Glare Monsters! (1 Viewer)

[Paultricounty]

See the paragraph and accompanying photo in this post on the subject of glare in the 8x40 SFL.

Zeiss 8x40 SFL: A Few Tests

I recently had the opportunity to do a few quick tests of a local dealer's newly arrived Zeiss 8x40 SFL. Here are the results. Distortion: I brought along my usual target of small circles to test for angular magnification distortion as well as a grid pattern I view backwards through the...

www.birdforum.net

Just like the 8x42 NL, the 8x40 SFL's glare can be mostly eliminated by adjusting the eyecup, but if the eyecup is set too long glare will be visible. Perhaps you just haven't noticed that yet


What I said was:

"reasonable sized hoods are essentially worthless for close angle light sources of less than about 40º off-axis, where much of the glare in the NLs comes from. Notice that the shadow of the hood in the Binomania photo is coming from about 60º off-axis and it still barely reaches the edge of the objective lens cell where the glare causing reflection originates. I estimated that it would require a 150mm hood to block the glare from a light source 20º-30º off-axis."

There's no theory involved, just some simple geometry and experiments with different length hoods and light sources coming from off-axis angles between about 10º to about 70º. Even you could do it.

No more of this for me.

Now I fully understand why you stayed out of it for over 300 posts. It’s like one huge rabbit hole with a bot, it’s like a dialogue in one direction , and only one direction.

 

[[email protected]]

See the paragraph and accompanying photo in this post on the subject of glare in the 8x40 SFL.

Zeiss 8x40 SFL: A Few Tests

I recently had the opportunity to do a few quick tests of a local dealer's newly arrived Zeiss 8x40 SFL. Here are the results. Distortion: I brought along my usual target of small circles to test for angular magnification distortion as well as a grid pattern I view backwards through the...

www.birdforum.net

Just like the 8x42 NL, the 8x40 SFL's glare can be mostly eliminated by adjusting the eyecup, but if the eyecup is set too long glare will be visible. I'd say the eyecup position is less critical in the SFL, but it works the same way. Perhaps you just haven't noticed that yet


What I said was:

"reasonable sized hoods are essentially worthless for close angle light sources of less than about 40º off-axis, where much of the glare in the NLs comes from. Notice that the shadow of the hood in the Binomania photo is coming from about 60º off-axis and it still barely reaches the edge of the objective lens cell where the glare causing reflection originates. I estimated that it would require a 150mm hood to block the glare from a light source 20º-30º off-axis."

There's no theory involved, just some simple geometry and experiments with different length hoods and light sources coming from off-axis angles between about 10º to about 70º. Even you could do it.

No more of this for me.

I believe your geometry, but why is Binomania saying they eliminated all the glare in the NL with a lens hood. I have the eye cups adjusted all the way out on the SFL and I can adjust them slightly in with no glare problems. Your correct that eye cup adjustment is much less critical in the SFL. Next to my SLC 8x56, the SFL 8x40 are one of the most glare resistant binoculars I have used. From Binomania.

"With a simple use of two slightly wide neoprene tapes (which I use to secure the tripod) I have prepared two handcrafted lens hoods and I can finally confirm that the "glare" problem can be easily solved. For the sake of precision, I contacted Marco Franceschetti – moderator of the Binomania Forum and great binoculars enthusiast – who tried to place a handmade lens hood created with scotch tape in front of the lenses of his NL PURE 8×42. Even in this case, the disappearance of the problem was highlighted."

L'effetto abbagliamento nello Swarovski NL PURE? Ecco come risolverlo -

Dopo mesi dal test sul campo dello Swarovski NL PURE ho avuto il piacere, grazie alla disponibilità di un lettore di Binomania, di verificare la presenza dell'abbagliamento. E' possibile risolvere il problema molto facilmente, ma perché in Austria non ci hanno ancora pensato?

www.binomania.it

 

[Ted Y.]

Now I fully understand why you stayed out of it for over 300 posts. It’s like one huge rabbit hole with a bot, it’s like a dialogue in one direction , and only one direction.

I think you are right.
But again, if the knowledgeable people stay out, one direction and same direction will be.

 

[Ted Y.]

I believe your geometry but explain to me why Binomania is saying they eliminated all the glare in the NL with a lens hood.

This is inutile and provocative. It has the appearance of a continuous harassment of some other members.

Here is a hypothesis about your "explain":
Maybe because the experiences are not comparable? And it is normal to have different results.
Or maybe because they are different human beings with different points of view? And again, it is normal to have different results.
Not all people live or must live in your world.

 

[henry link]

I believe your geometry, but why is Binomania saying they eliminated all the glare in the NL with a lens hood. I have the eye cups adjusted all the way out on the SFL and I can adjust them slightly in with no glare problems. Your correct that eye cup adjustment is much less critical in the SFL. Next to my SLC 8x56, the SFL 8x40 are one of the most glare resistant binoculars I have used. From Binomania.

"With a simple use of two slightly wide neoprene tapes (which I use to secure the tripod) I have prepared two handcrafted lens hoods and I can finally confirm that the "glare" problem can be easily solved. For the sake of precision, I contacted Marco Franceschetti – moderator of the Binomania Forum and great binoculars enthusiast – who tried to place a handmade lens hood created with scotch tape in front of the lenses of his NL PURE 8×42. Even in this case, the disappearance of the problem was highlighted."

L'effetto abbagliamento nello Swarovski NL PURE? Ecco come risolverlo -

Dopo mesi dal test sul campo dello Swarovski NL PURE ho avuto il piacere, grazie alla disponibilità di un lettore di Binomania, di verificare la presenza dell'abbagliamento. E' possibile risolvere il problema molto facilmente, ma perché in Austria non ci hanno ancora pensato?

www.binomania.it

They would have had to use extremely long hoods or possibly they just didn't test for glare coming from light sources less than 40º off-axis.

I just made the photos below to demonstrate the ineffectiveness of hoods with 30mm and 60mm lengths at blocking glare producing light from a source 30º off-axis compared to no hood at all.

The left photo shows a hood attached to one tube and set to increase the binocular length by 30mm. The right photo shows the same hood slid forward to 60mm. The spot in the binocular interior that needs to be shadowed by the hood to eliminate glare is the objective lens cell, which is located toward the back of the dark crescent seen at the bottom of the binocular. You can see that neither hood comes close to shadowing that area. A hood at least 100mm long would be needed and a 150mm hood would be needed to block light from a source 20º off-axis.

BTW, that's a real "binocular hood" that was sold in pairs by Orion Telescopes about 30 years ago. That's when I learned that binocular hoods are not very effective unless they are too long to be practical.

That's truly it for me.

 

[Paultricounty]

I think you are right.
But again, if the knowledgeable people stay out, one direction and same direction will be.

To me and quite a few others who PM me , is that it’s just to get people going so he can can continue the useless threads. He wont respond, maybe he can’t because he doesn’t read well, (I’m not sure why) to others (many) that are not seeing what he’s describing, that’s if we even believe in what’s he’s saying.

I say we should just include the public service announcement in each one of his post.

(This is my public service announcement to newcomers. BODD (beware of Denco disinformation).

 

[[email protected]]

They would have had to use extremely long hoods or possibly they just didn't test for glare coming from light sources less than 40º off-axis.

I just made the photos below to demonstrate the ineffectiveness of hoods with 30mm and 60mm lengths at blocking glare producing light from a source 30º off-axis compared to no hood at all.

The left photo shows a hood attached to one tube and set to increase the binocular length by 30mm. The right photo shows the same hood slid forward to 60mm. The spot in the binocular interior that needs to be shadowed by the hood to eliminate glare is the objective lens cell, which is located toward the back of the dark crescent seen at the bottom of the binocular. You can see that neither hood comes close to shadowing that area. A hood at least 100mm long would be needed and a 150mm hood would be needed to block light from a source 20º off-axis.

BTW, that's a real "binocular hood" that was sold in pairs by Orion Telescopes about 30 years ago. That's when I learned that binocular hoods are not very effective unless they are too long to be practical.

That's truly it for me.

I invited Binomania to participate in the thread to answer some questions about how they tested for glare and how long their lens hoods were. From the picture, though, it looks like their lens hoods were at least 6 inches long, which is 3x longer than yours. I don't think a 2-inch lens hood would be that effective either. There is no reason that a 6-inch lens hood wouldn't be practical if it was something you could quickly slip on and slip off. Photographers use lens hoods all the time on their cameras to reduce glare and increase contrast.

 

[Ted Y.]

I invited Binomania to participate in the thread to answer some questions about how they tested for glare and how long their lens hoods were.

I hope Binomania will decline to participate in this thread. But I will welcome a distinct new thread.

There is no reason that a 6-inch lens hood wouldn't be practical

Practical for a test, ok.
It is clear your definition of ridiculous does not match mine.

 

[[email protected]]

This is from the Greatest Binocular Reviews, where he shows various lens hoods that he has constructed. He says he wouldn't use the binocular without them.

greatestbinoculars: Swarovski Habicht 8x30 W binoculars review

"Sunshades - ESSENTIAL. I made about 6cm long tubes from black cardboard as prototypes and stuck them on the front lenses to find out under which conditions the performance would improve. Result: I will never use the Habicht without anymore and have ordered some custom-made metal versions."

 

[[email protected]]

I hope Binomania will decline to participate in this thread. But I will welcome a distinct new thread.



Practical for a test, ok.
It is clear your definition of ridiculous does not match mine.

Wouldn't a lightweight black felt lens hood that slipped on and off be worth it if it eliminated all the glare in the NL and increased the contrast at the same time. A lens hood makes a huge difference in a camera. Here is a photo with and without a lens hood on a camera. Huge difference.

 

[[email protected]]

Someone with a 3D printer could make some light lens hoods out of a soft plastic that attached with Velcro. Pinac's is an example.

 

[Ted Y.]

A lens hood makes a huge difference in a camera.

It can make a huge difference, yes, depending on the light.

Huge difference.

Indeed.

 

[[email protected]]

I wonder if these would work on the objective end of the NL. Many hunter's use them on their binoculars to cut down on glare. I bet these would work on a Habicht 8x30.

https://www.amazon.com/DOWN-UNDER-OUTDOORS-Binocular-Objective/dp/B07GD6MV1G?tag=namespacebran131-20&asc_campaign=2b5a785186b501c352c95398a3440b1b&asc_source=01G8XG0GEG1CT4D3C07B4FAY7P&keywords=butler%2Bcreek%2Blens%2Bcovers%2B32mm&sprefix=butler%2Bcreek%2Blens%2Bcovers%2B32mm%2Caps%2C123&th=1&psc=1

 

[Paultricounty]

Wouldn't a lightweight black felt lens hood that slipped on and off be worth it if it eliminated all the glare in the NL and increased the contrast at the same time. A lens hood makes a huge difference in a camera. Here is a photo with and without a lens hood on a camera. Huge difference.

View attachment 1538346

Interesting these appear to be taken at two different angles , and possibly at different times of the day. At first I thought I seen a goat in the background, my mistake.

 

[tenex]

I find that the biggest difference is made by preventing direct sunlight from hitting the objective itself; further gains with deeper hoods are more modest. But today's wide-angle/zoom lenses often don't even have hoods deep enough to do that.

It does seem curious that camera lenses and scopes both have hoods, while bins don't. On closed-bridge designs, retractable ones would be simple enough.

 

[[email protected]]

I find that the biggest difference is made by preventing direct sunlight from hitting the objective itself; further gains with deeper hoods are more modest. But today's wide-angle/zoom lenses often don't even have hoods deep enough to do that.

It does seem curious that camera lenses and scopes both have hoods, while bins don't. On closed-bridge designs, retractable ones would be simple enough.

I was thinking of a retractable hood on a binocular also. I have had telescopes with retractable hoods, and they really cut down on glare, as well as, condensation. I bet they would help with glare. The hoods like the Down Under that just cover the top of the objective would stop direct sunlight.

 

[henry link]

The hoods like the Down Under that just cover the top of the objective would stop direct sunlight.

View attachment 1538518

Really? How far off axis would the sun have to be for the mid sized version of this device to shadow the glare producing internal reflections in the 8x42 NL? Time to get out your ruler and protractor.

 

[[email protected]]

Really? How far off axis would the sun have to be for the mid sized version of this device to shadow the glare producing internal reflections in the 8x42 NL? Time to get out your ruler and protractor.

I don't think they would block all the glare, but I bet they would help. You are getting almost 4 inches of glare protection. The company wouldn't sell very many if they didn't work. You could even position them for glare from the side. They have a 4.4 star rating from 759 reviewers.

"If customers follow the sizing instructions, all should be outstanding. When you put these bad boys on, they are
made to stay on. Noticeable difference on both scope and binoculars."

https://www.amazon.com/DOWN-UNDER-OUTDOORS-Binocular-Objective/dp/B07GD6MV1G?tag=namespacebran131-20&asc_campaign=2b5a785186b501c352c95398a3440b1b&asc_source=01G8XG0GEG1CT4D3C07B4FAY7P&keywords=butler%2Bcreek%2Blens%2Bcovers%2B32mm&sprefix=butler%2Bcreek%2Blens%2Bcovers%2B32mm%2Caps%2C123&th=1&psc=1

 

[henry link]

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.

 

[Paultricounty]

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.

Henry just a suggestion don’t fall in anymore. Im going to follow that advice from now on 🙏🏼. if somebody gets caught lying time and time again, why would someone think they can have a rational conversation to teach or convince someone something that doesn’t want to learn or be convinced.

Paul