Glare Monsters! (2 Viewers)

[seawatcher]

Remember, even though a binocular is on the Glare Resistant or Glare Prone list does not mean it will be 100% glare resistant or glare prone for you.

And as the presence or absence of glare is a personal thing, (you may or may not see it), and as there is some variation in individual binoculars of the same model, I wonder how pointless and misleading this list actually is? Is the source Allbinos? Allbinos and your own opinions? Opinions trawled from BF threads? Not very scientific either way.

As they feature on the list (no. 3 in the glare free list) then my £50 chinese 8x56 non-badged binocs must be among the best of the bunch.

The problem with lists like this is that newbies and others who know little, if anything, about binoculars use them to make purchases, and may regret their purchase based upon what they read. I fell into that trap 10 years ago, and won't be fooled again.

439 posts on glare, really? I use what I own and like, and don't look for glare / CA / RB / UFOs or anything else other than birds.

 

[[email protected]]

I like 10 power, I like lightweight, I like Swarovski, I like NL pure <> I don't like glare.

So the balance is to the left and I have accepted the glare. It only bothers me occasionally. Besides, I don't like selling binoculars (always losing some money and regret will overtake me.)

Why accept glare on a $3K binocular? You shouldn't have to accept it, and you shouldn't have to adjust the eye cups with 1mm to try to eliminate it. The NL's are very difficult for eye placement also, and they shouldn't be with a 42mm aperture. You should get perfection or near perfection when you pay that much for a binocular, and that is what the SF 8x42 or even the SFL 8x40 gives you. I like Swarovski's also. I have an SLC 8x56 because I think it is the best 8x56. But Swarovski failed on the NL as far as glare is concerned.

The SFL 8x40 has MUCH easier eye placement than the NL as described in the review below. The Swarovski EL had noticeable glare and Swarovski had a chance to get rid of it when they designed the SWA NL, but IMO they failed. The NL has more glare than the EL did. On the contrary, Zeiss succeeded in making a SWA binocular with the SF without glare problems and a WA binocular in the SFL without glare problems.

Zeiss SFL Review | 10x30 & 10x40 Best Ultralight Binoculars

When we first considered putting together this Zeiss SFL review, we didn't really know what to expect. Zeiss Optics has made top notch binoculars, spotting

backwoodspursuit.com

"As mentioned above, the Zeiss SFL is far more forgiving in the eye box, which makes them much more pleasant and less finicky to use. However, to my amazement, I found that the Zeiss 10×30 SFL outperformed the Swarovski NL Pure 10×32 in low light. I was utterly blown away by, as this was completely unexpected. Pair that with the smaller size and lighter weight (22.8 oz vs. 16.2 oz) and it is an accomplishment. Now, I say this as a HUGE fan of the NL Pure, so I didn’t come to that conclusion lightly."

 

[[email protected]]

And as the presence or absence of glare is a personal thing, (you may or may not see it), and as there is some variation in individual binoculars of the same model, I wonder how pointless and misleading this list actually is? Is the source Allbinos? Allbinos and your own opinions? Opinions trawled from BF threads? Not very scientific either way. Although as they feature on the list (no. 3 in the glare free list) then my £50 chinese 8x56 non-badged binocs must be among the best of the bunch.

The problem with lists like this is that newbies and others who know little, if anything, about binoculars use them to make purchases, and may regret their purchase based upon what they read. I fell into that trap 10 years ago, and won't be fooled again.

439 posts on glare, really? I use what i own and like, and don't look for glare / CA / RB / UFOs or anything else other than birds.

I agree that glare can vary from person to person, but it is still helpful to benefit from others experiences. Allbinos or this glare list is not intended to be a substitute for trying out the binoculars yourself, but just an aid to point you in the right direction.

Just because a binocular is on the glare prone list doesn't necessarily mean you you will experience glare with it, but the odds are higher that you will. My experience has shown that many people experience glare with the same model binocular time and time again, although a few may not. For example, Holger Merlitz, Binomania and I all saw the same type of glare in the Swarovski NL, so chances are you will too.

I don't LOOK for glare either, but when it appears it makes it difficult to see the birds. Glare is very important in choosing and using binoculars, and that is why there are 439 posts on it.

 

[henry link]

So turn the eyecup just one step in, what I normally would do? And let the eyecups rest on my eyebrows when needed?
I have the NL 10x32 and get some glare. I get kidney beaning when I turn the eyecups one step in. So maybe let it rest on my eyebrows ore use o-rings?
What adjustment did you actually do? It seems link the perfect postion is between two positions.

Here's a post describing my own discovery of a glare free length for the eyecups, which for me is a little in from the first step down from fully extended.

Swarovski NL 8x42 - First Impressions

Dennis, post 796, I measured a close focus of 1,86 m for the 8x42 NL pure and 1,84 m for the Zeiss Victory SF. The FOV is 159m/1000m for the NL pure 8x42 and 155m/1000m for the SF 8x32. The blue ring around the field edge of the SF 8x32 is very thin, but it is there and I also saw it in the...

www.birdforum.net

Initially I used the Field Optics Research eye shields that I normally use as spacers to hold the position, but about a year ago I tweaked the arrangement slightly by adding a pair of narrow 0-rings I found in a drawer between the eyeshields and the binocular body. That closed the gap between the winged eyeshields and the eyecup rims and removed the very last small vestige of glare. The binocular is now what I would call completely glare free for me against any light source coming from any angle including when the sun is really too close for safety. I much prefer that solution to buying a different binocular I don't like as well.

 

[Stanbo]

Denco,

I think you should be very careful before setting up lists of what binoculars other people should or should not buy because you have a problem with a certain binocular peculiarity. I know from your multitude of posts that you seem to find fault with most of your purchases often after praising them as the best.

There are many people who use the forum to find some advice on binoculars, often for the first time. If they read about a Monster Glare problem with a particular binocular, they will probably look elsewhere and miss out on what would have suited there requirements and budget.

To give you an example. While I only use IS binoculars, my wife has a Nikon M7 which she enjoys using, despite having access to number of Nikon SE's and EDG's. So I borrowed it to test for the Nikon M7 Monster Glare that appears in your list.

It was done on a bright afternoon with the sun at about 15 to 20 degrees. No matter how I tried I could not induce flare and my wife couldn't either. Further more, I have used it in the past and have never seen any glare. So for me and my wife, the Nikon M7 is not a Glare Monster but a rather nice budget lightweight binocular.

I just hope the sensible forum members will not start adding to this list or listing other problem binoculars as Denco has done.

Stan

 

[Jos Stratford]

Close to 450 posts generating more arguments amongst the posters than it's worth, many of which have been deleted, the views on either side have been amply expressed and debated.

This thread has run its course and is now closed.