Glare Monsters! (1 Viewer)

[[email protected]]

The image below shows how effective the device actually is when it's installed as shown in the website photo.

I used the front of the internal reflection area in an 8x42 NL as a reference point for how far into the binocular interior the sunshade's shadow must penetrate to be effective. As you can see by following the green string the line between shaded and unshaded follows a 32.5º angle toward the 12:00 position above the binocular and that is the very best this device can do since its length is shorter in all other directions. I would say it would have essentially no effect on the 8x42 NL in directions below 2:00 and 10:00 compared to no sunshade at all and no effect even at its maximum length on light arriving from less than 32.5º above the binocular.

Trying to control glare by shading from the front seems like a reasonable idea until you begin to look at its limitations. By far the best way to tame the glare in the NLs is to the find an eyecup length that works, so that the glare is blocked internally between where it originates and the eye. If you can bring your eyes close enough to the eyepieces to see kidney beaning then you can reach the glare free spot because it's just behind that point. Your eyes went right past it on their way to seeing the kidney beaning. Even Dennis could do it if he wanted. Probably only a few eyeglass wearers with thick lenses and frames and deep set eyes might not be able to get their pupils close enough to the eyepieces.

If lens hoods are ineffective as you point out and I believe you, why do many people think they are effective like Binomania and Tobias. I trust they are making valid observations, and they are very experienced with binoculars, so it baffles me who to believe.

Trying to control glare by having to adjust the eye cup length within a mm is overly tedious. No normal person is going to want to do that. They are going to try the 6 click stops that Swarovski has designed into the binoculars and if they still see glare they are going to give up.

Besides, if you adjust the eye cups between the click-stops, you have a chance of moving them when you push your eyes up against them. Swarovski needs to redesign the NL's, so eye cup length is not as critical in avoiding glare.

 

[seawatcher]

If lens hoods are ineffective as you point out and I believe you, why do many people think they are effective like Binomania and Tobias. I trust they are making valid observations, and they are very experienced with binoculars, so it baffles me who to believe.

Trying to control glare by having to adjust the eye cup length within a mm is overly tedious. No normal person is going to want to do that. They are going to try the 6 click stops that Swarovski has designed into the binoculars and if they still see glare they are going to give up.

Besides, if you adjust the eye cups between the click-stops, you have a chance of moving them when you push your eyes up against them. Swarovski needs to redesign the NL's, so eye cup length is not as critical in avoiding glare.

If a pair of binoculars doesn't work for you, due to glare or whatever, then find another pair that suits you better. And nothing can beat trying out a pair of binoculars and deciding what is best for you. Reading these reviews just creates confusion with all the different opinions and views.
Personally, I am fed up to the back teeth og reading posts on these forums where a very few (no names mentioned) seem to be throwing male cow excrement at each other, saying that so-and-so is wrong, I am right, this IS the BEST pair of binoculars etc. etc. These few people would be better spending their time looking through and enjoying using their equipment, instead of bickering about the merits of the various models they feel are best. Opinions are just that, just accept that not everyone agrees with your views.
I'm off birding this afternoon, looking forward to no glare, no CA, no rolling ball etc. etc. - my own binocs meet all those "requirements".

SW

 

[[email protected]]

If a pair of binoculars doesn't work for you, due to glare or whatever, then find another pair that suits you better. And nothing can beat trying out a pair of binoculars and deciding what is best for you. Reading these reviews just creates confusion with all the different opinions and views.
Personally, I am fed up to the back teeth og reading posts on these forums where a very few (no names mentioned) seem to be throwing male cow excrement at each other, saying that so-and-so is wrong, I am right, this IS the BEST pair of binoculars etc. etc. These few people would be better spending their time looking through and enjoying using their equipment, instead of bickering about the merits of the various models they feel are best. Opinions are just that, just accept that not everyone agrees with your views.
I'm off birding this afternoon, looking forward to no glare, no CA, no rolling ball etc. etc. - my own binocs meet all those "requirements".

SW

I agree. That is what I do. Really, binocular choice is personal preference. Glare, CA, and RB is very dependent on the person using the binocular. To tell somebody that you are getting glare because you are not adjusting the eye cups precise enough is ridiculous. It is better just to try another binocular if the binoculars doesn't work well for you.

I do like to read the reviews because it gives me an idea if I might like a binocular, but the final choice has to be yours and yours alone. What is funny is if you say you get a glare in somebody else's favorite binocular, they take it personally. Just because you get glare, that doesn't mean they will. When I started this thread I stated the glare resistant and glare prone list was just what other people found and that doesn't mean you will necessarily find the same thing.

 

[crinklystarfish]

If you want to know how glare works in different binoculars do what I have suggested many times here. Using a loop or a telescope eyepiece with a focal length of around 25-28mm focus on the interior of the binocular through the eyepiece under conditions that cause glare. It's best to use a repeatable glare test set-up in which a tripod mounted binocular is pointed toward a very dark area that fills the FOV, but with a bright light source outside the FOV that penetrates into the binocular interior. You will see exactly where the unbaffled interior reflections are.

Has anyone undertaken this test on an NL 12x42 and an NL 8x42?

I was an early uptaker of the 12x42 and though I acknowledge (and curse Swarovski for) the glare, I very quickly adequately mitigated for the problem by careful eye-relief adjustment. The 12x42's overall outstanding performance is such that the occasional glare irritation I still encounter is tolerable.

I'm thinking of adding an NL8x42 for closed woodland, dragonfly and twilight work but if the intrinsic glare on this iteration is any worse than the 12 I will probably go to a different manufacturer.

I accept that the larger exit pupil of the 8x should - theoretically - make it 'easier' to mitigate Swarovski's inherently poor errant light control in this (and other) ranges.

Failing Mr Link's highly objective test, I'd welcome any balanced subjective views, too.

Thanks.

 

[[email protected]]

Has anyone undertaken this test on an NL 12x42 and an NL 8x42?

I was an early uptaker of the 12x42 and though I acknowledge (and curse Swarovski for) the glare, I very quickly adequately mitigated for the problem by careful eye-relief adjustment. The 12x42's overall outstanding performance is such that the occasional glare irritation I still encounter is tolerable.

I'm thinking of adding an NL8x42 for closed woodland, dragonfly and twilight work but if the intrinsic glare on this iteration is any worse than the 12 I will probably go to a different manufacturer.

I accept that the larger exit pupil of the 8x should - theoretically - make it 'easier' to mitigate Swarovski's inherently poor errant light control in this (and other) ranges.

Failing Mr Link's highly objective test, I'd welcome any balanced subjective views, too.

Thanks.

I had all three of the NL's including 8x42, 10x42 and 12x42. I had some glare in all of them, but by close adjustment of the eye cups I could reduce but not eliminate it on the 10x42 and 12x42. For me the 8x42 was the worst, which seems counterintuitive because it has the biggest exit pupil, but that is what I observed.

Even with close adjustments of the eye cups, I still had considerable glare in the lower right of the FOV. It depends though on your eye socket depth and diameter and eye cup lenght adjustment is very critical, so you might try the NL 8x42 and see how it works for you. Here is a chart from Cloudy Night's where he quantified the glare from different binoculars, and he found the NL 12x42 to be better at glare control than the NL 8x42.


"I guess I have had a little too much time on my hands during the recent cloudy nights in Arizona. Here is some follow up on my glare tests. This was driven out of curiosity about glare in my NL Pure's. Yes, of all the binoculars I tested (6) ALL had glare, and all the glare could be eliminated with a shroud. I have now conducted new tests with more control and quantification of glare than the rough check done earlier. In the new ones, I have explored glare in a radial pattern about an LED light source in a darkish room. The purpose was to establish a "zone of glare" for each set of binoculars under these admittedly very harsh conditions. The pattern involved approaching the light source with each binocular from eight radial directions from 5 meters away. The room had been marked in increments of 5 degrees from the light source along these radial arms out to 45 degrees (as viewed from 5 meters away). When observing, I recorded the first significant appearance of glare along each direction, moving toward the light source origin. I repeated this testing in three sessions, on different days, with the same same binoculars.I averaged and charted the data. The results were interesting. I could establish a unique "zone of glare" for each pair of binoculars tested under these particular conditions. Here are the important comparative trends:

• The grand averages of the zones, by binocular, ranged from 19.8 to 38.3 degrees.
• The order of largest to the smallest zones was NL 8x42 > NL 12x42 > Maven 15x56 > Nikon 7x50 SP > Canon 10x42IS > Fuji 10x50.
• The roofs had symmetrical zones of glare about the light source; whereas the porros were a little asymmetrical.

What practically does this mean to me? Not much really. I do understand more fully now what the potential for glare behavior there is in my binoculars under extreme conditions. With that, I'm not about to send any instruments back to the suppliers for glare remediation. It's more of a personality trait than a defect, I believe. And in the field, it is not so easy to encounter glare. I'll give an example. The other night I was spotting a doubles location near the moon with my cherished NL 8x42s to set up for honing in with the big APM 100BTs. Searching very near the moon and gazing at the moon itself, I could see not glare in the NL's. The point source was very bright, but the surrounding background was pretty bright as well - not enough contrast to see glare. But I intentionally dropped 30 degrees or so to a dark background of trees, and then I could see a crescent of glare in my FOV opposite the moon. No surprise. I suppose I could have seen glare in any of my binoculars as long as the angle from the moon was within their zone of glare. I am still thinking about why glare varies among these particular binoculars the way it does. My first thought is that actual field of view is the dominant variable. But the Maven's with the least (4.5) are right up there with the NL's for glare. And the 12x42 NL's are not in the same lower zone as the Canon's and the Fuji's, even though they have the same FOV (6.5). Any ideas would be much appreciated. I think you nailed it. The roofs cluster together in FOV order. and so do porros together with Canon. I am showing charted data below to help illustrate:"

 

[MiddleRiver]

I occasionally see glare, crescents, veiling glare, washed-out image, in all the bins I own/have-owned. I don't deny there are some more susceptible than others. But to imagine that I would ever want 4" or greater projections on my bins - for birding at least - is ludicrous.
I just adjust my position, my hat, step behind a tree, or give up and think 'crap, i wish I could see that bird but the lighting conditions suck!'.

 

[[email protected]]

I occasionally see glare, crescents, veiling glare, washed-out image, in all the bins I own/have-owned. I don't deny there are some more susceptible than others. But to imagine that I would ever want 4" or greater projections on my bins - for birding at least - is ludicrous.
I just adjust my position, my hat, step behind a tree, or give up and think 'crap, i wish I could see that bird but the lighting conditions suck!'.

What if your binocular had built in lens hoods that you could pop out in a moment's notice notice and then slide them back in just as easily. Wouldn't that be worthwhile? Even in poor lighting situations, you could still see the bird.

 

[MiddleRiver]

What if your binocular had built in lens hoods that you could pop out in a moment's notice notice and then slide them back in just as easily. Wouldn't that be worthwhile? Even in poor lighting situations, you could still see the bird.

My trend has gone from full size bins (NV, UV, etc.) to the 8x30's. I can barely deal with lens caps, tho I do use them. I can never see myself dealing with any more fiddly things to adjust on bins.
One note: I do always wear a cap or hat while birding/using binoculars. And I have at times found myself twisting the brim to the side or lower, in order to cast some shade on lenses. Since I wear specs, certain conditions are very challenging - e.g. with low bright sun, slightly off to the side.

Of course, diff folks use bins in diff ways, and we all make compromises!

 

[[email protected]]

Has anybody ever tried these Carson FlashShields for reducing glare. They look interesting.

https://www.amazon.com/Carson-FlashShield-Anti-Reflective-Device-BX-42/dp/B00CN9MLXA#customerReviews

 

[MiddleRiver]

Let's see... we pay thousands of dollars (in some cases multiple times) for top-tier glass, obsess over every nuanced flaw, and then we put honeycomb plastic grate over them? Am I missing something?

 

[Grando]

Has anybody ever tried these Carson FlashShields for reducing glare. They look interesting.

https://www.amazon.com/Carson-FlashShield-Anti-Reflective-Device-BX-42/dp/B00CN9MLXA#customerReviews

View attachment 1539045

They’re very good until bees find them and start depositing honey in the cells.

 

[Patudo]

Let's see... we pay thousands of dollars (in some cases multiple times) for top-tier glass, obsess over every nuanced flaw, and then we put honeycomb plastic grate over them? Am I missing something?

One of BF's most distinctive voices was/is adamant that you can stick a large, black suction cup on the objective, filling more than half the lens, and have it go unnoticed.

 

[has530]

One of BF's most distinctive voices was/is adamant that you can stick a large, black suction cup on the objective, filling more than half the lens, and have it go unnoticed.

Practically all reflecting telescopes operate with an objective obstruction and can achieve remarkable resolution so this is probably near the truth. I feel like my complaint with the grating would be I shouldn't need it if the manufacturer properly controlled stray light from the objective side.

 

[Ted Y.]

Let's see... we pay thousands of dollars (in some cases multiple times) for top-tier glass, obsess over every nuanced flaw, and then we put honeycomb plastic grate over them? Am I missing something?

Maybe the plastic thing is used as ARD, for reducing reflection visible to other observers. Not for the user of binocular
Here is a proffesional one

Anti-Reflective Devices (ARDs)

The Steiner ARDs fit Steiner Military R or Military/Marine binoculars with 30mm and 50mm objective lenses. The ARDs reduce up to 100% of reflection or “glint” with their honeycomb pattern. Shielding against glint or reflection is vitally important during covert operations.Item: 730 (30mm)Item...

www.steiner-optics.com

 

[has530]

Glare, CA, and RB is very dependent on the person using the binocular.

CA is not user dependent unless they don't know how to adjust the IPD/eyecups and decenter their pupil.

 

[John A Roberts]

Hi Ted (post #414),

Exactly so.


As the blurb on the Carson website ( FlashShield™ 32-43mm Clip On Anti Glare Anti Reflective Lens Cover - Carson ) says:

'Carson Optical is the first to come to market with an anti-reflective device to clip to your binoculars.
Say goodbye to sun glare as the sun rises on your early morning hunt.
Gone are the days of the reflection of the sun off your binocular lenses scaring away wildlife.
Carson Optical’s new FlashShield is the solution to these issues.'


It then goes on to claim:

'The functionality of the FlashShield is three-fold:
1) Kill flash function: Blocks reflections off the lenses that may otherwise expose your position to your target.

2) Sunshade function: Helps reduce glare, easier to see objects in bright light conditions.

3) Lens Protection function: Helps keep dust/particles from easily getting directly to lens.
. . . The FlashShields are a must-have piece of gear for the serious hunter.'

- - - -
So in relation to 2), a very short sun shade, and;
in relation to 3), really?

As Bill Cook has repeatedly said: Advertising doesn’t have to be true, just believed.


John

 

[henry link]

"1.0 out of 5 stars (viewing in the general direction of the sun) these ARD's made things worse. The poor performance is due to the walls ...
Reviewed in the United States on October 6, 2017
Verified Purchase
As an anti-glare help, this product is not the right stuff, (viewing in the general direction of the sun) these ARD's made things worse. The poor performance is due to the walls of the honeycomb being glossy like a mirror and turned binoculars in to a kaleidoscope. I have other ARD's with a very flat black honeycomb and there is a difference. IF you wanted to avoid/reduce reflection giving away your position they may work fine. They did fit on my 10x42mm Leupolds."

This Amazon review describes exactly how poorly I imagine these honeycomb devices would be as glare reducers. Even flat black honeycomb elements will most likely act as bright reflective surfaces, capturing non image forming light from from a wide range of off-axis angles and sending it right into the binocular. I don't think I'll be the one to risk $20.

 

[[email protected]]

"1.0 out of 5 stars (viewing in the general direction of the sun) these ARD's made things worse. The poor performance is due to the walls ...
Reviewed in the United States on October 6, 2017
Verified Purchase
As an anti-glare help, this product is not the right stuff, (viewing in the general direction of the sun) these ARD's made things worse. The poor performance is due to the walls of the honeycomb being glossy like a mirror and turned binoculars in to a kaleidoscope. I have other ARD's with a very flat black honeycomb and there is a difference. IF you wanted to avoid/reduce reflection giving away your position they may work fine. They did fit on my 10x42mm Leupolds."

This Amazon review describes exactly how poorly I imagine these honeycomb devices would be as glare reducers. Even flat black honeycomb elements will most likely act as bright reflective surfaces, capturing non image forming light from from a wide range of off-axis angles and sending it right into the binocular. I don't think I'll be the one to risk $20.

There is always somebody on Amazon.com that doesn't like something. You cherry-picked the worst review. Out of 53 reviews, they received a 3.7-star average, which is pretty good, meaning most people liked them. Here are 7 positive reviews. I doubt the flat black surfaces of the honeycomb elements would act as reflective surfaces. There is never a risk with Amazon.com because you can easily return them.

5.0 out of 5 stars Brilliant
Reviewed in Canada on March 30, 2019
Verified Purchase
Simple, good quality and practical and effective.

5.0 out of 5 stars Recommended
Reviewed in the United States on September 27, 2020
Verified Purchase
As a product, "flash kills" are expensive for what they are. These are relatively inexpensive, and the clips give them some versatility. I have these in a pair of binoculars, and they can fit a couple of scopes.

4.0 out of 5 stars Great for the price.
Reviewed in the United States on May 27, 2016
Verified Purchase
Function is great, no glare or flash from the sun. The clamps could be a little stiffer, They hold on just fine, but I have my doubts going through the woods if they get brushed or bumped by a branch they will probably fall off. I would like to see a version of these with maybe a rubberized full ring that would snugly fit over my scope or binoculars. For the little amount of money these cost, I think they are great.

4.0 out of 5 stars Keeps down glare
Reviewed in the United States on October 23, 2019
Verified Purchase
Excellent fit for my SvBONY monocular and Bushnell 8X42 binoculars. Keeps glare down. Uses 2 clips to fasten anti-glare lens to optics.

4.0 out of 5 stars Four Stars
Reviewed in the United States on October 22, 2018
Verified Purchase
Work great on my binoculars.

4.0 out of 5 stars Four Stars
Reviewed in the United States on August 4, 2014
I bought these for my 8x42 binoculars, and they do exactly what they are supposed to do.

4.0 out of 5 stars Four Stars
Reviewed in Canada on March 31, 2017
Verified Purchase
they work great.

 

[John A Roberts]

If you read through the reviews on Amazon, many seem to positively comment on the anti-glint function,
though it's unclear as to whether in-image glare is also being addressed.
While others are just totally unclear as to what in particular is being rated - as with some of Dennis' examples.

- - - -
In contrast:

Looking at several dedicated rifle shooting sites - where the use of sun shades verses ARD's on telescopic sights is discussed -
the basic distinction is made:
• That sun shades stop unwanted solar glare intruding into the FOV, but they need to be much longer than ARD's;
• While ARD's stop glinting off the front face of the objective being seen down range.
So as expected.

Many users also comment on a noticeable loss of image brightness with an ARD (15% being mentioned several times),
and some also mention a loss of detail (resolution).


But there aren't claims that an ARD can do dual use as a sun shade. So there's a notable lack of articles/ posts along the lines of:
'For just 20 bucks, this small add-on can make a $300 scope outperform some $1,000 ones, under the most difficult lighting conditions!'


In addition, there are members of this forum who are also experienced shooters. And at no point in this long thread,
have any put forward the notion of the use of an ARD to lessen in-image glare.


John

 

[[email protected]]

If you read through the reviews on Amazon, many seem to positively comment on the anti-glint function,
though it's unclear as to whether in-image glare is also being addressed.
While others are just totally unclear as to what in particular is being rated (as with some of Dennis' examples).

- - - -
In contrast:

Looking at several dedicated rifle shooting sites - where the use of sun shades verses ARD's on telescopic sights is discussed -
the basic distinction is made:
• That sun shades stop unwanted solar glare intruding into the FOV, but they need to be much longer than ARD's;
• While ARD's stop glinting off the front face of the objective being seen down range.
So as expected.

Many users also comment on a noticeable loss of image brightness with an ARD (15% being mentioned several times),
and some also mention a loss of detail (resolution).


But there aren't claims that an ARD can do dual use as a sun shade. So there's a notable lack of articles/ posts along the lines of:
'For just 20 bucks, this small add-on can make a $300 scope outperform some $1,000 ones, under the most difficult lighting conditions!'


In addition, there are members of this forum who are also experienced shooters. And at no point in this long thread,
have any put forward the notion of the use of an ARD to lessen in-image glare.


John

I don't know, these reviews seem to indicate they work pretty good on binoculars.

Four Stars
By Ben Howard in the United States on October 22, 2018 Work great on my binoculars.

Four Stars
By Len in the United States on August 4, 2014 I bought these for my 8x42 binoculars, and they do exactly what they are supposed to do.

Works just as advertised
By Gonz in the United States on July 20, 2017, Works just as advertised, can't tell when they are on when looking through the binoculars and I tried it with friends telling me they don't see the reflection of me looking at them. They are curved, so you won't be able to set your binoculars standing up with them on if that's how you store them, but I lay them flat now, also the clips are not really strong, and they fall off if you hit something or rub against something, but I glued them to my binoculars with soft silicone and that solved my problem. I mainly use it to check if there are people in a fishing spot I'm going to and to see if the people there are packing up or will be there for long, I got saltwater on them and just rinsed it and doesn't seem to hurt them.