BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!

Register for an account to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="OPTIC_NUT" data-source="post: 3367037" data-attributes="member: 121951">There are coatings, but that's just one element.  Specular edge reflections bug the bejabbers out of me and soften the view around the flash, so multi-multi isn't all fairies spewing sparkles across the sky.  It was really nice to see Zeissstill knows the value of a bit of violet roll-off even now. For now, the new Meoptasstay in the closet a lot of the time.  Reminds of of the days of Technics stereo equipment.......the compliance with specs. actually strangled the harmonics in music, and thespeakers sounded papery.   Great numbers, though!  Cat Stevens sounded like he desperately needed a drink of water.A starter model with a starter eyepiece is much the same as 20 or 50 years ago. A bit finer field quality costs 30-60% more, and then a bit more..The human eye can't tell much difference with a 30% light loss, except at dusk.Baffling was generally better, but it's making a comeback in many very new models.---Really fine mechanics are needed to carry out the best optics...and that hasn't changed much.    It seems to me sometimes the mechanics on the old ones is much better, but not really..     ....I'm just selecting mechanically excellent models whose premium price is forgotten.    They charged plenty for precision-honed focusers and stretch-Erfles back when, and now.---Aculon arms flex a bit, but so did starter Bushnells in the 80s.     Towers and Scopes...well, you can park a car on them.  They did cost.     Most of Swift's success has been giving the glass a respectful chassis, then and now.      ---That coating 'yellowing' almost disappears when you clean everything.  Try looking through today's gear    in 30 yrs.....it will be a hand-full, hi-q filters with a little resistive film on them...yikes. Like cleaning      Takumar SMCs, but more severe and demanding.---ED lenses:  seems pointless at lower power, but there is something about the extra resolution for edges.     That's hard to write off....if you're at 10x30 or similar, that's one place the newer stuff can be special.     If you buy a physically short ED pair, though, it's eating up most of the advantage.  Watch out...is the      same thing an inch shorter worth an extra $600 (maybe a silly question here, heh)...----Hand-ground extra-wides are a thing of the past, but people are too fussy about the edges of the    field.  Heck, I am.   Still, quite the thrill on a good day in unfamiliar surroundings.  A flawless 55 degrees    apparent from old aspherical glass....you can't beat it for contrast.  The "Zen Masters" of that are      likely all dead.  I carry a field lens around to shock people with its power-at-breakup....way past     what sphericals can do with the same element FL.</blockquote>

Verification