-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Glare Monsters! (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter [email protected]
- Start date
- Status
The only conflicting opinion we had was on the Nikon HG 8x42. One user said he had glare all over the place and another user said he had none. When I had the Nikon HG 8x42, I didn't notice excessive glare so that one is kind of take your chances with it. I will remove it from the glare prone list.
At this point in the thread, let's summarize what to look for in a binocular to avoid glare and list some of the binoculars members have found to be glare resistant and glare prone. We will add to this list as more glare resistant and glare prone binoculars are noted. 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. The Allbinos website can also be helpful in determining if a binocular handles glare well because they test for I/R (Internal Reflection) and a higher number means less reflections, which will probably mean the binocular will have less glare than one with a lower number.
www.allbinos.com
Glare Resistant Binoculars
1) Most Zeiss FL's, especially the 8x56 and 10x56
2) Most Swarovski SLC's, especially the 8x56 and 10x56
3) Most 8x56's (Big EP)
4) Most Leica's (Well Baffled)
5) Most Zeiss SF's 42 mm, especially the 10x42 (SF 32 mm are not as glare resistant)
6) Fujinon HC 8x42
7) Opticron Aurora 8x42
8) Most EDG's especially the 7x42
9) Canon 10x42 IS-L
10) Swarovski Habicht 7x42
11) Meopta Meostar 7x42 SLC
12) Nikon EII 8x30
13) Swarovski Habicht 10x40
14) Leica Noctivid's
15) Most Zeiss Conquest HD's, especially the 8x56 and 10x56
16) Leica Trinovid HD 8x32
17) Steiner HX 8x42.
Glare Prone Binoculars
1) Nikon M7 8x30
2) Swarovski Habicht 8x30
3) Hawk Frontier EDX 8x32
4) Swarovski EL 8x32
5) Kowa 8x25 SVII
6) Swarovski NL's
7) Zeiss 10x42 HT
8) Nikon HG 8x30
Important things that control glare in Binoculars
1) Good Baffling (Leicas are known to be well baffled and blackened inside)
2) WA can be worse than narrower FOV binoculars because of the binocular design
3) Large EP aids glare control because it never reaches your eyes
4) Binocular design failures, especially reflective surfaces in the light path
Binoculars rankings - AllBinos.com
The best binocular tests on the net. The comprehensive database of binoculars with their parameters and users opinions. Interesting articles and comparisons.www.allbinos.com
Glare Resistant Binoculars
1) Most Zeiss FL's, especially the 8x56 and 10x56
2) Most Swarovski SLC's, especially the 8x56 and 10x56
3) Most 8x56's (Big EP)
4) Most Leica's (Well Baffled)
5) Most Zeiss SF's 42 mm, especially the 10x42 (SF 32 mm are not as glare resistant)
6) Fujinon HC 8x42
7) Opticron Aurora 8x42
8) Most EDG's especially the 7x42
9) Canon 10x42 IS-L
10) Swarovski Habicht 7x42
11) Meopta Meostar 7x42 SLC
12) Nikon EII 8x30
13) Swarovski Habicht 10x40
14) Leica Noctivid's
15) Most Zeiss Conquest HD's, especially the 8x56 and 10x56
16) Leica Trinovid HD 8x32
17) Steiner HX 8x42.
Glare Prone Binoculars
1) Nikon M7 8x30
2) Swarovski Habicht 8x30
3) Hawk Frontier EDX 8x32
4) Swarovski EL 8x32
5) Kowa 8x25 SVII
6) Swarovski NL's
7) Zeiss 10x42 HT
8) Nikon HG 8x30
Important things that control glare in Binoculars
1) Good Baffling (Leicas are known to be well baffled and blackened inside)
2) WA can be worse than narrower FOV binoculars because of the binocular design
3) Large EP aids glare control because it never reaches your eyes
4) Binocular design failures, especially reflective surfaces in the light path
Glare Monster
1) Denco
Some Binos that Denco thinks aren't too bad
1) Most Zeiss FL's, especially the 8x56 and 10x56
2) Most Swarovski SLC's, especially the 8x56 and 10x56
3) Most 8x56's (Big EP)
4) Most Leica's (Well Baffled)
5) Most Zeiss SF's 42 mm, especially the 10x42 (SF 32 mm are not as glare resistant)
6) Fujinon HC 8x42
7) Opticron Aurora 8x42
8) Most EDG's especially the 7x42
9) Canon 10x42 IS-L
10) Swarovski Habicht 7x42
11) Meopta Meostar 7x42 SLC
12) Nikon EII 8x30
13) Swarovski Habicht 10x40
14) Leica Noctivid's
15) Most Zeiss Conquest HD's, especially the 8x56 and 10x56
16) Leica Trinovid HD 8x32
17) Steiner HX 8x42.
Denco’s personal favorite glare producing bino list
1) Nikon M7 8x30
2) Swarovski Habicht 8x30
3) Hawk Frontier EDX 8x32
4) Swarovski EL 8x32
5) Kowa 8x25 SVII
6) Swarovski NL's
7) Zeiss 10x42 HT
8) Nikon HG 8x30
9) Nikon HG 8x42
1) Denco
Some Binos that Denco thinks aren't too bad
1) Most Zeiss FL's, especially the 8x56 and 10x56
2) Most Swarovski SLC's, especially the 8x56 and 10x56
3) Most 8x56's (Big EP)
4) Most Leica's (Well Baffled)
5) Most Zeiss SF's 42 mm, especially the 10x42 (SF 32 mm are not as glare resistant)
6) Fujinon HC 8x42
7) Opticron Aurora 8x42
8) Most EDG's especially the 7x42
9) Canon 10x42 IS-L
10) Swarovski Habicht 7x42
11) Meopta Meostar 7x42 SLC
12) Nikon EII 8x30
13) Swarovski Habicht 10x40
14) Leica Noctivid's
15) Most Zeiss Conquest HD's, especially the 8x56 and 10x56
16) Leica Trinovid HD 8x32
17) Steiner HX 8x42.
Denco’s personal favorite glare producing bino list
1) Nikon M7 8x30
2) Swarovski Habicht 8x30
3) Hawk Frontier EDX 8x32
4) Swarovski EL 8x32
5) Kowa 8x25 SVII
6) Swarovski NL's
7) Zeiss 10x42 HT
8) Nikon HG 8x30
9) Nikon HG 8x42
You don't agree with the list because your Swarovski NL is on the glare prone list. I saw glare on the NL's and many other people did also, including Holger Merlitz. Holger saw exactly the same type of glare that I did, and in fact he didn't even recommend upgrading from the EL to the NL because the NL has the same glare problems, and I fully agree.
"Stray light: The tendency to develop stray-light in some situations remains the only considerable weakness in both binoculars. In difficult light conditions, bright spots are emerging around the edges of the exit pupils, which tend to create partial whiteouts (in most cases a crescent-shaped glare in the lower half of the field) when the eye-pupils accidentally get in contact with them. A careful setting of eye cup positions and a certain discipline in the way and angle at which the instrument is held in front of the eyes go a long way to avoid these whiteouts in the vast majority of situations. Observer's reports vary wildly about the severeness of the glare, ranging from 'irrelevant' to 'irritating'. Fact is that there exist binoculars (including the Zeiss 8x32 SF) with a superior resistance against stray light."
"Who already owns the EL WB would hardly gain from an upgrade to the NL Pure, since both are virtually playing in the same league. The stray light issue which has occasionally been reported to plague the EL WB has not been resolved with its successor, and this is going to remain a matter of dispute whenever the NL Pure's merits are discussed."
"To me, the NL Pure appears perfect, with the only exception being its occasionally erratic stray light behavior."
Notice how much bigger the zones of g;are are on the NL's versus some good porro's. Even the Canon 10x2 IS-L is better with glare than the NL.
(Swarovski NL Pure 12x42, your experience? - Page 2 - Binoculars - Cloudy Nights)
Last edited:
Paultricounty
Well-known member
I think you need to post this factual , objective information every time that the subjective useless OP updates his subjective list. At least until the thread is shut down, god willing.
So Dennis,
You have twice now accused me of Swarofanboyism, while ignoring my writing, that can be found here at Birdforum in several places, as well as above. I do own NL Pure 832s. I shopped for over a year trying them out 6 different times, in 3 different optics shops against SF832s, my own EL 1042s, SFL 840s… I read every review I could find here to include Holger’s back when he wrote it. You have chosen to ignore my admission that I saw glare in my NLs when I first used them That was the first time I’d ever seen glare in any binocular. And you should've read what I did about it, to include a conversation with Swaro, that advised I go use them as I normally bird, ignore BF writings (you especially), and see what I see. I did that not for the suggested 4 weeks, but for 4 months, then 8. The point you miss is glare is for me a non issue. It's that “for me” thing, my experience, what I did, you refuse to weight/value. And its that ‘for me” thing that is the point, not the brand model of bino that I reported. Ill come back to this.
Ironically Holger’s words from a couple years back, (you've posted here, twice now, but don't seem to understand what he wrote), were in fact one of my inspirations. I believe you are interpreting his writing incorrectly. The final summary sentence says it all, "To me, the NL Pure appears perfect, with the only exception being its occasionally erratic stray light behavior.”
Perfect. Not almost. Perfect. Whew! Occasionally erratic stray light. Occasionally erratic.
Thats exactly my experience. I was birding with these and my Opticron MM4 yesterday. You can read about it in the thread “what did you see in your binoculars today” The NLs were perfect. The day was gorgeous. The migration has started. The light was as good as it gets. Glare? What glare? Never saw any. Point? Ive learned how to use them.
Dennis, I cant tell from your writing if you ever bird. You seem to spend your time buying, selling and writing about binoculars. You returned from banishment last year, posting Swarovski NLs were the best birding binoculars one could buy and went on for awhile with that sentiment. Until of course you sold them and moved onto… Next! Let's see now its 8x56 something or others.
The fact that I own NL832s is purely a coincidence having made that decision via a very different set of priorities than this. It'd be tricky to write about the shopping, buying, then using without naming them, so I did. The point is I - the human being in this equation - learned how to make them work. I did not look, see glare and go these belong on Dennis’ hit list. I did not put them up for sale on BF’s classifieds page. I went birding where I do, played with eyecups, IPD and MOST IMPORTANTLY my own style of mounting and holding. They are different from my 35 year old Zeiss 1040Bs, my Zeiss VP825s and last but not least my EL 1042s. Adjusting my style to the NL, made no difference to these 3. I have explained this. You obviously missed it, discredited or ignored. But enough of me defending me as an owner of one of your favorite punching bags.
Let me help you with your project. Speaking plainly, its problematic, seriously so. Here’s why. Glare has 3 potential sources.
1. the binocular
2. the human operator
3. mother nature
Your list puts the binocular center stage, makes it THE culprit, discounts/ignores the human using and the natural weather/light conditions.
You claim the list is credible as it is comprised of input from BF members, or “others" as if that had some standing. Who are these people? What are their qualifications to say what they say? How well trained are they using a bino. Did they do what I did to learn to make their sample work? Do they understand the role of weather/light? Heck, do they actually know what glare is? No glare is not what happens when the sun is behind the target and the thing is blacked out from backlighting. Do folks know this? The answer to all those questions is??? We and you do not know!
If the experience of glare is dependent on all 3 - the bino, the human, the environmental conditions in some unknown, unspecified measure, what good does a list essentially condemning the listed binos to the categories YOU decide, while ignoring the other 2 do?
What might've happened had this list been around to accompany the cacophony of glare stuff you constantly post here, and then Canip, Roger, Holger, Chuck, even Tobias, (for cryin out loud), Gils, Jan, John (I believe) wrote negative reviews? WHICH THEY DID NOT. Would I have shopped the NLs that hard? Probably not. But those folks wrote positive reviews. Very positive reviews. Curiously several discussed glare. Let me repeat - discussed glare. None reported it as an issue. Those that reported, inferred they felt compelled, (as i read them), do to the presence of publicity here, and they had to comment. You've ignored this, these, while misinterpreting Dr. Merlitz. I thank goodness, I ignored your writing, studied specs, read these folks reviews, went shopping and made my choice. I mighta missed out on a very nice thing.
Why might I and a few others of us be as concerned with you about this to the degree we obviously are? I at least fear it provides a disservice to the unsuspecting visitor coming to BF looking for advice (as folks do virtually every day) on what bino to buy. It promotes glare in a bino, ignores the other conditions, misrepresents the possible experience they might have if they didn't know better, just went and tried. And what about the disservice to the makers of the 25 or so brands that come here, who have their products maligned by this purely subjective, un qualified panel you fail to either qualify or identify?
But you've read all this... So I have to ask.
Are you a BOT?
You have twice now accused me of Swarofanboyism, while ignoring my writing, that can be found here at Birdforum in several places, as well as above. I do own NL Pure 832s. I shopped for over a year trying them out 6 different times, in 3 different optics shops against SF832s, my own EL 1042s, SFL 840s… I read every review I could find here to include Holger’s back when he wrote it. You have chosen to ignore my admission that I saw glare in my NLs when I first used them That was the first time I’d ever seen glare in any binocular. And you should've read what I did about it, to include a conversation with Swaro, that advised I go use them as I normally bird, ignore BF writings (you especially), and see what I see. I did that not for the suggested 4 weeks, but for 4 months, then 8. The point you miss is glare is for me a non issue. It's that “for me” thing, my experience, what I did, you refuse to weight/value. And its that ‘for me” thing that is the point, not the brand model of bino that I reported. Ill come back to this.
Ironically Holger’s words from a couple years back, (you've posted here, twice now, but don't seem to understand what he wrote), were in fact one of my inspirations. I believe you are interpreting his writing incorrectly. The final summary sentence says it all, "To me, the NL Pure appears perfect, with the only exception being its occasionally erratic stray light behavior.”
Perfect. Not almost. Perfect. Whew! Occasionally erratic stray light. Occasionally erratic.
Thats exactly my experience. I was birding with these and my Opticron MM4 yesterday. You can read about it in the thread “what did you see in your binoculars today” The NLs were perfect. The day was gorgeous. The migration has started. The light was as good as it gets. Glare? What glare? Never saw any. Point? Ive learned how to use them.
Dennis, I cant tell from your writing if you ever bird. You seem to spend your time buying, selling and writing about binoculars. You returned from banishment last year, posting Swarovski NLs were the best birding binoculars one could buy and went on for awhile with that sentiment. Until of course you sold them and moved onto… Next! Let's see now its 8x56 something or others.
The fact that I own NL832s is purely a coincidence having made that decision via a very different set of priorities than this. It'd be tricky to write about the shopping, buying, then using without naming them, so I did. The point is I - the human being in this equation - learned how to make them work. I did not look, see glare and go these belong on Dennis’ hit list. I did not put them up for sale on BF’s classifieds page. I went birding where I do, played with eyecups, IPD and MOST IMPORTANTLY my own style of mounting and holding. They are different from my 35 year old Zeiss 1040Bs, my Zeiss VP825s and last but not least my EL 1042s. Adjusting my style to the NL, made no difference to these 3. I have explained this. You obviously missed it, discredited or ignored. But enough of me defending me as an owner of one of your favorite punching bags.
Let me help you with your project. Speaking plainly, its problematic, seriously so. Here’s why. Glare has 3 potential sources.
1. the binocular
2. the human operator
3. mother nature
Your list puts the binocular center stage, makes it THE culprit, discounts/ignores the human using and the natural weather/light conditions.
You claim the list is credible as it is comprised of input from BF members, or “others" as if that had some standing. Who are these people? What are their qualifications to say what they say? How well trained are they using a bino. Did they do what I did to learn to make their sample work? Do they understand the role of weather/light? Heck, do they actually know what glare is? No glare is not what happens when the sun is behind the target and the thing is blacked out from backlighting. Do folks know this? The answer to all those questions is??? We and you do not know!
If the experience of glare is dependent on all 3 - the bino, the human, the environmental conditions in some unknown, unspecified measure, what good does a list essentially condemning the listed binos to the categories YOU decide, while ignoring the other 2 do?
What might've happened had this list been around to accompany the cacophony of glare stuff you constantly post here, and then Canip, Roger, Holger, Chuck, even Tobias, (for cryin out loud), Gils, Jan, John (I believe) wrote negative reviews? WHICH THEY DID NOT. Would I have shopped the NLs that hard? Probably not. But those folks wrote positive reviews. Very positive reviews. Curiously several discussed glare. Let me repeat - discussed glare. None reported it as an issue. Those that reported, inferred they felt compelled, (as i read them), do to the presence of publicity here, and they had to comment. You've ignored this, these, while misinterpreting Dr. Merlitz. I thank goodness, I ignored your writing, studied specs, read these folks reviews, went shopping and made my choice. I mighta missed out on a very nice thing.
Why might I and a few others of us be as concerned with you about this to the degree we obviously are? I at least fear it provides a disservice to the unsuspecting visitor coming to BF looking for advice (as folks do virtually every day) on what bino to buy. It promotes glare in a bino, ignores the other conditions, misrepresents the possible experience they might have if they didn't know better, just went and tried. And what about the disservice to the makers of the 25 or so brands that come here, who have their products maligned by this purely subjective, un qualified panel you fail to either qualify or identify?
But you've read all this... So I have to ask.
Are you a BOT?
Last edited:
I will put aside the behavior of some people posting in this thread, it is not the subject of this post.
About 8x32 NL Pure (Review: Swarovski 8x32 NL Pure vs. 8x32 EL WB)
I do not understand objections against the fact some people observe glare.
Two years ago, the alpha models where generally presented as ideal, the perfection, etc. Now, some week links are presented and the persons stating them are treated without respect (in my opinion):
My understanding is: I applaud an alpha binocular, good, I dare mentioning a week spot, bad.
Yes, in some situation glare appears because a misfit betwen the binocular and the user, or some light positionement. This cannot be considered as binocular's fault, in my opinion.
I do not like the idea of lists, but here we are, after a lot of posts where no one objected. Except timid warnings we must understand what glare is, etc. Rightful warnings.
I have a question for GrampaTom, no need to answer:
How you contribute to the "education" of readers who lack "qualifications", "trainig", etc?
Not because you have an obligation, but because of threads like this.
About 8x32 NL Pure (Review: Swarovski 8x32 NL Pure vs. 8x32 EL WB)
I do not understand objections against the fact some people observe glare.
Two years ago, the alpha models where generally presented as ideal, the perfection, etc. Now, some week links are presented and the persons stating them are treated without respect (in my opinion):
The answers to these questions are irrelevant. We are what we are: consumers. If I observe glare, I observe glare, why my qualifications are important? It is a binocular, not a space shuttle, right? Are the websites of manufacturers explaining about how the sample work, weather, light, what glare is? Is the vendor offering brochures about it? And where in this thread are this elements clearly explained?
My understanding is: I applaud an alpha binocular, good, I dare mentioning a week spot, bad.
Yes, in some situation glare appears because a misfit betwen the binocular and the user, or some light positionement. This cannot be considered as binocular's fault, in my opinion.
I do not like the idea of lists, but here we are, after a lot of posts where no one objected. Except timid warnings we must understand what glare is, etc. Rightful warnings.
Keep it to facts, please, you too. You can read people wrong. What are your qualifications for reading people?
Really? Since when mentioning a week spot is disservice? Since when "disservice" is a sin?
I have a question for GrampaTom, no need to answer:
How you contribute to the "education" of readers who lack "qualifications", "trainig", etc?
Not because you have an obligation, but because of threads like this.
Last edited:
No, sorry, but I tried all three NL models and I had glare in the bottom of the FOV just as Holger Merlitz described in his review. The glare would come when I would change the angle of the binocular relative to horizontal, and it would be apparent in the lower part of the FOV. It irritated me enough to get rid of them and try another binocular. The glare was the deal killer for me.
I am not saying everybody will see glare in the Nl and you could be one of the lucky ones that sees no glare, or it doesn't bother you. Glare bothers some people more than others, just like CA does. Some people see glare in the NL, and it is a non-issue, but it certainly bothered me.
What I didn't like about the glare in the NL is it was unpredictable, and it didn't depend on how much sun was out. I had glare even on a cloudy day. The NL didn't work for me and Holger saw the same glare, so that is the reason they are on the glare prone list and in this poll on glare in the NL's almost a 1/3 of the birders had glare problems with the NL.
www.birdforum.net
I am not saying everybody will see glare in the Nl and you could be one of the lucky ones that sees no glare, or it doesn't bother you. Glare bothers some people more than others, just like CA does. Some people see glare in the NL, and it is a non-issue, but it certainly bothered me.
What I didn't like about the glare in the NL is it was unpredictable, and it didn't depend on how much sun was out. I had glare even on a cloudy day. The NL didn't work for me and Holger saw the same glare, so that is the reason they are on the glare prone list and in this poll on glare in the NL's almost a 1/3 of the birders had glare problems with the NL.
Poll: does NL glare depend on eyeglasses?
Well, it was a rather small sample (32), and other limitations of such a poll have been justly pointed out, although I see no reason to expect extraneous factors (weather, use habits, etc) to correlate much with wearing specs or not. Its not so much a question of correlation. If a substantial...
www.birdforum.net
Last edited:
Dennis, why are we now again discussing glare in NLs? I am trying to discuss the validity or non validity of your idea to create a directory of glare producing binoculars of many makes and models. I’m only speaking of my NL because that’s what I have experience with. I’m using it as an example to point out the problems that exist with your list, the validity of the unnamed, qualification unknown, contributors and the absence of the relationship to the human and natural issues that contribute to glare. Now this?
I think Dr. Holger Merlitz is qualified to make a judgement on glare, and that is why the NL is on the glare prone lists. The rest of the binoculars have qualified observers that said they were glare resistant or glare prone, and that is why they are on the list.
I agree with every binocular that is on the list that I have used, and I am qualified to make a judgement on glare. There is no scientific way to say for sure if a binocular is going to be glare resistant or glare prone for everybody, so you have to use people's judgements. It is the best way to judge glare, and it has to be subjective. You can use Allbinos objective IR measurements for glare, but they are not as accurate.
You are trying to make it too complicated. Read Ted's post 268 above. He points out your arguments trying to prove the list is pointless motivated by the fact your NL is on the glare prone list are all invalid. I didn't say the list was 100% accurate. It is just a guide to help pick a glare resistant binocular based on other peoples experience with that binocular.
At this point in the thread, let's summarize what to look for in a binocular to avoid glare and list some of the binoculars members have found to be glare resistant and glare prone. We will add to this list as more glare resistant and glare prone binoculars are noted. 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. The Allbinos website can also be helpful in determining if a binocular handles glare well because they test for I/R (Internal Reflection) and a higher number means less reflections, which will probably mean the binocular will have less glare than one with a lower number.
www.allbinos.com
Glare Resistant Binoculars
1) Most Zeiss FL's, especially the 8x56 and 10x56
2) Most Swarovski SLC's, especially the 8x56 and 10x56
3) Most 8x56's (Big EP)
4) Most Leica's (Well Baffled)
5) Most Zeiss SF's 42 mm, especially the 10x42 (SF 32 mm are not as glare resistant)
6) Fujinon HC 8x42
7) Opticron Aurora 8x42
8) Most EDG's especially the 7x42
9) Canon 10x42 IS-L
10) Swarovski Habicht 7x42
11) Meopta Meostar 7x42 SLC
12) Nikon EII 8x30
13) Swarovski Habicht 10x40
14) Leica Noctivid's
15) Most Zeiss Conquest HD's, especially the 8x56 and 10x56
16) Leica Trinovid HD 8x32
17) Steiner HX 8x42.
Glare Prone Binoculars
1) Nikon M7 8x30
2) Swarovski Habicht 8x30
3) Hawk Frontier EDX 8x32
4) Swarovski EL 8x32
5) Kowa 8x25 SVII
6) Swarovski NL's
7) Zeiss 10x42 HT
8) Nikon HG 8x30
Important things that control glare in Binoculars
1) Good Baffling (Leicas are known to be well baffled and blackened inside)
2) WA can be worse than narrower FOV binoculars because of the binocular design
3) Large EP aids glare control because it never reaches your eyes
4) Binocular design failures, especially reflective surfaces in the light path
Binoculars rankings - AllBinos.com
The best binocular tests on the net. The comprehensive database of binoculars with their parameters and users opinions. Interesting articles and comparisons.www.allbinos.com
Glare Resistant Binoculars
1) Most Zeiss FL's, especially the 8x56 and 10x56
2) Most Swarovski SLC's, especially the 8x56 and 10x56
3) Most 8x56's (Big EP)
4) Most Leica's (Well Baffled)
5) Most Zeiss SF's 42 mm, especially the 10x42 (SF 32 mm are not as glare resistant)
6) Fujinon HC 8x42
7) Opticron Aurora 8x42
8) Most EDG's especially the 7x42
9) Canon 10x42 IS-L
10) Swarovski Habicht 7x42
11) Meopta Meostar 7x42 SLC
12) Nikon EII 8x30
13) Swarovski Habicht 10x40
14) Leica Noctivid's
15) Most Zeiss Conquest HD's, especially the 8x56 and 10x56
16) Leica Trinovid HD 8x32
17) Steiner HX 8x42.
Glare Prone Binoculars
1) Nikon M7 8x30
2) Swarovski Habicht 8x30
3) Hawk Frontier EDX 8x32
4) Swarovski EL 8x32
5) Kowa 8x25 SVII
6) Swarovski NL's
7) Zeiss 10x42 HT
8) Nikon HG 8x30
Important things that control glare in Binoculars
1) Good Baffling (Leicas are known to be well baffled and blackened inside)
2) WA can be worse than narrower FOV binoculars because of the binocular design
3) Large EP aids glare control because it never reaches your eyes
4) Binocular design failures, especially reflective surfaces in the light path
Paultricounty
Well-known member
Insufferable.
But you are leaving out one of the three considerations that Tom had pointed out, the individual themselves, their eyesight. As far as I’m concerned from reading your posts about glare for the last two years, it is clear to me that much of your glare issues, is your eyesight, imo.
Not everybody sees glare and on the contrary most people don’t see more glare in the NL’s ( give or take) than other high quality binos. We’re not the lucky ones, in this case were the majority and your the outlier category.
Why is it that if you and one of the reviewers, and a few other people say they see glare in NL’s, does it suddenly become a glare monster?
Enough with the links already, I could probably post a link about why some people have more glare issues with their eyes, every hour for the next week.Poll: does NL glare depend on eyeglasses?
Well, it was a rather small sample (32), and other limitations of such a poll have been justly pointed out, although I see no reason to expect extraneous factors (weather, use habits, etc) to correlate much with wearing specs or not. Its not so much a question of correlation. If a substantial...
Paultricounty
Well-known member
Actually you’re complicating it , and I think you’re doing a disservice to new members that come to the site looking for information. You’re posting opinions of Binoculars, or issues of those binoculars that will not be present in 90% + of the people who try them. To me that is a disservice.
Glare Monster
1) Denco
Some Binos that Denco thinks aren't too bad
1) Most Zeiss FL's, especially the 8x56 and 10x56
2) Most Swarovski SLC's, especially the 8x56 and 10x56
3) Most 8x56's (Big EP)
4) Most Leica's (Well Baffled)
5) Most Zeiss SF's 42 mm, especially the 10x42 (SF 32 mm are not as glare resistant)
6) Fujinon HC 8x42
7) Opticron Aurora 8x42
8) Most EDG's especially the 7x42
9) Canon 10x42 IS-L
10) Swarovski Habicht 7x42
11) Meopta Meostar 7x42 SLC
12) Nikon EII 8x30
13) Swarovski Habicht 10x40
14) Leica Noctivid's
15) Most Zeiss Conquest HD's, especially the 8x56 and 10x56
16) Leica Trinovid HD 8x32
17) Steiner HX 8x42.
Denco’s personal favorite glare producing bino list
1) Nikon M7 8x30
2) Swarovski Habicht 8x30
3) Hawk Frontier EDX 8x32
4) Swarovski EL 8x32
5) Kowa 8x25 SVII
6) Swarovski NL's
7) Zeiss 10x42 HT
8) Nikon HG 8x30
9) Nikon HG 8x42
1) Denco
Some Binos that Denco thinks aren't too bad
1) Most Zeiss FL's, especially the 8x56 and 10x56
2) Most Swarovski SLC's, especially the 8x56 and 10x56
3) Most 8x56's (Big EP)
4) Most Leica's (Well Baffled)
5) Most Zeiss SF's 42 mm, especially the 10x42 (SF 32 mm are not as glare resistant)
6) Fujinon HC 8x42
7) Opticron Aurora 8x42
8) Most EDG's especially the 7x42
9) Canon 10x42 IS-L
10) Swarovski Habicht 7x42
11) Meopta Meostar 7x42 SLC
12) Nikon EII 8x30
13) Swarovski Habicht 10x40
14) Leica Noctivid's
15) Most Zeiss Conquest HD's, especially the 8x56 and 10x56
16) Leica Trinovid HD 8x32
17) Steiner HX 8x42.
Denco’s personal favorite glare producing bino list
1) Nikon M7 8x30
2) Swarovski Habicht 8x30
3) Hawk Frontier EDX 8x32
4) Swarovski EL 8x32
5) Kowa 8x25 SVII
6) Swarovski NL's
7) Zeiss 10x42 HT
8) Nikon HG 8x30
9) Nikon HG 8x42
CharleyBird
Well-known member
Please post the link. Thank you.
A2GG
Beth
I would add Swarovski CL 8x30 in this list. I think glare is comparable to the Nikon HG 8x30 IMO. I've owned both.
You don't have to be psychologist to see that most everything that Denco writes about is self serving , took me a year to figure that out . I am far from an expert at evaluating optics but I do know a good binocular when I see one . When I offer advice I usually say it's my opinion , your mileage may vary . Saying that yourself and another individual are the only ones on the forum with technical expertise is a pretty bold statement and this statement tends to ruffle feathers .Keep it to facts, please, you too. You can read people wrong. What are your qualifications for reading people?
I miss Bill , one of our true experts . I also miss Professor EdZ from CN . EdZ was one of the very few that actually did very extensive unbiased testing with all the bins he evaluated .
- Status
