicht eignet sich das Fernglas ZEISS Conquest HD 8x32 besonders für Wanderungen, Reisen oder Tierbeobachtungen.

www.zeiss.de

ZEISS Victory SF 8x42 | Das vielseitige Premiumfernglas

ZEISS Victory SF 8x42 steht für maximalen Überblick und faszinierende, kontrastreiche Bilder.

www.zeiss.de

Zeiss gives both binoculars with 64 ° degrees AFOV although the SF has a noticeably larger field of view!

http://www.optik-foto-mueller.com/swarovski/Technische_Daten_FG.pdf

The Swarovski EL 8x32 has 1m. more FOV like the Conquest and is given as 61 ° degrees AFOV.
I'm afraid Zeiss used the simple FOV calculation for the Conquest by means of the number of degrees times magnification, I think the Conquest would not have a 64 ° degree AFOV with an exact calculation.
Based on this calculation, the SF 8x42 would have almost 68 ° (67,6°) degrees AFOV.

Andreas

 

[jafritten]

The Kowa Genesis 10x33 has about 68 degs AFOV. Can't say much about the edge sharpness. I used to have the 8x33 and as far as I can remember the edge sharpness was just fine. Very good value for money.

I don't know the prices in the US, so maybe a pre-owned Victory FL 10x32 or an Ultravid 10x32 HD would be good, 69 and 67 degs AFOV respectively.

 

[tenex]

For apparent FOV you will do best with 10x. My own favorite the 10x32 UVHD+ would serve very well. I believe it has around 67° although Leica doesn't include AFOV in their specs. (The now discontinued FL 10x32 would indeed be another option.)

 

[Conndomat]

I don't know the prices in the US, so maybe a pre-owned Victory FL 10x32 or an Ultravid 10x32 HD would be good, 69 and 67 degs AFOV respectively.

Guys it should first be clarified whether the thread opener really assumes 65 ° -70 ° AFOV or whether the rough but unreliable approximation is enough for him ?!
If the Zeiss FL 10x32 actually had an AFOV of 69 ° degrees, the Swarovski data would be completely wrong ...

https://www.swarovskioptik.com/de/de/jagd/products/binoculars/nl-pure/tech-spec/nl-pure-10x32

The Zeiss FL 10x32 has 120/1000 m. FOV the Swarovski NL 10x32 has 132/ 1000m. FOV but the same AFOV as the Zeiss?

Swarovski usually gives very precise data for the binoculars, the data given for the Zeiss are only a very rough guideline and are clearly too high.

ZEISS Victory SF 10x42 | Das vielseitige Premiumfernglas

ZEISS Victory SF 10x42 besticht durch höchste Detailerkennbarkeit und ist perfekt geeignet für erlebnisreiches Beobachten auf große Distanzen.

www.zeiss.de

Zeiss specifies an AFOV of 64 degrees for the SF 10x42, why does the Zeiss FL 10x32 have 5° degrees more AFOV with the same FOV?
The new SF 10x32 ... 130 / 1000m. Field of view, AFOV 69 ° degrees.

ZEISS Victory SF10x32 | Das vielseitige Premiumfernglas

Die Kombination aus ErgoBalance-Konzept und optimaler Gewichtsverteilung macht ZEISS SF 10x32 zum perfekten Begleiter für die Pirsch.

www.zeiss.de

Andreas

 

[Pinewood]

Hello,

There were a few wide angle 7x glasses, like the Rangemaster, but the eye relief was rather short. The 10x glasses mentioned above are probably better for those who wear specs. Certainly, the Zeiss 10x32FL works with my eyeglasses.

The Nikon 8x30 EII gets to about 67º AFOV but eye relief is not generous.

Stay safe,
Arthur Pinewood

 

[Steve C]

You basically described the Maven B2 9x45. It is pretty big, missing your light requirement, but its AK prism shows high transmission levels. I have measured the fov on three different 9x45 models. Instead of the advertised 367' fov, all three measured 405'. That comes out to an afov of 69*. The only thing wider that comes to mind is the Swarovski NL. The B2 is solidly less than $2,000. So in your stated price, I can think of nothing else that comes that close. Carries pretty well with a Rick Young Outdoor Harness.

 

[fazalmajid]

The Nikon WX 10x50 have 76.4° AFOV, but otherwise fails almost all your other requirement.

 

[dorubird]

Hi,

I think something is wrong here!

ZEISS Conquest HD 8x32 | Kompakt und mit hoher Auflösung

Mit seinem geringen Gewicht eignet sich das Fernglas ZEISS Conquest HD 8x32 besonders für Wanderungen, Reisen oder Tierbeobachtungen.

www.zeiss.de

ZEISS Victory SF 8x42 | Das vielseitige Premiumfernglas

ZEISS Victory SF 8x42 steht für maximalen Überblick und faszinierende, kontrastreiche Bilder.

www.zeiss.de

Zeiss gives both binoculars with 64 ° degrees AFOV although the SF has a noticeably larger field of view!

http://www.optik-foto-mueller.com/swarovski/Technische_Daten_FG.pdf
The Swarovski EL 8x32 has 1m. more FOV like the Conquest and is given as 61 ° degrees AFOV.
I'm afraid Zeiss used the simple FOV calculation for the Conquest by means of the number of degrees times magnification, I think the Conquest would not have a 64 ° degree AFOV with an exact calculation.
Based on this calculation, the SF 8x42 would have almost 68 ° (67,6°) degrees AFOV.

Andreas

It is a "copy/paste" mistake
Conquest HD 8x32 has 64 degrees (simple formula) and 59 degrees (tangent formula)
Victory SF 8x42 has 67.2 degrees (simple formula) and 60.9 degrees (tangent formula)
Usually, to make things easier, when comparing two binoculars we referred to only one formula (simple formula) so as not complicate things..."keep it simple!"

 

[Conndomat]

Usually, to make things easier, when comparing two binoculars we referred to only one formula (simple formula) so as not complicate things..."keep it simple!"

It's a mess either way, as long as some manufacturers e.g. Swarovski give the correct AFOV and others use the simple formula, some people will ask why binoculars with 120/1000 m. has the same AFOV as binoculars with 132 / 1000m.

Using the simple calculation for the Swarovski, it would have around 75 ° degrees AFOV, almost similar to the Nikon WX 10x50.
So it will get mixed up either way as long as you don't agree on what to talk about.

Andreas

 

[henry link]

AFOV specs are almost but not quite useless. Provided the true FOV is accurately specified you can be sure the AFOV will fall somewhere between the simple calculation and the tangent (ISO) formula. It will be closer to the ISO spec if there is low pincushion distortion and closer to the simple calculation if pincushion is high. I think it's pretty safe to assume that an AFOV spec like Swarovski's that falls between the two methods is probably measured or accurately calculated to include distortion.

It is possible for the consumer to accurately measure the AFOV, but of course the binocular has to be in hand to do that. I'll post some links to a couple of ways to measure AFOV here later when I have more time.

Here's a link that shows just how far off the true AFOV can be from the manufacturer's spec when the true FOV spec is off and there is very low pincushion distortion.

Kowa BD II 10x42 XD Optical Tests

I borrowed a friend’s newly purchased Kowa BD II 10x42 XD and ran some of my usual tests. Here are the results. FOV, AFOV For comparison I used a Nikon 10x35 EII with a FOV I’ve measured to be 7º at infinity focus. The FOV of the Kowa 10x42 was very slightly smaller, perhaps around 6.95º, a...

www.birdforum.net

 

[dorubird]

If we know angular feld of fiew we multiply it with power and then we can easily speak "the same language" in a comparative apparent field of view study for two given binoculars...Yes Swarovski NL Pure 10x32 has a very huge 75 degrees AFOV (simple formula), but to compare apples to apples, Nikon WX 10x50 has even larger 90 degrees AFOV (also simple formula). To compare correctly we have to apply the same formula for each binoculars, and the easiest formula to calculate is the "simple formula" not "tangent formula"...keep it simple!...If someone likes to calculate with "tangent formula" is very good for him, but it is more difficult to calculate. It's clear anyway that the binoculars that have larger FOV have also larger AFOV than the one who has a narrow FOV with the same power magnification!

Northman,​

When you said you want a bino with at least 65 degrees AFOV did you meant "simple" or "tangent" formula? (I guess you meant the simple one)

 

[Conndomat]

Northman,​

When you said you want a bino with at least 65 degrees AFOV did you meant "simple" or "tangent" formula? (I guess you meant the simple one)

This is exactly the question I was talking about when I made my statements, so that one does not start from different dates.

Andreas

 

[Binastro]

See post #16.

B.

 

[Conndomat]

I think it's pretty safe to assume that an AFOV spec like Swarovski's that falls between the two methods is probably measured or accurately calculated to include distortion.

Hi Henry,

Thanks for your contribution ...

I also think the Swarovski dates are pretty accurate and there can be inconsistencies here for ambitious beginners!
Many people do not know the difference between the simple formula and the tangent formula, but many do not know how the simple formula is calculated!

A lot of people read here who are interested in binoculars, who then read that the Zeiss FL 10x32 has an AFOV of 69 ° degrees, then go to the Swarovski site and read that the new NL 10x32 also "only" has 69 ° degrees AFOV The conclusion is that for half the price you get binoculars that have the same size AFOV as a model that is twice as expensive!
I did not want to cause any disturbance with my statements, at best to create an equal basis for recommending binoculars.

Andreas