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

    You are most welcome to register for an account, which allows you to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

New Hawke Frontier Apo vs Nikon MHG (1 Viewer)

Upland

Well-known member
BTW glad all you guys are happy with your HGs. Everyone had different ideas of what good optics and build quality is.
 

cottonbase

Well-known member
Then why did you compare a EDX which is not part of the post? Pretty useless when the post is about the APO vs HG.

As you're not the original poster that's not for you to decide. The OP can determine if the contributions people have taken the time to make are helpful or not (in the absence of any APO buyer documenting their experience, let alone comparing it with another binocular). That they don't help you is irrelevant. If he wants, he can tell the posters their advice is useless - doing so though will probably result in no further additions to this thread.

But if you believe someone has appointed you judge over the other posters, you should consider that your own five comments have added nothing to the discussion of the comparison between a Hawke APO and a Nikon MHG.

Not sure why this stuff has to be spelt out explicitly but thanks for your contribution...
 

Upland

Well-known member
As you're not the original poster that's not for you to decide. The OP can determine if the contributions people have taken the time to make are helpful or not (in the absence of any APO buyer documenting their experience, let alone comparing it with another binocular). That they don't help you is irrelevant. If he wants, he can tell the posters their advice is useless - doing so though will probably result in no further additions to this thread.

But if you believe someone has appointed you judge over the other posters, you should consider that your own five comments have added nothing to the discussion of the comparison between a Hawke APO and a Nikon MHG.

Not sure why this stuff has to be spelt out explicitly but thanks for your contribution...

Have been on birdforum for awhile. What I’ve noticed is that lots of folks jump in on a thread without reading or having comprehended what the post is about and start offering opinions on other things. Not very helpful IMHO. When I post a new topic I want it to remain on the original question. Contrary to what you have just said it seems as if you are been judgmental. I’ve talked simply about what the OP has asked about APO vs HG. And I’ll leave it to Him not You to decide if it’s relevant or helpful.
 

Leonardoo123

New member
Guys its all right we can debate.

The question is, how close are EDX to APO optically speaking?

If you guys think all "Hawke Frontier" models are optically very close ( the lenses quality between HDX to EDX to APO ), then yes this is to be taken into account, and we can talk about EDX.
But If there is a significant gap optically speaking between EDX to APO, then we should compare HG to APO, as the APO is the new high end model of the brand Hawke.

Deep down, optically speaking, we all know the camparison between EDX to HG doesn't really make sense, HG is very far ahead. The price is double between these 2 binoculars and HG's are one of the best value for money so far on the market.
So yes we should maybe compare binoculars from the same range, or close to the same price.
Against EDX, HG easily win on most criteria, expect maybe on the build quality if we believe the reviews.

By creating this thread, I was just hoping feedback from new APO users, reviewers, people who tested them ...
The APO binoculars look very interesting reading the presentation saying: APO for Extra-Low-Dispersion APOchromatic Lenses, extreme clarity, flat field vision, excellent chromatic aberration control, very large FOV of 142m.

The cheapest "Flat field" binos on the market were the HG.
Now it's the APO.
That is why I found interesting to compare both of them.
 

eitanaltman

Well-known member
The MHG hardly has field flattening...though it itself states it so boldly.

I'm not sure if I agree with that, although once again we end up in the murky definition of the term "flat field" which is not used consistently.

Many people think of "flat field" as the straight lines + rolling ball distortion profile of the Swaro SV. The MHG 8x42 that I have has only a small amount of pincushion which straightens out / reverses towards the edge, with AMD/compression towards the edges. So there is for sure aggressive correction of rectilinear distortion.

That said, the *technical* meaning of "flat field" is more about field curvature, but once again the MHG from what I can tell has pretty minimal curvature. It's sharp across most of the field (maybe the last ~20% gets blurry?) and only requires a slight adjustment to bring the edges into focus.

So it's not Swaro SV edge-to-edge sharpness (with aggressive correction of both curvature and pincushion) but it's probably ~80% of the way there. It's certainly way "flatter" than the typical birding binocular.
 

Xlr8n

Well-known member
I'm not sure if I agree with that, although once again we end up in the murky definition of the term "flat field" which is not used consistently.

Many people think of "flat field" as the straight lines + rolling ball distortion profile of the Swaro SV. The MHG 8x42 that I have has only a small amount of pincushion which straightens out / reverses towards the edge, with AMD/compression towards the edges. So there is for sure aggressive correction of rectilinear distortion.

That said, the *technical* meaning of "flat field" is more about field curvature, but once again the MHG from what I can tell has pretty minimal curvature. It's sharp across most of the field (maybe the last ~20% gets blurry?) and only requires a slight adjustment to bring the edges into focus.

So it's not Swaro SV edge-to-edge sharpness (with aggressive correction of both curvature and pincushion) but it's probably ~80% of the way there. It's certainly way "flatter" than the typical birding binocular.

I'd agree with your disagreement...and subsequent explanation. :t:
 

GriffinB

New member
Hi folks: Expecting my Hawke Frontier 10x42 APO's to arrive Monday from B&H. These were ordered in June. Very interesting that even now there are no reviews or first-impression reports. I can leave some comments here if anyone is interested, though I'm no expert (this is my first post here).
 

Canip

Well-known member
Yes, please do, looking forward to your comments!
Do you own any other binos which you can compare with?

Canip
 

GeoffWood

Well-known member
Hi folks: Expecting my Hawke Frontier 10x42 APO's to arrive Monday from B&H. These were ordered in June. Very interesting that even now there are no reviews or first-impression reports. I can leave some comments here if anyone is interested, though I'm no expert (this is my first post here).
Did you get them?
Any early opinions?
 

dries1

Member
The HG is better quality than the M7 in material construction, design and optics, that is my opinion.
I really do not see how they can be compared.

Andy W.
 

GriffinB

New member
I will not be doing a full review on the Hawke Frontier 10x42 APO binoculars, but here are a few comments and first impressions.

The Good:
1. Very nice image quality with considerable sharpness to within a few percent of the edge.
2. Excellent color rendition with impressive light transmission for a 10X.
3. Great handling, similar to the ED-X although about an ounce heavier than the ED-X (27.46 oz with caps)
4. Fast focusing (about 300 degrees lock to lock) with little effort
5. Flat field is impressive, even though there is a bit of pin cushion distortion while panning.
6. Light fringing is very well controlled, better than the ED-X, as is glare.
The Not-So-Good:
7. Build quality is not any better than the ED-X, except for the focus wheel which is a big step back.
8. This APO has about 1mm of play or lash in the focus wheel. I spoke with Dan at the Hawke USA office about this. He was the primary technical person for the APO acceptance testing in the US. He told me that this 1mm play was about typical for the APO's he has inspected "it's not a $2,000 bino".
9. I found that needed to adjust the diopter with large focus changes.
10. Related to #9, the depth of field is quite narrow, which in combination with the focus lash, is quite disappointing.
11. The eye relief is very shallow. I needed to adjust the eyepiece caps all the way down to get the full field of view while observing without glasses. These binos are certainly not suitable for eyeglass wearers IMO.

After enjoying the ED-X so much, I was really hoping that the APO would be a leap forward for Hawke. However, for my user preferences, this was not the case at all.
 

Jessie-66

Germany
Well summarized.
Re 5) Some pincushion distortion in bins is common and is desired by designers to avoid a "globe effect or rolling ball effect") when panning the bins. Some users get headaches or nausea from this effect.
Re 9) This indicates a defect of bins, popularly called "wandering or shifting diopter". My Hawke Frontier APO 10x42 is okay in this respect.
Re 10) It has been mathematically proven that all binoculars of the same brightness (and thus the same diameter of the human eye pupils) with the same magnification must have the same depth of field. A few observers, however, have reported a "poster effect" of now modern flat field binoculars. The APO has "flat vision" (very low field curvature for more edge sharpness) according to Hawke's website and to my tests of edge sharpness.
Re 11) The adjustment range of the eyecups is about 8 mm (own measurement), eye relief 17 mm (specs). The eyecups have an unusually large diameter. I also observe without glasses, turn the eyecups completely out. You have deep set eyes?
(With reading glasses and screwed in eyecups I could see the whole field of view with black area after field stop.)
 
Last edited:

BenjaminJ

New member
United Kingdom
Re 10) It has been mathematically proven that all binoculars of the same brightness (and thus the same diameter of the human eye pupils) with the same magnification must have the same depth of field. A few observers, however, have reported a "poster effect" of now modern flat field binoculars.
I've read about that effect with flat field bins too. Comparing my Opticron Traveller 8x32 (not a flat field) to a cheap Olympus 8x40 (which has a similar FOV) though, it seemed to me that the DOF of the Olympus was much deeper. I have to give it another try tomorrow. It might be that in the Olympus, the lower overall optical correction create a more gradual transition between the focal plane and the fore- and background, giving the illusion of greater DOF.

Mathematical calculation of DOF is a pretty limited simplification which doesn't tell us much about the appearance (and perception) of the image.
 

Jessie-66

Germany
Welcome to the forum!
I wish you a lot of fun and new findings in your own experiments. For the perception of depth and field curvature an "experiment" from me:
Depth of sharp field of view (DoV)
The depth of field of binoculars depends mainly on the magnification of the binoculars. Small pupil diameters of the eye due to brighter light increase the depth of field of the eye analogous to photo cameras with small apertures - but only slightly in relation to virtual images of very similar binoculars. The eye pupil adapts to more light due to larger transmission and larger angles of view of the binoculars by contracting (reduction of the diameter), the depth of field of the entire binocular-eye system is slightly increased at least when comparing similar binoculars. An evaluative comparison of binoculars 10x42 and 8x42 is, from an optical-physical point of view, nonsensical. Nevertheless, I was curious: A comparison of both binoculars with a view of my large, deeply structured garden shows me significantly more sharply focused plants as well as a subjectively more beautiful overall image in the Nikon MHG 8x42 versus the "poster image" of the Hawke APO 10x42. The significantly greater depth of field is also important when looking for observation targets within the depth of field, binoculars used for military purposes currently have the format 7x40. As already written, mainly different magnifications cause different depths of field when observing with binoculars, quality differences of the binoculars hardly ever. However, I admire photographers for their emphasis on individual motifs by using blurred surroundings (Bokeh). Of course, there is no evaluation regarding the depth of field of binoculars with different magnifications, the comparison with regard to my garden was pure curiosity.
Classic porros have a nice 3D effect up to about 100 m because of the wider stereo base. Will probably be difficult to differentiate - at least up to this distance. ;-)
Jessie
 
Last edited:

Maljunulo

Well-known member
Is the APO truly an apochromatic, and does it in fact focus three different wavelengths to a common focus, or is the term finding its way into marketing hype?
 

Jessie-66

Germany
I do not know the optical calculus nor do I own measurement equipment. Compared to the Nikon MHG 8x42, the Hawke APO 10x42 has less lateral CA - at least in my quite extensive and repeated tests. In the advertising lyrics and the specs of the Hawke website is nothing about "apochromat" as a professional term. I don't know of any standards for "APO". Therefore I think Hawke's "APO" is advertising lyrics for a binocular that is quite well corrected for CA. It's Hawke's newest and most expensive binoculars.
 

BenjaminJ

New member
United Kingdom
Apochromatic lenses are designed to bring three colors into focus in the same plane – typically red (~0.620 µm), green (~0.530 µm), and blue (~0.465 µm).[1] The residual color error (secondary spectrum) can be up to an order of magnitude less than for an achromatic lens of equivalent aperture and focal length. Apochromats are also corrected for spherical aberration at two wavelengths, rather than one as in an achromat.
Not all manufacturers are so strict with the "APO" term. You can expect a traditional optics company like Zeiss to use it only when it technically applies, but it's not so sure with others.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top