• 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.
ZEISS. Discover the fascinating world of birds, and win a birding trip to Columbia

Glasses wearers - most comfortable 10x42 you have found? (1 Viewer)

Chosun Juan

Given to Fly
Australia - Aboriginal
Bentley - perhaps best to approach it from the point of view (see what I did there - lol πŸ˜„) of what bins you can't live without - ie. when you are looking through your bins observing, you'd better be sure that you're not wishing you were viewing with something else ! If you are wishing for something else in that situation, then really they are your bins.

Have you looked through the Swarovski 10x42 NL Pure ? , an even wider fov than the SF which you may find even more immersive. As I said previously, for me, I'm backing the eyecups out around about the same amount on the Swaros (SV, NL) and Zeiss (SF). It may be different for you, since our glasses etc are different. It's very important though, to set the whole shebang up properly. The view, and snap viewing, then should be super easy.

One other tip - go with the bin that gives you the biggest optical wow, and leaves you with zero hankering for another bin while viewing with them. If they end up being less convenient to carry, then just employ a different system - there are many to try, from simple slings to harnesses, tie down straps etc, above and beyond a simple hang 'em round your neck approach.



Chosun πŸ™…β€β™€οΈ
 

Bentley03

Well-known member
United Kingdom
Dorubird and Chosun, I think your emphasis on overall best optical experience is very valid, and for sure if I was a mostly static binocular user I would put up with having to work a little harder to achieve the optimal view, but most of the time I am walking, binoculars at the ready for when I spot a potential target with the naked eye, and it's at that moment the Noctivid's (and Conquest HD's) excel for me, a truly wonderful view achieved in moments. They really do fulfill my brief. But those SF's, with the wider FOV, take things to a different level. However, they are simply not as immediately accessible in terms of being easy to position, therefore they do not fulfill my brief as well as the others. The question, for me, is if I want to move the goalposts of my brief in order to accommodate SF ownership.

Chosun, yes, I've tried the NL Pure 10x42's twice, and they are not for me, I struggled with positioning, didn't like how they felt in the hand, and the view felt like I was looking at a photograph, it was soulless and just didn't come alive for me. I'm sorry, I can't put it into words any better than that. That said, I know reviews throw every superlative at them, so maybe I'm missing something.

GPO Passion HD"s I would love to try, but I have no stockists anywhere close to me, and I don't really want to buy yet another pair of binoculars which I'm likely going to have to return. At the rate I'm going I'll be blacklisted by every optics shop in the UK! Same goes for Kite Lynx HD+.

One last thing regarding Noctivid 's; I tested them on a sunny day with no cloud and a low Autumn sun, and when viewing facing just a few degrees off straight into the sun, I was aware of the total absence of any glare/flare/corruption to the view. They were incredibly impressive in that regard. With the SF's, I was definitely aware of the sun affecting the view. This is important, as I frequently view in coastal locations with sun reflecting off the water. This is a previously unmentioned factor in determining the suitability of the binoculars I test.

I now look forward to a weekend with a pair of SF's, I really want to get on with them, but for now, the Noctivid's do just get the nod for me (but I'm not sure they are twice as good as the Conquest HD's, in order to justify their price).

Indecision reigns! 😁
 

Troubador

Moderator
Staff member
Supporter
One last thing regarding Noctivid 's; I tested them on a sunny day with no cloud and a low Autumn sun, and when viewing facing just a few degrees off straight into the sun, I was aware of the total absence of any glare/flare/corruption to the view. They were incredibly impressive in that regard. With the SF's, I was definitely aware of the sun affecting the view. This is important, as I frequently view in coastal locations with sun reflecting off the water. This is a previously unmentioned factor in determining the suitability of the binoculars I test.

I now look forward to a weekend with a pair of SF's, I really want to get on with them, but for now, the Noctivid's do just get the nod for me (but I'm not sure they are twice as good as the Conquest HD's, in order to justify their price).

Indecision reigns! 😁
Almost all of my birding is done in the west of Scotland on Islay, Ardnamurchan and Uists/Benbecula in the Western Isles so viewing in coastal locations is central to my use. I am happy to report that with my SF 10x42s I never encountered glare that interfered with my ability to view my chosen subject even on Islay in October/November with a low autumn sun in the sky and glancing off the sea. Having used SF32s for 3 weeks on Islay in the Spring this year and for 3 weeks right now in Oct/Nov I can say they haven't had troublesome glare issues either.

Anyway, good luck with your SF trial, only your own personal opinion of them matters.

Lee
 
Dorubird and Chosun, I think your emphasis on overall best optical experience is very valid, and for sure if I was a mostly static binocular user I would put up with having to work a little harder to achieve the optimal view, but most of the time I am walking, binoculars at the ready for when I spot a potential target with the naked eye, and it's at that moment the Noctivid's (and Conquest HD's) excel for me, a truly wonderful view achieved in moments. They really do fulfill my brief. But those SF's, with the wider FOV, take things to a different level. However, they are simply not as immediately accessible in terms of being easy to position, therefore they do not fulfill my brief as well as the others. The question, for me, is if I want to move the goalposts of my brief in order to accommodate SF ownership.

Chosun, yes, I've tried the NL Pure 10x42's twice, and they are not for me, I struggled with positioning, didn't like how they felt in the hand, and the view felt like I was looking at a photograph, it was soulless and just didn't come alive for me. I'm sorry, I can't put it into words any better than that. That said, I know reviews throw every superlative at them, so maybe I'm missing something.

GPO Passion HD"s I would love to try, but I have no stockists anywhere close to me, and I don't really want to buy yet another pair of binoculars which I'm likely going to have to return. At the rate I'm going I'll be blacklisted by every optics shop in the UK! Same goes for Kite Lynx HD+.

One last thing regarding Noctivid 's; I tested them on a sunny day with no cloud and a low Autumn sun, and when viewing facing just a few degrees off straight into the sun, I was aware of the total absence of any glare/flare/corruption to the view. They were incredibly impressive in that regard. With the SF's, I was definitely aware of the sun affecting the view. This is important, as I frequently view in coastal locations with sun reflecting off the water. This is a previously unmentioned factor in determining the suitability of the binoculars I test.

I now look forward to a weekend with a pair of SF's, I really want to get on with them, but for now, the Noctivid's do just get the nod for me (but I'm not sure they are twice as good as the Conquest HD's, in order to justify their price).

Indecision reigns! 😁
I am based in NW London and have the 10x42 Passion HD. If you are anywhere nearby you more than welcome to test mine. Always happy to help fellow birders or huntersπŸ‘
 

Bentley03

Well-known member
United Kingdom
Almost all of my birding is done in the west of Scotland on Islay, Ardnamurchan and Uists/Benbecula in the Western Isles so viewing in coastal locations is central to my use. I am happy to report that with my SF 10x42s I never encountered glare that interfered with my ability to view my chosen subject even on Islay in October/November with a low autumn sun in the sky and glancing off the sea. Having used SF32s for 3 weeks on Islay in the Spring this year and for 3 weeks right now in Oct/Nov I can say they haven't had troublesome glare issues either.

Anyway, good luck with your SF trial, only your own personal opinion of them matters.

Lee
Thanks Lee! πŸ™‚

And, I have absolutely no reason to suspect glare will be an issue. It may be that my positioning was just a little off when I tested the SF's close to the sun, there was definitely a sense of 'something', but nothing I'd consider even remotely concerning. My point, really, was not to suggest that glare was an issue with the SFs, it wasn't, but to emphasise how outstandingly well the Noctivid's performed in the same conditions, seemingly completely suppressing any glare/flare/corruption due to the sun.
 

dorubird

Well-known member
Romania
Chosun, yes, I've tried the NL Pure 10x42's twice, and they are not for me, I struggled with positioning, didn't like how they felt in the hand, and the view felt like I was looking at a photograph, it was soulless and just didn't come alive for me. I'm sorry, I can't put it into words any better than that. That said, I know reviews throw every superlative at them, so maybe I'm missing something.
Maybe this is due to NL excessive optical corrections, especially on the edges. The image is too clinical and perfect. I know it sounds paradoxical. But this effect explains Tobias Mennle in his article below. He was disappointed even by Noctivid because Noct' lost his life effect, which is present in Ultravid, SF, HT, SLC series.
I also noticed this 3d and life effect from direct comparison between SF 10x42 and Swarovski EL 10x42 (I put it here on the forum). SF has that immersion due the fact that on the edge of the field it is not as clinical as in Swarovski EL, it has more life. Things are subjective, however, and are related to the aesthetics of the image. But ultimately what is a binoculars than an instrument that puts own imprint in the artistic rendering of reality
 

Conndomat

United States of Europe
Europe
But those SF's, with the wider FOV, take things to a different level. However, they are simply not as immediately accessible in terms of being easy to position, therefore they do not fulfill my brief as well as the others. The question, for me, is if I want to move the goalposts of my brief in order to accommodate SF ownership.
Bentley's FOV / AFOV is just one aspect among many others, large FOV does not mean better binocular at the same time!

I have the Swarovski 8x5x42, the Swarovski SLC 8x56 and the Zeiss SF 8x42!
The Zeiss has by far the largest FOV, but I prefer the two Swarovski binoculars.
Binoculars with a large FOV are always a bit more difficult to control optically if you have very good viewing behavior with the Noctivid, especially since with glasses this is at least as big an aspect as the FOV, You should be able to live well with an AFOV of around 60 degrees, unfortunately the race for as large an FOV as possible has become fashionable, other important parameters then fall under the table, I never had the impression that 60 Β° degrees AFOV were not enough, for me other parameters are more important.

Andreas
 

Conndomat

United States of Europe
Europe
I also noticed this 3d and life effect from direct comparison between SF 10x42 and Swarovski EL 10x42
Dorubird ... I think this 3 D effect on roofs is grossly exaggerated, every conventional 10x42 Porro will have a better 3D effect than the Zeiss.
This effect only works at close distances, I compared many binoculars (roofs) with each other and the differences were so marginal that it shouldn't be a criterion for a purchase decision.
If I really want to have a 3 D effect, I would always use a Porro.

Andreas
 

dorubird

Well-known member
Romania
Andreas, you're right that porro is the best at stereoscopic 3d. But in SF roof, for example, it is not about the same stereoscopic image, it is about "3d effect like" that you find even on photo lenses, even if they do not have stereoscopy (they are mono). You have a three-dimensional illusion created by distortion management. It is explained in Tobias Mennle article greatestbinoculars: 3D high fidelity and flat field
"This discussion is not about differences in stereo base and true stereopsis - of course porros with their very wide stereo base (defined by the distance of the optical axes) render much more 3D than AK prism glasses, which render more 3D than SP prism glasses."

this effect of life and "3d like" in the roof bino is created mainly by optical corrections/distorsion, not only by stereoscopy (in SP roof it is the small difference between the distance between the obj. lenses and the distance between the eyepieces)
 
Last edited:

Chosun Juan

Given to Fly
Australia - Aboriginal
He was disappointed even by Noctivid because Noct' lost his life effect, which is present in Ultravid, SF, HT, SLC series.
Jeez - I don't know that I'd include the SF in with that lot ! It's a pretty flat, lifeless, view in my view. It's nowhere near an HT view to me.

What the SF does have going for it is a nice wide view, which gives more of an effect of 'immersion'.


Chosun πŸ™…β€β™€οΈ
 

Conndomat

United States of Europe
Europe
You have a three-dimensional illusion created by distortion management.
It is always a question of how important this effect appears to him!

The Zeiss FL 7x42 has a good 3-D effect for a roof, but in return you buy a non-homogeneous look, the distortion and the edge blurring are so high that the image looks inflated at infinity.
In addition, when it comes to this, the Noctivid should even offer advantages over the SF, the distortion and edge blurring set in earlier and are also a bit clearer.

Andreas
 

Conndomat

United States of Europe
Europe
Jeez - I don't know that I'd include the SF in with that lot ! It's a pretty flat, lifeless, view in my view. It's nowhere near an HT view to me.
Which HT are we talking about?

The 8x54 is of no use to me, the distortion and the early blurring are penetrating, Henry has tested the glass and he noticed other optical defects!
The 10x54 is a bit better here but not really good either, the HT basically have the same optical design as the FL, poorer stray light suppression and more CA, but they are 2-3% brighter!
I still think the older FL are the better glasses.
I find the SF much more pleasant for observation, too high a distortion that sets in too early is simply annoying.

Andreas
 

Chosun Juan

Given to Fly
Australia - Aboriginal
Which HT are we talking about?

The 8x54 is of no use to me, the distortion and the early blurring are penetrating, Henry has tested the glass and he noticed other optical defects!
The 10x54 is a bit better here but not really good either, the HT basically have the same optical design as the FL, poorer stray light suppression and more CA, but they are 2-3% brighter!
I still think the older FL are the better glasses.
I find the SF much more pleasant for observation, too high a distortion that sets in too early is simply annoying.

Andreas
The 42s - 8x and 10x.
Perhaps not perfect as far as edge astigmatism etc, but the combination of:- super centre clarity, more neutral colour rendition (I famously find the SF has a 'green ham' tint - like a super thin slice of corned beef draped across the objectives ! 😁) , sufficient growing pincushion distortion to meet the circle condition (providing a shallow 'bowl' view) , and slight 3-D effect (due to the A-K prisms) - all come together to give a more 'eye-like' view than the SF to my eyes.

I do like the extra-wide field of the SF, but ultimately find that no one bin provides the perfect view for me - it's yet to be made ! 😁

I certainly do appreciate the Swarovski view the most though, and find that the generous 'randpupille' design seems to give the most latitude for easy alignment and viewing with my myopia-correcting glasses shod noggin !


Chosun πŸ™…β€β™€οΈ
 

Ed T

Member
United States
Hello everyone,

I'm very much struggling to find a really comfortable pair of 10x42 binoculars to use as my go to everyday bins and would really appreciate any help and some suggestions from anyone who is a glasses wearer and has found themselves some 10x42's which are super comfortable to use, have great optics and are just right for them. Anyone with experience of selling binoculars to glasses wearers too, who might see a trend towards a particular brand or, even better, a specific model.

I appear to be complicating matters by trying to find a pair with good optics which I can instantly/easily achieve perfect positioning and comfort with both of the pairs of glasses I wear regularly.

I haven't been able to test any binoculars extensively, only in the street outside the two good optics shops located within a reasonable distance of where I live (30 mins drive approx).

So far, the only 10x42 binoculars I've found which are truly comfortable and easy to use with both pairs of glasses are the now discontinued Nikon Monarch 7's. But, whilst I found them exceptionally easy to use, I took to them immediately, I wasn't 'wow'd' by the optics (not even an 'oooh'). On that basis, I wouldn't buy them.

The nearest I've come to finding an instrument which works with both of my pairs of glasses and which impressed me optically was the Hawke Frontier APO, but whilst I could usually find positioning which worked, I felt it was all a bit hit and miss for me.

Of all the 10x42 binoculars I've tested my biggest 'wow' was with the Opticron Aurora, but whilst they were comfortable and easy to use with one of my pairs of glasses, they were impossible to position easily with the other pair.

I would like to try the Kite Lynx HD+ and GPO Passion HD (although I suspect the eye relief of the latter may make it a non-starter), but I have no retailer for these brands anywhere near me.

I hadn't originally intended to buy a pair of 'alpha' binoculars, but if I do find that a Leica, Zeiss or Swarovski instrument is super comfortable to use with both of my pairs of glasses, I will happily invest in them. (I recently purchased and returned a pair of 10x32 EL's, because I just couldn't position them easily. This was mainly, I believe, due to the smaller than I am used to exit pupil, so I've abandoned looking at x32's).

Any thoughts or recommendations would be very much appreciated. Thank you! :)
Try Kowa Genesis 10.5x44 Prominar. It works great for me.
But if you have the money, there is nothing better than the new Swarovski LN 10x42. Outstanding eye relief, ergonomics, and unmatched optics. It is my all times favorite.
 

Chosun Juan

Given to Fly
Australia - Aboriginal
You should be able to live well with an AFOV of around 60 degrees, unfortunately the race for as large an FOV as possible has become fashionable, other important parameters then fall under the table, I never had the impression that 60 Β° degrees AFOV were not enough, for me other parameters are more important.
For me, I find that true enjoyment is to be found towards and beyond 70Β° AFov (the technical definition of an 'extra-wide' field of view) provided that it is well corrected.

This is partly due to the physiology of the human eye, and personal preference.

It is only recently (probably starting with the Zeiss SF - I would discount even the 8.5x44 Swift Audubon ED for too soft edge performance and marginal ER, though it is close) that an extra-wide field view has become available to glasses wearers with their greater ER requirements. If this is 'fashion' (actually more like modern induced physiology, and demographics, and astute strategic response) , then I for one am greatly appreciative.

Seeing an extra-wide field, sharp across all of that, binocular view, with my always-on glasses, is a real pleasure. A real pleasure. The reason I'm out there viewing.



Chosun πŸ™…β€β™€οΈ
 

dorubird

Well-known member
Romania
Conndomat "It is always a question of how important this effect appears to him!"
Exactly, it depends on the personal tastes of each one and the perception of the aesthetics of the image that is different from one person to another. This subjective perception also includes chromatic preferences, another important component that gives rise to different personal preferences.
But I can say that, regarding only to this 3d effect, I am in the same category of perception with Mennle., because I had the same preference, with some of the same roof binoculars tested by him (for instance SF and Swaro EL). Others may have a completely different perception in the sense it does not bother by a corrected and clinical image. Clinical image itself is a very good thing, but aesthetically it is flatter for me. This "3d like"It is an optical feature that cannot be measured with precision as resolution or brightness. The estimation being extremely subjective. It's like telling "I like dry wines". That's why it's good to try before we buy. I am very curious about the Bentley03 choice....
 
Last edited:

Chosun Juan

Given to Fly
Australia - Aboriginal
most of the time I am walking, binoculars at the ready for when I spot a potential target with the naked eye,
I do something very similar (though my glasses are always on if I actually want to see anything ! I'm not sure if you actually meant the same by 'naked eye' and just take it as read that, that is the case).

So being able to bring the bins immediately straight up and into alignment without any conscious effort or adjustment, and then have the view just snap into focus, are very important factors. As is the way the bin feels in the hand, and the stability of the grip, and the role it plays in contributing to this.

So while these are very important factors for me so is the quality of the view.

All I am really saying is to ensure that the set-up of the bin is as good as it can be to be individually matched to you, in order to give it every chance of succeeding. Whilst it is very nice for this just to instantly and magically occur, sometimes it is just a matter of careful set-up and a bit of practice for this to feel like second nature, and every bit as good.



Chosun πŸ™…β€β™€οΈ
 

Chosun Juan

Given to Fly
Australia - Aboriginal
Chosun, I am a full time glasses wearer, like yourself.
My full time is limited to only when I want to see ! 😁

Important things like driving, meetings, travel and other signs etc that are essential to read. Certainly when I want to see something outside it's glasses on (short-sighted). I tried 'birding' way back when without glasses or by popping them off and back on - entirely useless.

I don't wear them at home, mainly remembering to put them on when I leave the house.

I reckon I can see about 6 or 10 ft clearly, after that, life takes on a romantic mystical painterly feeling.

The good news is that even with glasses on you can see through time and space to other worlds - so that's a bonus ! 🌞


Chosun πŸ™…β€β™€οΈ
 
ZEISS. Discover the fascinating world of birds, and win a birding trip to Columbia
ZEISS. Discover the fascinating world of birds, and win a birding trip to Colombia
ZEISS. Discover the fascinating world of birds, and win a birding trip to Colombia

Users who are viewing this thread

Top