New Swarovski binoculars soon (1 Viewer)

[Leif]

I may be wrong, but physics tells me that more glass means less light transmission.

Strictly speaking that is correct, but unless the glass is thick the losses are small. And anyway, the human eye/brain finds it hard to see small differences in brightness. Henry Link seems to have trained himself to see differences at the percent level, but most of us are not so capable. What we perceive as high brightness is often high contrast, in my opinion anyway. I would argue that contrast is more important than small percentage differences in transmission.

Interestingly modern camera lenses often have significantly more lenses than older designs and by all accounts perform better. I have often wondered what the explanation is. Is this a case of better designs, through Computer Aided Design, or higher manufacturing tolerances due to Computer Aided Manufacturing (CNC, etc), or that manufacturers are now able to produce optical designs that were previously not feasible?

I wonder who these new designs will sell to. I guess there is a whole new market in China and India, and maybe they will be an important market. I have to say that they are 'exciting', but blimey, you do need to splurge out a big wodge to get 'em!

 

[henry link]

Hi, Henry. On the subject of the number of eyepiece elements, Leica has listed the total number of lens elements in their 10x32 and 12x50 as 11 on each side, while the rest of the Ultravid/Trinovid lines use 8 or 9. Does this indicate a more complex eyepiece design is used in the 10x32 and 12x50? I am assuming that the 3 element objective and single focusing element I've seen in a cutaway drawing are used throughout, which leaves 7 elements for the eyepiece. I'm very curious what your thoughts are on this, as I have found both the 10x32 and 12x50 Trinovids and Ultravids to have extraordinary center resolution. Thank you for your help...Angelo.

Angelo,

My thoughts are just guesses, but that won't stop me. I'll guess that the 8x32, 10x32, 10x42 and 12x50 all use an identical 5 element basic eyepiece. The 10x32 and the 12x50 then add a negative field doublet (essentially a Barlow lens) to reduce the effective focal length of the eyepiece in order to increase the magnification. I don't see how that could make much difference in the very center, but it might improve off-axis behavior a bit, allowing the best center sharpness to spread out a little wider. Even if a field group like that is not specifically designed to be a field flattener it will probably have a similar if milder effect.

Henry

 

[Leif]

Other companies have been using FL/ED glass for years in bins and spotters without that coming up as much of an issue.

I think you have to distinguish between Calcium Fluorite, a naturally occurring mineral (and one variety found at Castleton in England is known as Blue John ) and Flouride glass. CaF2 is indeed susceptible to chemical attack and must be protected. As I understand it that is the reason why many Canon lenses are weather proofed. They have to be! As for Flouride glass, I have no idea if that is delicate. (Anyway, even with normal glass, aren't some forms much softer than others?)

ED glass is just Extra Low Dispersion glass. I don't think that is necessarily more sensitive than 'normal' glass. Though I cannot think of any Nikon lens with ED glass where the ED element is on the 'outside'. So it might be softer.

 

[Alexis Powell]

I'm embarrassed to say that after looking at the cut view graphics a bit more I now doubt that there is any glass plate protecting the objective. It looks more like a thin metal baffle or possibly a gasket. It's appearance is confusing because, like the o-ring, it isn't sliced away like the other metal parts. Look at it carefully in the moving "HD lenses" graphic and the "nitrogen filling" graphic. I don't think there is any glass there, just a thin ring...

Yes, I see what you mean. It isn't an ultra-thin (easily broken) element after all, which is easy to see from some of the other views. Thanks for taking the time to make sense of this....

--AP

 

[ThoLa]

Strictly speaking that is correct, but unless the glass is thick the losses are small.
....

The vast majority of light is lost at the interface where light enters or leaves a medium. So lens surfaces and coatings are much more critical in this respect than how think a lens is.
Mind that glass fibers are used to transmit signals over distances of kilometers without the light being completely absorbed. Once inside the glass light can travel as freely as it does in air (unless there a inhomogeneities that would have a similar effect to thermal blurring of the atmosphere).

I think we can trust Swarovski to have top of the crops lens coating so significant losses due to one or two additional lenses is not an issue to worry about.

some useful links with respect to this matter:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-reflective_coating
See: 3 theory, Reflection

http://www.schneiderkreuznach.com/knowhow/coating_e.htm

http://www.astrosurf.com/luxorion/reports-coating.htm

http://rick_oleson.tripod.com/index-166.html

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/lenstech.htm#coating

http://www.birdwatchersdigest.com/site/optics/lens_coatings.aspx

Best, Tom

 

[pluvanut]

Okay thanks Henry and Paul - link still doesn't work for me on IE but is fine on Firefox. Are either of you using IE?

Nev

Using Firefox at present. Will try IE and see what happens

 

[pluvanut]

Okay thanks Henry and Paul - link still doesn't work for me on IE but is fine on Firefox. Are either of you using IE?

Nev

Works with IE (6) and Firefox for me.
Maybe npos is right - issue with Flash player?

 

[dipped]

Works with IE (6) and Firefox for me.
Maybe npos is right - issue with Flash player?

Paul - Finally :t:, page works with IE 6 undid my last restoration which reinstalled SP3 and BINGO. Adobe was all up to date.

BUT comparing BF's homepage on IE to Firefox a lot of AD's are missing (on IE). Curious.

 

[Leif]

The vast majority of light is lost at the interface where light enters or leaves a medium.

Quite right.

 

[aomcm]

Does anyone know the official US prices of these yet? I read the entire thread and only saw the European prices. I have to know what kind of bank to rob!

 

[stabor]

As for Flouride glass, I have no idea if that is delicate.

I don't find a mention of an "Easy to Clean" coating in the publicity material, but it seems to work fine on the current EL's and one would assume this would take care of potential problems with soft glass.

 

[ThoLa]

I don't find a mention of an "Easy to Clean" coating in the publicity material,...

It#s called SWAROCLEAN now.

 

[henry link]

After more investigation I've discovered that the thin "thing" depicted at the front of the new EL in the graphics is a "ring foil", essentially a thin washer used between two retaining rings to prevent one from turning the other, no glass involved. I hope we haven't created another optical "urban legend" that will live on forever in cyberspace :-0

 

[Alexis Powell]

I hope we haven't created another optical "urban legend" that will live on forever in cyberspace :-0

No, I think it was an honest and understandable misinterpretation of the picture, though I knew that it couldn't be correct because no bino would be designed with such a thin front element. We won't be the only ones--Swarovski should revise their graphic.

--AP

 

[Swissboy]

No, I think it was an honest and understandable misinterpretation of the picture, though I knew that it couldn't be correct because no bino would be designed with such a thin front element. We won't be the only ones--Swarovski should revise their graphic.

--AP

I agree, the pictures are really misleading. If they could all be turned in 3-D fashion like some can, we would have been able to see the facts more clearly.

 

[stabor]

So after all the speculation and suspense, where are the reviews of the new EL's from the Bird Fair? Is everyone still groping for words, or are you all out robbing banks? We Yanks don't get many of these shows and we need your opinions, especially since you've got a six-month jump on us.

 

[angelo225544]

Hi, Henry. On the subject of the number of eyepiece elements, Leica has listed the total number of lens elements in their 10x32 and 12x50 as 11 on each side, while the rest of the Ultravid/Trinovid lines use 8 or 9. Does this indicate a more complex eyepiece design is used in the 10x32 and 12x50? I am assuming that the 3 element objective and single focusing element I've seen in a cutaway drawing are used throughout, which leaves 7 elements for the eyepiece. I'm very curious what your thoughts are on this, as I have found both the 10x32 and 12x50 Trinovids and Ultravids to have extraordinary center resolution. Thank you for your help...Angelo.

Hi, Henry. I didn't want to take this New Swaro EL discussion in a completely different direction, so I attempted to send this as a PM, but your box is full. I asked you last week what you thought of Leica's stating that both the 12x50 and 10x32 have 11 elements in each tube, and you suggested that perhaps it had a 2 element field flattener rather than a 7 element eyepiece. I continued my research, and uncovered some interesting Leica literature for the Leica 12x50 Trinovid BA: "The most modern computer-aided designing and optical calculation were necessary to attain the exceptionally high demands to the image performance for 12x magnification. The result is something to be proud of! Over 90 years of experience in manufacturing binoculars come together to create this, the most challenging binocular product that Leica has ever designed. The eyepieces alone consist of 7 elements each - made of the highest quality glass, manufactured with the minimal tolerance range."
I still haven't found a cutaway - other than the 8x42 with its 5 element eyepiece. The 12x50 Trinovid BA has extremely high center resolution, and the Leica signature fall-off of both light and sharpness toward the edges. It remains my favorite binocular, since only the BA's provide close to a -5 diopter correction past infinity, so my old eyes don't require eyeglasses to use them. I apologize to all for being "off-subject". I greatly appreciate Henry's informed opinions in this forum...Angelo.

 

[henry link]

Angelo,

I think I wasn't very clear. What I meant to say was that the 7 element eyepiece in the 10x32//12x50 is probably made up of the very same 5 element eyepiece used in the 8x32/10x42, but with the addition of a 2 element negative group at the front of the eyepiece to effectively reduce the eyepiece focal length and increase the magnification.

Quite a few astronomical eyepieces operate that way. For instance the 14mm Pentax XW is the same eyepiece as the 20mm XW, but with the addition of a negative field group.

Wow, that Leica statement is marketing hyperbole at it's finest! You would think 12x from a 50mm telescope is the next thing to humanly impossible. In fact it's just a wimpy 6x per inch of aperture, very very far from a magnification that should make any "exceptionally high demands".

Henry

 

[angelo225544]

Wow, that Leica statement is marketing hyperbole at it's finest! You would think 12x from a 50mm telescope is the next thing to humanly impossible. In fact it's just a wimpy 6x per inch of aperture, very very far from a magnification that should make any "exceptionally high demands".

Henry

Hi, Henry. As always, thank you for your help. I responded, but in a new thread under Leica, so as not to go any farther off topic here. I would enjoy continuing this conversation there. Best wishes...Angelo.

 

[dogfish]

Just to get back to the new Swarovskis, I thought the image of the 8.5s (RRP £1630) was slightly but obviously better than the old model, even in the bright light at the Bird Fair on Friday. A black and white test chart looked slightly brighter, more contrasty, and cleaner. Looking at birds against the sky, CA seemed to be quite well controlled (better than on my own 10x ELs) but I forgot to do this test with the old model 8.5s unfortunately.
I found I could focus on my feet, although it was then two full turns of the focus wheel to reach infinity. The man from Swarovski said the gearing is the same as the old model (ie, the improved faster-focusing old model) but the 1.5m close focus on the new bins means the wheel has to travel further. I think I'd prefer a slightly faster focus. The focus wheel is a bit grippier though not very different, and the eyecups are still too hard for my taste. I also found that, like the old model, correct eye placement was very easy.
I found I could use either the full-out position or the new intermediate position comfortably.
I paid most attention to the 8.5s but the 10x also seemed excellent in a brief look. The new model is not a great leap forward (inevitably) but it does make choosing the best top end bin just that bit trickier.
Sean