I am sure I would like the Zeiss SF because I do like large FOV's out to about 450 feet but it is too bad they didn't just design it so it had a 100% sharp field. I don't see RB that much and it doesn't bother me. Now a Zeiss SF 10x50 with a 400 foot FOV and a 100% sharp field would be awesome.
-
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.
New bin, EL10x50SV (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Uhu74
- Start date
I haven't heard any whispers of an SF 50 but it would be a logical extension to the range.
Lee
Theo98
Eurasian Goldfinch
:t:
Something special about them isn't there? It's just that big AFOV that is 100% sharp to the edge that's makes them stunning. No other binocular made can do that like a Swarovision. The 10x50 SV is special because it is doing it at 10x so everything is just so up close and personal. Not only are they a great birding binocular but they beat the Fujinon 10x50 FMT-SX for astronomical use and they are 15 oz. lighter. Now that's an all around binocular!
Last edited:
Theo98
Eurasian Goldfinch
Agree...In my experience, don't look through the EL 10X50 SV unless your ready to annie-up the $$$! Haven't garnered the "Wow" like the 10x50 portrays yet from any other optics! Truly, seeing is believing!!! :king:
Ted
El 10x50 for general use.
Hello everybody!
I'm no birdwatcher (shame on me I guess) but I'm an enthusiastic nature observer, long term hobby astronomer and semi pro photographer. I'm in the mountains often and I wanted to buy me a long lasting high quality set of binoculars for hikes, holidays and the occasional star- and moon-gazing with the family (might buy more binocs as soon as the kids grow up)
I haven't gotten my hands on these Swarovski yet but the 10x50 are at the top of my list.
I was a bit surprised when I swiftly tested the Zeiss SF on saturday. I really HATED the peripheral warping/distortion while panning, which the binocular crowd apparently refers to as the "rolling ball effect". Insanely distracting, almost causes me a headache like when putting on glasses from a myopic friend. I don't know how anyone can pan using this and not feel 'warped'. I'm just puzzled how this seems to be the mainstream now (in this century). I've never used any binoculars built after 2000, I think.
For being called (one of) the best binoculars around (from Zeiss), I was quite disappointed by the build quality, (plastic threads, really?) and the CA and no, not a bad sample, tried four. The salesman couldn't believe I see CA and only after I assured him I knew what dispersion is did he stop trying to convince me that there is none.
I don't know, maybe I'm expecting too much (I am indeed a laser/optics physicist) but for 2-3k€ + mass production I would have thought the level of quality was gonna be higher. Again, i've only checked out the Zeiss SF 10/8 versions. CA was easily visible on all high contrast edges (black branches against white sky), starting as early as 1/3 off axis, I think. |
|
I didn't expect to see any CA in 2016 at this price point. I'm not up to date when it comes to consumer optics but I'll definitely talk to the Zeiss optics guys next time I'm in Jena, I really wonder if they gave it all they got or if they can't manufacture better optics at a price point that can still sell..... I'm puzzled.
After testing the SF I at least know that I'm aiming for 10x (no problem with the hand tremor, but keeping in mind the SF's are lighter and 'easy to hold'). Doing the math, I consider the >50mm aperture and resulting exit pupil reasonable for low light/astronomy. I think that other 50mm aperture alternatives besides the Swarovski 10x50 would be the Leica Ultravids 10x50 or the Zeiss 10x54 HT. I'm used to carry much heavier equipment but I have to draw the line somewhere so I'd say the 54mm HT mark the weight limit for me since I want them for general purpose (including mountain hiking).
I can't wait to test the EL 10x50 if I can get my hands on them. I hope I won't be so thrown off by any peripheral warping (rolling ball) like I was with the Zeiss ... plus I hope for way less CA! If they can deliver on those fronts, I leave with a pair.
Any thoughts and comments on my remarks/questions are greatly appreciated. I just hope my expectations of what I could get when purchasing the very high end binoculars weren't too high!
Hello everybody!
I'm no birdwatcher (shame on me I guess) but I'm an enthusiastic nature observer, long term hobby astronomer and semi pro photographer. I'm in the mountains often and I wanted to buy me a long lasting high quality set of binoculars for hikes, holidays and the occasional star- and moon-gazing with the family (might buy more binocs as soon as the kids grow up)
I haven't gotten my hands on these Swarovski yet but the 10x50 are at the top of my list.
I was a bit surprised when I swiftly tested the Zeiss SF on saturday. I really HATED the peripheral warping/distortion while panning, which the binocular crowd apparently refers to as the "rolling ball effect". Insanely distracting, almost causes me a headache like when putting on glasses from a myopic friend. I don't know how anyone can pan using this and not feel 'warped'. I'm just puzzled how this seems to be the mainstream now (in this century). I've never used any binoculars built after 2000, I think.
- Is there anyone who can directly compare the Swarovski with the Zeiss SF regarding rolling ball? Are the SV 10x50 even worse?
- Has anyone ever hated the effect but gotten used to it over time up to the point of being able to not see it or using the optics without getting dizzy?
- According to some tests chromatic aberration is supposedly even stronger in the SV EL series than in the Zeiss SF. Any comment on that? I was quite displeased with the CA level in the SFs.
- How is the build quality of the SV compared to the SF?
- The SF's were nicely sharp in the center, if the SV are comparably sharp that'd be good.
For being called (one of) the best binoculars around (from Zeiss), I was quite disappointed by the build quality, (plastic threads, really?) and the CA and no, not a bad sample, tried four. The salesman couldn't believe I see CA and only after I assured him I knew what dispersion is did he stop trying to convince me that there is none.
I don't know, maybe I'm expecting too much (I am indeed a laser/optics physicist) but for 2-3k€ + mass production I would have thought the level of quality was gonna be higher. Again, i've only checked out the Zeiss SF 10/8 versions. CA was easily visible on all high contrast edges (black branches against white sky), starting as early as 1/3 off axis, I think. |
|I didn't expect to see any CA in 2016 at this price point. I'm not up to date when it comes to consumer optics but I'll definitely talk to the Zeiss optics guys next time I'm in Jena, I really wonder if they gave it all they got or if they can't manufacture better optics at a price point that can still sell..... I'm puzzled.
After testing the SF I at least know that I'm aiming for 10x (no problem with the hand tremor, but keeping in mind the SF's are lighter and 'easy to hold'). Doing the math, I consider the >50mm aperture and resulting exit pupil reasonable for low light/astronomy. I think that other 50mm aperture alternatives besides the Swarovski 10x50 would be the Leica Ultravids 10x50 or the Zeiss 10x54 HT. I'm used to carry much heavier equipment but I have to draw the line somewhere so I'd say the 54mm HT mark the weight limit for me since I want them for general purpose (including mountain hiking).
I can't wait to test the EL 10x50 if I can get my hands on them. I hope I won't be so thrown off by any peripheral warping (rolling ball) like I was with the Zeiss ... plus I hope for way less CA! If they can deliver on those fronts, I leave with a pair.
Any thoughts and comments on my remarks/questions are greatly appreciated. I just hope my expectations of what I could get when purchasing the very high end binoculars weren't too high!
Last edited:
SuperDuty
Well-known member
randfee
You're in luck, my fabulous piece on these two is available for your enjoyment here.3http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=314992
You're in luck, my fabulous piece on these two is available for your enjoyment here.3
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=314992
SuperDuty
Well-known member
Don't waste your time if CA is a deal breaker for you, the 10X50 SV has considerably more than the 10X42 SF.
BruceH
Avatar: Harris Hawk
Hello Randfee .... Welcome to the Forum!
I concluded from your post above that CA and rolling ball control are a very high priority for you in evaluating a new binocular and you are wanting to know how the Swaro 10X50 EL SV handles these issue and how these two attributes compare between the Swaro and the Zeiss SF.
CA Control: I have a Zeiss SF 10X42 and like you, I do see some CA off center. Fortunately for me, I am not sensitive to it but do have a specific test view that I use to evaluate for CA. I have yet to come across a binocular that does not display some CA during this test. I do not have any binoculars that show less CA than the SF. It is as good as any binocular I have seen in controlling CA. However since I am not sensitive to it, I may not be the best person to do the evaluation.
I do not own a Swaro 10X50 SV EL (yet), but I do have it's kissing cousin, the 12X50 EL SV. The CA tests on 12X50 are very similar to the SF. Actually the SF may be slightly better, but that could be the result of the magnification differences. One of our members, SuperDuty (who posted above) has the 10X50 SV EL and has given it glowing reports except for CA. He appears to be extremely sensitive to it as you are and he has commented in some of his posts that he is considering selling the 10X50 because of the CA issue for him. Most members have not had CA problems with the 1050 SV EL, just as most have not reported CA issues with the SF. Unfortunately, you and SuperDuty appear to be at the extremely sensitive end of the scale.
My thought is that if you found CA unacceptable in the SF, you may have the same issue with the Swaro. The Swaro does show CA so that means there is a possibly that it will brother you.
It is doubtful that you will find any binocular that does not display some CA under the right conditions. I think that is just a result of design limitations. The challenge for you is to find a model that can control it to an acceptable level. You might consider the Kowa. I believe it is the Genesis that receives consistent reviews of excellent CA control.
Rolling Ball: Just like CA, there is a wide variation in sensitivity to rolling ball between people. I know what rolling ball is because I easily saw it in the Swaro 8.5X42 SV EL. It was severe enough for me that I would not buy that model. However I do not see it in the Swaro 10X42 SV EL, or in the Swaro 10X50 SV EL or in the SF 10X42. I do see some in the SF 8X42 but not to the point that it bothers me. A couple of people that I met who are extremely sensitive to rolling ball told me they could see it in my 10X42 SF, but it was not near as bad as what they saw in the Swaro 10X42 SV EL. I do not know how the Swaro 42 compares to th 50 in regards to rolling ball. I suspect they are similar since I do not see it in either one (or in the 12X50).
One of our knowledgeable members, Steve C purchased a Swaro 10X50 SV EL around last summer. He ultimately put it up for sale because he experienced rolling ball with it and could not adjust. Again, I suspect you may possibly experience rolling ball with the Swaro 10X50 SV EL. The experiences of others show that it is not immune.
Construction: You mentioned plastic threads on the SF so I assume you are referring to the eye cups. Rather than calling them plastic, a more accurate description would be reinforced composite (fiberglass?). There are a couple of advantages of composite eye cups over metal. If dropped on the eye cup, the eye cup will break first before damaging the threads inside the ocular. The fix is a simple call to Zeiss for a replacement eyecup. A metal eye cup runs the risk of damaging the ocular threads and requiring the return of the binocular to the manufactuer for a repair. There may be a charge depending on the no fault policy for the country of sale. A second advantage of the composite is it has flex and may absorb the shock without breaking. A metal eye cup is subject to bending. Given a choice, I would choose the composite (not plastic) material over the metal eye cup.
One more comment on the eye cups differences between the SF and Swaro. The eye cup positions on the SF are much more positive in their positions whereas the Swaro positions are somewhat mushy in feel. However the Swaro has two intermediate positions whereas the SF only has one.
My Swaro 12X50 has one of the best focus mechanisms I have come across in any EL binocular. However the SF is a little smoother and more precise. The good news is that most all of the EL's I have handled in the last year have had acceptable focus mechanisms. It looks like Swaro has listened to the complaints and stepped up the quality significantly in that area.
As far as overall construction, they both appear robust to me and I consider them equivalent. Until someone like Bill, who has years of experience in repairs, takes both apart and does an evaluation, then it is just a guess. Both have had some problems reported on occasion, but I have not seen any trends in either to raise concerns.
The issues (CA and rolling ball) that are of major concern to you are of a personal nature and so it is not possible for us to give you a definitive answer on if the Swaro 10x50 SV EL would be acceptable. From everything I have seen and read, it has the potential to display the same issues you experienced with the SF. Hopefully there are sellers in your part of the world that offer an evaluation period so you can try it for yourself. That is the only way you are going to know for sure. I can anticipate a real possibility that the Swaro will be similar to the SF.
One more thing to keep in mind is the Swaro 10X50 is a big heavy beast. That is the price to pay for that larger objective and any advantages it brings. That may be a concern for you since you said you are a hiker. It is to much for me to use as a general purpose binocular, but there are several members using it as their primary binocular without complaint. Acceptable size and weight is a personal decision.
My suggestion is to expand your list to consider the Kowa. It may do a better job in controlling the CA and it is a classic design so it should be fine in handling rolling ball. Like all binoculars, it has weaknesses, but they may be much lower over all on your weighted evaluation list and may not be a problem ccompared to your two top priorities.
Please post back on how your search is progressing. All binoculars are a compromise but hopefully you will find one that works for you.
I concluded from your post above that CA and rolling ball control are a very high priority for you in evaluating a new binocular and you are wanting to know how the Swaro 10X50 EL SV handles these issue and how these two attributes compare between the Swaro and the Zeiss SF.
CA Control: I have a Zeiss SF 10X42 and like you, I do see some CA off center. Fortunately for me, I am not sensitive to it but do have a specific test view that I use to evaluate for CA. I have yet to come across a binocular that does not display some CA during this test. I do not have any binoculars that show less CA than the SF. It is as good as any binocular I have seen in controlling CA. However since I am not sensitive to it, I may not be the best person to do the evaluation.
I do not own a Swaro 10X50 SV EL (yet), but I do have it's kissing cousin, the 12X50 EL SV. The CA tests on 12X50 are very similar to the SF. Actually the SF may be slightly better, but that could be the result of the magnification differences. One of our members, SuperDuty (who posted above) has the 10X50 SV EL and has given it glowing reports except for CA. He appears to be extremely sensitive to it as you are and he has commented in some of his posts that he is considering selling the 10X50 because of the CA issue for him. Most members have not had CA problems with the 1050 SV EL, just as most have not reported CA issues with the SF. Unfortunately, you and SuperDuty appear to be at the extremely sensitive end of the scale.
My thought is that if you found CA unacceptable in the SF, you may have the same issue with the Swaro. The Swaro does show CA so that means there is a possibly that it will brother you.
It is doubtful that you will find any binocular that does not display some CA under the right conditions. I think that is just a result of design limitations. The challenge for you is to find a model that can control it to an acceptable level. You might consider the Kowa. I believe it is the Genesis that receives consistent reviews of excellent CA control.
Rolling Ball: Just like CA, there is a wide variation in sensitivity to rolling ball between people. I know what rolling ball is because I easily saw it in the Swaro 8.5X42 SV EL. It was severe enough for me that I would not buy that model. However I do not see it in the Swaro 10X42 SV EL, or in the Swaro 10X50 SV EL or in the SF 10X42. I do see some in the SF 8X42 but not to the point that it bothers me. A couple of people that I met who are extremely sensitive to rolling ball told me they could see it in my 10X42 SF, but it was not near as bad as what they saw in the Swaro 10X42 SV EL. I do not know how the Swaro 42 compares to th 50 in regards to rolling ball. I suspect they are similar since I do not see it in either one (or in the 12X50).
One of our knowledgeable members, Steve C purchased a Swaro 10X50 SV EL around last summer. He ultimately put it up for sale because he experienced rolling ball with it and could not adjust. Again, I suspect you may possibly experience rolling ball with the Swaro 10X50 SV EL. The experiences of others show that it is not immune.
Construction: You mentioned plastic threads on the SF so I assume you are referring to the eye cups. Rather than calling them plastic, a more accurate description would be reinforced composite (fiberglass?). There are a couple of advantages of composite eye cups over metal. If dropped on the eye cup, the eye cup will break first before damaging the threads inside the ocular. The fix is a simple call to Zeiss for a replacement eyecup. A metal eye cup runs the risk of damaging the ocular threads and requiring the return of the binocular to the manufactuer for a repair. There may be a charge depending on the no fault policy for the country of sale. A second advantage of the composite is it has flex and may absorb the shock without breaking. A metal eye cup is subject to bending. Given a choice, I would choose the composite (not plastic) material over the metal eye cup.
One more comment on the eye cups differences between the SF and Swaro. The eye cup positions on the SF are much more positive in their positions whereas the Swaro positions are somewhat mushy in feel. However the Swaro has two intermediate positions whereas the SF only has one.
My Swaro 12X50 has one of the best focus mechanisms I have come across in any EL binocular. However the SF is a little smoother and more precise. The good news is that most all of the EL's I have handled in the last year have had acceptable focus mechanisms. It looks like Swaro has listened to the complaints and stepped up the quality significantly in that area.
As far as overall construction, they both appear robust to me and I consider them equivalent. Until someone like Bill, who has years of experience in repairs, takes both apart and does an evaluation, then it is just a guess. Both have had some problems reported on occasion, but I have not seen any trends in either to raise concerns.
The issues (CA and rolling ball) that are of major concern to you are of a personal nature and so it is not possible for us to give you a definitive answer on if the Swaro 10x50 SV EL would be acceptable. From everything I have seen and read, it has the potential to display the same issues you experienced with the SF. Hopefully there are sellers in your part of the world that offer an evaluation period so you can try it for yourself. That is the only way you are going to know for sure. I can anticipate a real possibility that the Swaro will be similar to the SF.
One more thing to keep in mind is the Swaro 10X50 is a big heavy beast. That is the price to pay for that larger objective and any advantages it brings. That may be a concern for you since you said you are a hiker. It is to much for me to use as a general purpose binocular, but there are several members using it as their primary binocular without complaint. Acceptable size and weight is a personal decision.
My suggestion is to expand your list to consider the Kowa. It may do a better job in controlling the CA and it is a classic design so it should be fine in handling rolling ball. Like all binoculars, it has weaknesses, but they may be much lower over all on your weighted evaluation list and may not be a problem ccompared to your two top priorities.
Please post back on how your search is progressing. All binoculars are a compromise but hopefully you will find one that works for you.
SuperDuty
Well-known member
That is dead on, I didn't think anybody actually read my comments.3 I am very fortunate to not see globe effect in either the 10X42 SF the 8.5X42 SV or the 10X50 SV. The differences in the way each person's brain processes the visual signals it receives, and maybe the unique visual information each person's eyes send to their brain is quite a mystery.
I am very fortunate to not see globe effect in either the 10X42 SF the 8.5X42 SV or the 10X50 SV. The differences in the way each person's brain processes the visual signals it receives, and maybe the unique visual information each person's eyes send to their brain is quite a mystery.
BruceH
Avatar: Harris Hawk
That is dead on, I didn't think anybody actually read my comments.3
Oh yea, I read you postings and most all the others. Now remembering what I read and who posted it where, that is a different story. :eek!:
Did you ever get a chance to compare your Swaro 10X50 SV EL to another like unit in order to rule out owning a possible bad sample?
The Cabela's in Glendale, AZ had the new Profield version on display in the 10X50 last weekend. All of the classic strap lug models were sold out expect for the 10X32. They were initially not supposed to display the new models yet, but that changed when there were basically no old EL's to sell. I think the binocular business was good last weekend with all of the Alabama and Clemson football fans in town for the National Championship game. The Cardinals football stadium, where the game was played, is right across the street from Cabela's. A lot of Alabama fans were wandering around the store Saturday when I was there.
Last edited:
SuperDuty
Well-known member
Hi Bruce
I haven't, it would take more effort than I'm willing to put out at this point, that and I like the 8.5 SV image better in a number of ways. I would be willing to bet $100 that my 10X50 is totally within spec, I just see the CA in them more so than the majority of owners. In hindsight, I should have returned them while I had the chance, but I told myself I would get used to the CA. When I'm spending this kind of money, I absolutely MUST get what I want, I won't settle for anything less.
Robert
I haven't, it would take more effort than I'm willing to put out at this point, that and I like the 8.5 SV image better in a number of ways. I would be willing to bet $100 that my 10X50 is totally within spec, I just see the CA in them more so than the majority of owners. In hindsight, I should have returned them while I had the chance, but I told myself I would get used to the CA. When I'm spending this kind of money, I absolutely MUST get what I want, I won't settle for anything less.
Robert
BruceH
Avatar: Harris Hawk
Even if it were my 5 dollars to your 100, I would probably be giving you the 5 bucks. I suspect you are correct that all is in spec, but actually it would be great if there were a problem so it could be fixed and then you might achieve your binocular nirvana.
In the above you said the 8.5 SV EL image is better than the 10X50 in a number of ways. Now that you have spent some more time with the 8.5, what are some of the things that you like better about it compared to the the 10X50? I am sure CA handling is at the top of the list. Also, are there things about the 10X50 that you like better than the 8.5X42?
SuperDuty
Well-known member
Bruce
I'll refer you here for answers http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=316879 . Another of my fabulously informative contributions to the forum.3
I'll refer you here for answers http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=316879 . Another of my fabulously informative contributions to the forum.3
thanks Robert & Bruce for your insightful comments.
I wouldn't say that I'm sensitive to CA, it just bothers me considering the price. I see it when I look for it and my physicist brain then thinks: Bad optics!
As I stated, maybe my expectations are too high since my education robs me of a purely 'subjective experience'. As I know all the technical optical aberrations there could be, I subconsciously look for them, I guess. I looked at RAW images of my 70-200mm telephoto lens from Canon and doing a little math I think that CA there is clearly less pronounced (angular wise) than what I saw in the Zeiss SF. The binoculars were definitely in the mrad range whereas the photo-lens is in the sub mrad range.
As for rolling ball, that truly throws me off when panning. It's not a technical issue with me since I know one can't have it distortion free and a flat focal plane i.e., same goes for photography. But what good is my technical acceptance if I am always going to be distracted by it.
That's why I'd be interested in hearing if anyone who was as annoyed as me by it (or felt dizzy) actually got used to the effect up to the point of indifference.
I hadn't considered impact behaviour for the eye caps, good point. I'm not sure it is a composite material, it just immediately jumped me that it wasn't metal.
I will go and check out the Leica and Kowa as well if I can find them. As I'm from southern germany I'll be looking for a place that has all the german and austrian brands in stock but it's getting harder and harder these days as online traders force so many old style dealers with good stock out of their business. Luckily we have the right to return online orders for at least 14 days.
I wouldn't say that I'm sensitive to CA, it just bothers me considering the price. I see it when I look for it and my physicist brain then thinks: Bad optics!
As I stated, maybe my expectations are too high since my education robs me of a purely 'subjective experience'. As I know all the technical optical aberrations there could be, I subconsciously look for them, I guess. I looked at RAW images of my 70-200mm telephoto lens from Canon and doing a little math I think that CA there is clearly less pronounced (angular wise) than what I saw in the Zeiss SF. The binoculars were definitely in the mrad range whereas the photo-lens is in the sub mrad range.
As for rolling ball, that truly throws me off when panning. It's not a technical issue with me since I know one can't have it distortion free and a flat focal plane i.e., same goes for photography. But what good is my technical acceptance if I am always going to be distracted by it.
That's why I'd be interested in hearing if anyone who was as annoyed as me by it (or felt dizzy) actually got used to the effect up to the point of indifference.
I hadn't considered impact behaviour for the eye caps, good point. I'm not sure it is a composite material, it just immediately jumped me that it wasn't metal.
I will go and check out the Leica and Kowa as well if I can find them. As I'm from southern germany I'll be looking for a place that has all the german and austrian brands in stock but it's getting harder and harder these days as online traders force so many old style dealers with good stock out of their business. Luckily we have the right to return online orders for at least 14 days.
SuperDuty
Well-known member
I'm right there with you, for considerably north of two grand I expect vanishingly low levels of CA. Actually getting that, now that's another story.
NDhunter
Experienced observer
SD:
I would have thought by now with your time on Birdforum, you should
have learned there is no binocular without some CA.
There are some differences however small with the lateral CA levels on
all of the top models on the market today.
You can push and see it with all of the top models on the market today.
That is why there is a compromise with any binocular.
I predict you will never be happy with CA. :smoke:
Jerry
SuperDuty
Well-known member
I predict that you are correct. So why don't you lecture randfee about the CA he sees and also doesn't care for.
Last edited:
Randfee,
I have tested just about all the top binoculars over the last nearly twenty years, as well as the premium spotting scopes. From what I've seen, you are not going to find any binoculars that would be free of CA to your eyes if you consider the Zeiss SF to have too much. The top-of-the-line Kowa might be closest, as some have suggested, but on the flip side it is heavy for its specs, has a narrower field of view, and is not as bright (has lower transmission) than the Zeiss SF or any of the Swarovisions. Among the Zeiss models, the SF has less CA than the HT series, and it also has a bit less than the Swarovski 10x42 and 10x50 SV's.
Primarily, CA in these binoculars is lateral, and the centerfield is almost free of it. But, if you really look for CA, you can see a little bit as soon as you move the target off-center at all. A trained and sharp eye is really good at seeing aberrations, that's just the way it is.
For a reference as to what is possible with premium birding optics, look through the Kowa 883 scope with a 25-60x Zoom. You will see CA, but the levels are lower than in any other piece of birding optics I have ever tried. That scope also trails the best Swaro and Zeiss models when it comes to transmission characteristics, but in a good sample the optics are truly well corrected.
Since you are a physicist, I'll remind you of the eternal sample variation issue. With daylight adjusted pupils (2-3mm), a human with sharp vision is capable of seeing the effects of aberrations in the image of a non-diffraction-limited set of optics, and therefore the unavoidable sample differences between actual production units come to play. You said you tested four pairs, so the CA issue was probably not down to that, but true cherries are rare, and you may still find a pair that performs significantly better than the ones you tried.
As for rolling ball, to my eyes the SF has more of it and in more bothersome ways than the Swarovskis. However, how we experience rolling ball seems to be highly individual, so you really need to try them yourself. Many people do get used to whatever distortions their binocular has, but not all do. Therefore, if you buy a model that initially bothers you, you are taking a bit of a bet. Personally, I found the 8x42 SF more bothersome than the 10x42 SF, and with the latter I was mostly rather comfortable after a while. However, I did and do prefer using the Canon 10x42 L IS, which has traditional pincushion, no rolling ball, wide enough field of view at 6.5 degrees, edge sharpness about equal to the 10x42 SV and better than the SF, and CA levels on par with the Swarovisions. In addition, there is image stabilization, but that is another story.
On RB, check out the following BF thread:
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=313034
Hope this helps you some.
Kimmo
I have tested just about all the top binoculars over the last nearly twenty years, as well as the premium spotting scopes. From what I've seen, you are not going to find any binoculars that would be free of CA to your eyes if you consider the Zeiss SF to have too much. The top-of-the-line Kowa might be closest, as some have suggested, but on the flip side it is heavy for its specs, has a narrower field of view, and is not as bright (has lower transmission) than the Zeiss SF or any of the Swarovisions. Among the Zeiss models, the SF has less CA than the HT series, and it also has a bit less than the Swarovski 10x42 and 10x50 SV's.
Primarily, CA in these binoculars is lateral, and the centerfield is almost free of it. But, if you really look for CA, you can see a little bit as soon as you move the target off-center at all. A trained and sharp eye is really good at seeing aberrations, that's just the way it is.
For a reference as to what is possible with premium birding optics, look through the Kowa 883 scope with a 25-60x Zoom. You will see CA, but the levels are lower than in any other piece of birding optics I have ever tried. That scope also trails the best Swaro and Zeiss models when it comes to transmission characteristics, but in a good sample the optics are truly well corrected.
Since you are a physicist, I'll remind you of the eternal sample variation issue. With daylight adjusted pupils (2-3mm), a human with sharp vision is capable of seeing the effects of aberrations in the image of a non-diffraction-limited set of optics, and therefore the unavoidable sample differences between actual production units come to play. You said you tested four pairs, so the CA issue was probably not down to that, but true cherries are rare, and you may still find a pair that performs significantly better than the ones you tried.
As for rolling ball, to my eyes the SF has more of it and in more bothersome ways than the Swarovskis. However, how we experience rolling ball seems to be highly individual, so you really need to try them yourself. Many people do get used to whatever distortions their binocular has, but not all do. Therefore, if you buy a model that initially bothers you, you are taking a bit of a bet. Personally, I found the 8x42 SF more bothersome than the 10x42 SF, and with the latter I was mostly rather comfortable after a while. However, I did and do prefer using the Canon 10x42 L IS, which has traditional pincushion, no rolling ball, wide enough field of view at 6.5 degrees, edge sharpness about equal to the 10x42 SV and better than the SF, and CA levels on par with the Swarovisions. In addition, there is image stabilization, but that is another story.
On RB, check out the following BF thread:
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=313034
Hope this helps you some.
Kimmo
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
