Habicht 10x40 WGA Objective Covers (1 Viewer)

[Sollas]

Quote:
Originally Posted by ceasar View Post
One of the reasons is probably because Porros have to move heavier long tubes along with the oculars to gain focus whereas in Roof prisms usually only a focusing lens is moved. Although the old Swaro 8x30 SLC moved its objective lenses to gain focus.
Not quite. The Zeiss Classic binoculars (8x30, 10x40) also had moving objective lenses.

Actually, I think there are several reasons why porros with external focusing, i.e. moving eyepieces, have a stiffer focuser than binoculars with internal focusing. Perhaps the most obvious one is that most users press the eyepieces against the eyes, this means that bincoluars with eyepieces focusing must be built in a way to prevent the eyepieces from moving out of focus. Another reason is that manufacturers never saw the need to change the focusers of their porros - after all, they all work perfectly well over the limited range a porro can be focused.

And with the Habicht it's pretty clear that their focusing is so stiff because of the seals that prevent moisture from entering the binocular.

Hermann

Hermann does make an interesting point in the previous thread above.

 

[Sollas]

The biggest historic downsides to external focusing have been (1) making it fully waterproof, and (2) the bellows action of the external focuser pumping outside air into and out of the eyepieces, which over time can result in hazing. I question the actual need for a fully waterproof binocular for most users, but there's no doubt that full waterproofing is a key selling point, and even the Nikon SE models couldn't offer this. Having said that, Swarovski have done it with the Habichts, and Kowa's YF and Opticron's HR WP porros are also claimed to be nitrogen-filled/waterproof, showing that porros can be made waterproof, or at least highly water resistant (I'm not sure I would stake my house on YFs being fully waterproof...) at a much lower price point. The hazing issue definitely manifests itself in older porros, but shouldn't be a problem with the modern Habicht.

Focus action - I've tried only one Habicht, an 8x30 demo model which may well have had its focuser better "broken in" than a new out of the box model. No complaints re the stiffness of its focus, and indeed even if it were stiffer, I wouldn't have minded. I like focus action to be on the stiff, and indeed slow, side. Admittedly, when I've been looking at birds in parks and other wooded areas the advantage of a light and fast focuser (eg. 8x32 FL) has become very apparent, but the focus action of the 8x30 I tried would have been fine for that.

I have some doubts as to the contention that porros are better optically than top-end modern roofs. The 8x30 Habicht I tried, while certainly the brightest 8x30 porro I've ever looked through, could not be said to outperform something like the 8x32 FL (I didn't compare it to a 8x32 EL SV, but doubt the 8x30 Habicht is equal to that). I've not tried the 10x40 - has anyone who has tried that against a 10x42 SLC with dielectric prisms care to comment? The price vs performance argument has more merit to it, especially if the limitations of older designs like the Habicht (short eye relief) are not an issue for the individual user.

I would say that the point regarding optical quality is that top end Porros such as the Habicht and Nikons (E and SE) can easily hold their own against many of the modern Alpha roofs.

When considering the purchase of new 8X or 10X quality binoculars I really do ask myself is it justifiable to spend the sort of money being asked for Alpha roofs (£2000....ish) when I can buy high end Porros for practically half the price.

Food for thought.

 

[NDhunter]

I would say that the point regarding optical quality is that top end Porros such as the Habicht and Nikons (E and SE) can easily hold their own against many of the modern Alpha roofs.

When considering the purchase of new 8X or 10X quality binoculars I really do ask myself is it justifiable to spend the sort of money being asked for Alpha roofs (£2000....ish) when I can buy high end Porros for practically half the price.

Food for thought.

You are correct in your thoughts and observations. I find much the same.

Jerry

 

[Hermann]

When considering the purchase of new 8X or 10X quality binoculars I really do ask myself is it justifiable to spend the sort of money being asked for Alpha roofs (£2000....ish) when I can buy high end Porros for practically half the price.

Absolutely correct. I've been using my Habicht 7x42 and my 10x40 quite a lot over the past few weeks, and they're optically excellent (unless you "need" edge to edge sharpness, even though the 7x42 is pretty good in that respect). Sharpness, contrast and brightness of the image are exceptional. Contrary to what some people say I CAN see the difference in brightness in binoculars with, say, ~92% transmission compared to the Habicht's 96%.

That said, the focuser isn't really suitable for "dynamic" situations where you have to change focus quickly, like in dense woodland. But you can get used to it to some extent, even though I find I still miss a few birds with the 10x40. The 7x42 with its larger depth of field is much easier to use in woodland.

What I'd like to see is:

1. A smoother focuser. There must be better solutions, even with the external focuser. Hint: The old Zeiss porros used rubber gaskets - and their focusers were smooth.

2. A Habicht 8x30 without the prism leak. For my purposes it is hardly useable as it is. I positively *hate* veiling glare. That would require minor changes to the design, and I can't understand why Swarovski didn't implement such changes over the past 60+ years.

3. A Habicht 8x40, based on the body of the 10x40, even if it has a narrowish field of view due to the small prisms.

Hermann

 

[Sollas]

The biggest historic downsides to external focusing have been (1) making it fully waterproof, and (2) the bellows action of the external focuser pumping outside air into and out of the eyepieces, which over time can result in hazing. I question the actual need for a fully waterproof binocular for most users, but there's no doubt that full waterproofing is a key selling point, and even the Nikon SE models couldn't offer this. Having said that, Swarovski have done it with the Habichts, and Kowa's YF and Opticron's HR WP porros are also claimed to be nitrogen-filled/waterproof, showing that porros can be made waterproof, or at least highly water resistant (I'm not sure I would stake my house on YFs being fully waterproof...) at a much lower price point. The hazing issue definitely manifests itself in older porros, but shouldn't be a problem with the modern Habicht.

Focus action - I've tried only one Habicht, an 8x30 demo model which may well have had its focuser better "broken in" than a new out of the box model. No complaints re the stiffness of its focus, and indeed even if it were stiffer, I wouldn't have minded. I like focus action to be on the stiff, and indeed slow, side. Admittedly, when I've been looking at birds in parks and other wooded areas the advantage of a light and fast focuser (eg. 8x32 FL) has become very apparent, but the focus action of the 8x30 I tried would have been fine for that.

I have some doubts as to the contention that porros are better optically than top-end modern roofs. The 8x30 Habicht I tried, while certainly the brightest 8x30 porro I've ever looked through, could not be said to outperform something like the 8x32 FL (I didn't compare it to a 8x32 EL SV, but doubt the 8x30 Habicht is equal to that). I've not tried the 10x40 - has anyone who has tried that against a 10x42 SLC with dielectric prisms care to comment? The price vs performance argument has more merit to it, especially if the limitations of older designs like the Habicht (short eye relief) are not an issue for the individual user.

Absolutely correct. I've been using my Habicht 7x42 and my 10x40 quite a lot over the past few weeks, and they're optically excellent (unless you "need" edge to edge sharpness, even though the 7x42 is pretty good in that respect). Sharpness, contrast and brightness of the image are exceptional. Contrary to what some people say I CAN see the difference in brightness in binoculars with, say, ~92% transmission compared to the Habicht's 96%.

That said, the focuser isn't really suitable for "dynamic" situations where you have to change focus quickly, like in dense woodland. But you can get used to it to some extent, even though I find I still miss a few birds with the 10x40. The 7x42 with its larger depth of field is much easier to use in woodland.

What I'd like to see is:

1. A smoother focuser. There must be better solutions, even with the external focuser. Hint: The old Zeiss porros used rubber gaskets - and their focusers were smooth.

2. A Habicht 8x30 without the prism leak. For my purposes it is hardly useable as it is. I positively *hate* veiling glare. That would require minor changes to the design, and I can't understand why Swarovski didn't implement such changes over the past 60+ years.

3. A Habicht 8x40, based on the body of the 10x40, even if it has a narrowish field of view due to the small prisms.

Hermann

Hi Hermann

I don't think a bit of stiffness is really such a bad thing. Most of my requirements for using the Habicht 10x40 would be for shore birds and raptors so fast focusing not really such an issue for me. If I'm chasing warblers then I'd be using my Zeiss HT's anyhow.

Incidentally how would you rate the Habicht 10x40 against the SLC 10x42? If in reality the Habicht proved be be too difficult to use then the SLC would be my be
next choice.

How would you consider the differences in brightness and view between these 2 models?

Cheers

 

[John A Roberts]

An 8x40 Habicht - Real or Unicorn?

Hi Hermann (post #24),

Since you’re a Habicht fan, you may find this of interest
I’m aware of one example of an 8x40 Porro by Swarovski Optik!
It’s from a 2018 eBay listing by ‘militaryshop13’, see the attached images


There’s several points of interest:

A) How was 8x40 achieved?
- it appears to have the large eye lens of the W eyepiece, so it uses the standard eyepiece of the 8x30W and the 10x40W
- it has a shorter than usual x40 objective tube, and
- presumedly it has a lower power objective lens pair to give an objective focal length equal to that of the regular 8x30W


B) Markings - Left prism plate
- it has the standard marking used from 1962 to 1990 on the regular Habicht production
- the same marking was also used on most of the single coated EV production (aka Falke) that was offered from 1962 to 1968, and
- the plate along with the others, has a single screw (verses the previous three), which was introduced around 1966


C) Markings - Right prism plate
- they are consistent with a run of EV coated units produced for the Swiss market in 8x30N and 8x30W *
- I've observed numbering on the 8x30 units from 6,030 to 6,753 (verses 6,770 on this unit), and
- the screw on both this and the other plates has a cross head, as is also used on the 8x30 units (and which is unlike the other Falke and Habicht production)

* the 8x30 Swiss production is marked ‘SWISS IMPORT’ on the front axle cap, this 8x40 seems to have a replacement cap


So it seems to be a very limited item, produced as part of an already limited production run for the Swiss market, likely made between 1966 and 1968
Maybe whoever commissioned the production wondered about the possibility of an 8x40 and it was done as a favour?


John

 

[Hermann]

I don't think a bit of stiffness is really such a bad thing. Most of my requirements for using the Habicht 10x40 would be for shore birds and raptors so fast focusing not really such an issue for me. If I'm chasing warblers then I'd be using my Zeiss HT's anyhow.

Good scheme. I use some roofs as well for that sort of thing, usually a pair of 8x32s. the Habicht 7x42 *might* work ok, with its greater depth of field. But the field of view isn't exactly brilliant (even though I find I get used to it quickly). BTW, the HT (with its AK prisms) is probably as close to a well-made porro as it's technically possible.

Incidentally how would you rate the Habicht 10x40 against the SLC 10x42? If in reality the Habicht proved be be too difficult to use then the SLC would be my be next choice.

How would you consider the differences in brightness and view between these 2 models?

I don't know the 10x42 SLC well enough to comment. Compared to my Companion 10x30 CL (2nd edition) the Habicht is quite obviously better optically - higher brightness (even on bright days, so it's not the larger exit pupil), better contrast, much more "transparent" view. But the SLC is no doubt better than the CL. However, even then I think the Habicht will be brighter and more contrasty. But I may be wrong there.

Maybe someone who has got both models can help you out there.

Hermann

BTW, on long trips in the mountains I'd still take the Companion over the Habicht - it's even lighter, and that makes a huge difference in difficult terrain. It's also smaller, that's useful when the going gets tough.

 

[Hermann]

Hi Hermann (post #24),

Since you’re a Habicht fan, you may find this of interest
I’m aware of one example of what appears to be an 8x40 Porro by Swarovski Optik!

Now, that's an interesting pair! May be worth mailing Swarovski about this particular binocular. I didn't know they ever made an 8x40.

Thanks, John!

Hermann

 

[[email protected]]

"Incidentally how would you rate the Habicht 10x40 against the SLC 10x42? If in reality the Habicht proved be be too difficult to use then the SLC would be my be next choice."

I have had both of those binocular's. The SLC for sure is going to be a more comfortable binocular to use with larger eye cups and an easier to turn focuser. The Habicht will have the advantage of better 3D but overall I would have to give the advantage optically to the SLC. The transmission is high on both of them but the SLC is going to have sharper edges and it will handle glare a little better than the Habicht although the 10x40 Habicht handles glare quite well. I think for most people they would prefer the SLC unless you are really a porro fan. The Habicht is considerably less expensive and that could be a big factor. Any of the Habicht's are a great value when you can get them on Ebay for from the UK for about $800.00.

 

[Sollas]

I don't know the 10x42 SLC well enough to comment. Compared to my Companion 10x30 CL (2nd edition) the Habicht is quite obviously better optically - higher brightness (even on bright days, so it's not the larger exit pupil), better contrast, much more "transparent" view. But the SLC is no doubt better than the CL. However, even then I think the Habicht will be brighter and more contrasty. But I may be wrong there.

Maybe someone who has got both models can help you out there.

Hermann

BTW, on long trips in the mountains I'd still take the Companion over the Habicht - it's even lighter, and that makes a huge difference in difficult terrain. It's also smaller, that's useful when the going gets tough.[/QUOTE]


Thanks Hermann, I pretty much use my Nikon 8x32SE's when mountaineering or coastal cycling....easy, compact and reliable. A new CL would be nice ...but boy the price!

 

[Sollas]

"Incidentally how would you rate the Habicht 10x40 against the SLC 10x42? If in reality the Habicht proved be be too difficult to use then the SLC would be my be next choice."

I have had both of those binocular's. The SLC for sure is going to be a more comfortable binocular to use with larger eye cups and an easier to turn focuser. The Habicht will have the advantage of better 3D but overall I would have to give the advantage optically to the SLC. The transmission is high on both of them but the SLC is going to have sharper edges and it will handle glare a little better than the Habicht although the 10x40 Habicht handles glare quite well. I think for most people they would prefer the SLC unless you are really a porro fan. The Habicht is considerably less expensive and that could be a big factor. Any of the Habicht's are a great value when you can get them on Ebay for from the UK for about $800.00.

Good point Dennis. I do like the classic Porro's and the 10x40 w ga just seems like the dogs to me... but possibly the more sensible buy would be the SLC 10x42.

Its clear that ultimately I need to try both but it's hard to get my hands on Habicht's locally as to some extent they've gone out of fashion with the dealers. Not surprising though considering most of their business is selling expensive roofs to the birding fraternity.

Price is not a huge issue as there's only £200 or so between them. I feel the Habicht is the one I really want but maybe the SLC is the wiser option..... conundrum!

 

[Patudo]

One thing I'd want to check before buying any short eye relief binocular for a "no excuses" role (able to perform no matter what the weather and light conditions) would be whether the outer surfaces of the eyepiece lenses mist up in cold weather due to the proximity of your eyeball to the glass. I have to quit using my old porros earlier than I would like to each year, and delay bringing them out, because of this issue. Swarovski no doubt have modern coatings designed to inhibit - or hopefully eliminate - this, but I would definitely want to be dead sure about how they act in situations where misting/fogging is likely (cold weather and high humidity etc) as few things are more annoying than looking through foggy glass and having to wipe it off.

I have to wear glasses, and need a binocular with longer eye relief for the "no excuses" job - I own and enjoy using short eye relief binoculars, but use them around their limitations, and this misting of the outer surface of the eyepiece lenses is one. I'd be interested to know how the Habichts perform in this respect: if I ever undergo corrective surgery that removes the need for me to use glasses, I'd definitely like to evaluate the 10x40 model.

 

[NDhunter]

One thing I'd want to check before buying any short eye relief binocular for a "no excuses" role (able to perform no matter what the weather and light conditions) would be whether the outer surfaces of the eyepiece lenses mist up in cold weather due to the proximity of your eyeball to the glass. I have to quit using my old porros earlier than I would like to each year, and delay bringing them out, because of this issue. Swarovski no doubt have modern coatings designed to inhibit - or hopefully eliminate - this, but I would definitely want to be dead sure about how they act in situations where misting/fogging is likely (cold weather and high humidity etc) as few things are more annoying than looking through foggy glass and having to wipe it off.

I have to wear glasses, and need a binocular with longer eye relief for the "no excuses" job - I own and enjoy using short eye relief binoculars, but use them around their limitations, and this misting of the outer surface of the eyepiece lenses is one. I'd be interested to know how the Habichts perform in this respect: if I ever undergo corrective surgery that removes the need for me to use glasses, I'd definitely like to evaluate the 10x40 model.

When your eyepiece lens starts to mist, how are your eyeglass lenses doing?
I suspect the same result. So, I would think time to take a break until the weather improves.

Jerry

 

[Hermann]

I have to wear glasses, and need a binocular with longer eye relief for the "no excuses" job - I own and enjoy using short eye relief binoculars, but use them around their limitations, and this misting of the outer surface of the eyepiece lenses is one. I'd be interested to know how the Habichts perform in this respect: if I ever undergo corrective surgery that removes the need for me to use glasses, I'd definitely like to evaluate the 10x40 model.

If you ever try one, you should get a set of eyecups from the green rubber-armoured Habichts. They work a lot better than the eyecups supplied in many ways. In fact, I find the eyecups supplied with the leather-armoured Habichts unusable. Much too narrow.

Hermann

 

[Patudo]

When your eyepiece lens starts to mist, how are your eyeglass lenses doing?
I suspect the same result. So, I would think time to take a break until the weather improves.

Jerry

It must be because the lenses of my glasses are further from my eyeball than the ocular lenses of my old porros, and the air circulation around them probably better than the eyecups that help give those binoculars their immersive view, but I have no trouble with my glasses fogging up. My old porros start doing this around late October or early November when early morning temperatures drop below about 10 degrees Celsius, and then I have to stop using them for those trips.

Hermann, I didn't have any trouble with the Habicht 8x30 eyecups, comfort wise, when I tried the leatherette version (very similar to my other 8x30 porros), but can imagine the ones from the GA version would be more comfortable. I really like the feel of rubber eyecups (like the ones on my 12x50B) to my eyes - more comfortable and block out side lighting better than hard eyecups. I've tried fitting rubber eyecups to my 10x50 but the ones I ordered didn't fit well on the binocular, alas.

 

[NDhunter]

If you ever try one, you should get a set of eyecups from the green rubber-armoured Habichts. They work a lot better than the eyecups supplied in many ways. In fact, I find the eyecups supplied with the leather-armoured Habichts unusable. Much too narrow.

Hermann

Hermann:

Your advice is very good, I have both types also. I don't wear glasses, but
the GA eyecups really help me, with being wider, and more typical of most
current eyecup diameters. That helps me with eye relief, easier and better.

This subject has been hashed on the site before, so for those watching, go
back and look.

Jerry

 

[John A Roberts]

Increased Focuser Effort In Later Production

Further to my comments in post #15, I have since found some additional information:

. . .
When the new body was introduced in 1984, it was specified as water resistant to 0.3 bar (4.4 psi), which corresponds to a depth of 3 m
Currently, Habichts are specified to 0.4 bar (5.8 psi) - the same specification as for Swarovski’s other waterproof products

As near as I can tell . . . until at least 2000 the original 0.3 bar specification was used, and by 2003 the new 0.4 bar specification was in use

It’s likely that significantly stronger seals would have been required to increase the pressure resistance by 1/3
If so, this raises the possibility that Swarovski could go back to the former specification and offer an ‘Easy Focus’ version
Since one of the common criticisms of the current Habichts is the effort required to adjust the focuser, this would seem an simple way to increase their popularity
. . .

John

 

[mbb]

One thing I'd want to check before buying any short eye relief binocular for a "no excuses" role (able to perform no matter what the weather and light conditions) would be whether the outer surfaces of the eyepiece lenses mist up in cold weather due to the proximity of your eyeball to the glass. I have to quit using my old porros earlier than I would like to each year, and delay bringing them out, because of this issue. Swarovski no doubt have modern coatings designed to inhibit - or hopefully eliminate - this, but I would definitely want to be dead sure about how they act in situations where misting/fogging is likely (cold weather and high humidity etc) as few things are more annoying than looking through foggy glass and having to wipe it off.

I have to wear glasses, and need a binocular with longer eye relief for the "no excuses" job - I own and enjoy using short eye relief binoculars, but use them around their limitations, and this misting of the outer surface of the eyepiece lenses is one. I'd be interested to know how the Habichts perform in this respect: if I ever undergo corrective surgery that removes the need for me to use glasses, I'd definitely like to evaluate the 10x40 model.

Hi Patudo,
I've just found your post here will searching for people reporting about Habicht's and mist/fogging up of eyepieces (at the external surface). The reason for my search is that this is exactly what I have experienced yesterday evening and I wanted to know if others also reported on this. I was cycling a bit along the river here, enjoying a beautiful though cold autumn evening (after a sunny day, sun already set), and I had taken both my Ultravid HD 8x32 and Swarovski Habicht 8x30 with me to look at all the birds, as I am trying to decide if I will keep both and, if so, when to use which one. It was getting darker (the sun had just set) and there were some little patches of mist over the fields (beautiful), but only at considerable distance from me. The view over the river and over the walking/cycling path was perfectly clear over a long distance.
I had truly enjoyed the Habicht here before a month or so ago, though in the middle of the day, with beautiful light. The view through the Habicht had been magnificent, 3D, alive, with sparkle, marvelously enjoyable.
However, I couldn't use the Habicht yesterday evening: the external surface of the eyepieces very quickly fogged up. I had added some cheap rubber eye shields, making the Habicht eyepiece a little bit wider and a little bit longer (a little winged), as suggested by others here on the forum, and thought that might be the cause (reducing air circulation). Thus I removed them and cleaned/dried the eyepieces and tried again, but no cigar: they fogged up very quickly again. I tried again after cycling a bit and the fog having disappeared from them naturally, but again, they fogged up very(!) quickly, again and again. (I didn't notice any internal fogging and nothing at the objectives side, only external fogging on the eyepieces.)
On the contrary, no fogging appeared on the Ultravid at all, notwithstanding they don't have a long eye relief either.
As incredibly marvelous as the Habichts had been at the same spot but different weather (temperature, humidity, light), as frustrating was the experience with them yesterday. The Ultravids were undeniably the best yesterday evening in those conditions, keeping also great contrast etc. in the dim lighting.
I guess my conclusion is that the Habicht are truly incredible when the situation is right, but that the Ultravid are the one's I would trust to give excellent viewing in (almost?) all conditions.
(There are also other important differences between these, but that is another story. I should write up my findings once, comparing these also with the Zeiss Victory 8x25, Kite Lynx HD 8x30 and Docter porro 8x30. I didn't have these with me yesterday though, thus I don't know how these would have fared fogging wise.)
(PS: I don't wear glasses)


Still wondering: did others also experience this external fogging of the eyepieces with any Habicht (8x30 or 10x40 especially), what's the cause and is there any solution for it?

 

[pepe]

I think the fogging was due to the short eye relief of the Habicht 8x30 W which is only 12 mm, whereas, the Leica Ultravid HD 8x32 is 16 mm.
...

16 mm for the Ultravid 8x32 ... really?

On the Leica HP i find 13,3 mm !!!

If you are right, i will order the little Leica beauty just in the very next minute!

 

[John A Roberts]

Looking at Canip’s just posted results on useable eye relief (see at: https://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=396397 ):

• Swarovski Habicht 8x30W: 10 mm (vs nominal 12 mm)

• Leica Ultravid HD+ 8x32: 12 mm (vs nominal 13.3 mm)

When people refer to 16 mm ER on the UV HD, it seems that they've used the ‘twlight factor’ figure on the specification sheet


John