Nikon premier LX Japan Leaded glass? (1 Viewer)

[Ardy]

Was watching this auction and was wondering if the Green Police doesn't apply to bins made in Japan?Or I should say bins SOLD in Japan..
"features exactly the same optical formula, brightness, clarity and performance as the newest Nikon Premier 8x42 LX L
differences from the "L" version:
1. the color of the rubber is slightly different (darker)
2. these binoculars feature old school non-"Eco" glass that is more solid and weighs slightly more"
That must mean "leaded glass"
Linky:http://cgi.ebay.com/NIKON-Premier-LX-8x42-Binoculars-HIGH-GRADE-Japan-D-CF_W0QQitemZ170438646778QQcmdZViewItemQQptZBinocular?hash=item27aeef5bfa

 

[RJM]

No. I believe this AG model is 2 generations older than the current 8x42HG L DCF sold in Japan now. I think the seller slightly misrepresented them. They typically go for ~38,000 yen here.

Rick

 

[Ardy]

No. I believe this AG model is 2 generations older than the current 8x42HG L DCF sold in Japan now. I think the seller slightly misrepresented them. They typically go for ~38,000 yen here.

Rick

Rick,so are you saying in the current models sold in Japan,that eco glass is used?

 

[RJM]

Of course. Has been for years now.

 

[Ardy]

Of course. Has been for years now.

OK thanks...I was hoping there might be a secret "back door"LOL!Couldn't hurt to check it out....

 

[John S.]

OK thanks...I was hoping there might be a secret "back door"LOL!Couldn't hurt to check it out....

Do binoculars with leaded glass perform any better than those made with lead-free glass? I'm asking because my two EII bins offer some very nice views.

 

[Kevin Purcell]

Do binoculars with leaded glass perform any better than those made with lead-free glass? I'm asking because my two EII bins offer some very nice views.

Some persistently seem to believe it (e.g. Brock) but the evidence is not there in the optical properties.

The N version of the glass (e.g. N-BK7) are those without lead and arsenic and have the same optical properties of the glass they replace.

http://refractiveindex.info/?group=SCHOTT&material=N-BK7
http://refractiveindex.info/?group=SCHOTT&material=BK7

Of course if you find someone who believes that there is a difference then you should ask more for the bins.

 

[brocknroller]

Some persistently seem to believe it (e.g. Brock) but the evidence is not there in the optical properties.

The N version of the glass (e.g. N-BK7) are those without lead and arsenic and have the same optical properties of the glass they replace.

http://refractiveindex.info/?group=SCHOTT&material=N-BK7
http://refractiveindex.info/?group=SCHOTT&material=BK7

Of course if you find someone who believes that there is a difference then you should ask more for the bins.

Kevin,

Thanks for posting that information, but where is the "evidence" that all lead free glass used in binoculars since sports optics manufacturers switched over to lead free glass is of the N-BK7 type?

When manufacturers switched over to lead free glass, they didn't have an international standard in effect that said, you will add so many mols of Barium carbonate such that all lead free glass will have the same optical qualities and conform to ISO 9000 standards.

Either that or you are saying that all glass comes from Schott?

If you want to become a "believer," carefully compare a 10x42 LX with a 10x42 LX L, and you will "see the light," brother. In fact, more false color fringed light with the LX L and too much light on brightly lit objects.

Or compare a Leica 8x32 Trinovid BA with a Leica 8x32 Ultravid BR.

Or a 501 8x32 SE with an 8x30 EII (more subtle but still "evident").

I didn't have any preconceived notions before comparing lead glass bins with lead free bins, but after I did, the difference in CA was "clear".

Then I began reading about other "believers" who made the same observations:
http://www.birdphotography.org/show.php?threadid=57189

Then I began to collect "evidence" that supported my observations, but I lost those links when my computer died; however, I did find the study about lead free glass in microscopes.

Here's an excerpt, followed by a link to the article:

"Even if lead-free glass material with an equivalent refractive index and Abbe’s number is
developed, it is impossible to achieve the desired Apochromat performance especially for
highest-grade objective lenses with a high aperture number when the anomalous dispersion
degrades."

http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:k3kcQ3sWclQJ:www.jbce.org/files/6_No_13-2_Lead_in_Optical_Glass.pdf+lead+substitutes+in+lead+free+optical+glass&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

I do not have the technical expertise to trade equations or letter/number glass designations, but you are right in saying that I do "believe" what my eyes tell me about the differences in CA between lead free glass vs. lead glass.

If all lead free glass was just as good as lead glass, as you seem to suggest, I don't think we would be seeing an increase in use of ED glass in lead free glass roofs, but rather I think this trend is testimony that other "believers" have made the same observations (and complaints) about increased CA in their lead free roofs.

Hallelujah! I do believe!

Can I have an Amen friends?

 

[spyglass]

Well, fwiw, Chester Brandon in an interview a few yrs ago when this "ecoglass" business was just surfacing, sed he believed that the "new stuff" wasn't going to perform on a par with the "old stuff", simply because it wasn't as dense and would be more prone to what he called "narrow-angle light scatter" (which I would imagine is what leads to the seeming increase in CA). I also remember him saying that certain "manufacturers' receipes" for FMC in binos could also contribute to it. That struck me as odd, but I wasn't about to argue the point with him, as he has forgotten more on this topic than most anyone here will ever know...but then, the types, thicknesses and order of application of the coatings by the various mfrs is proprietary and closely held. Some are better than others....

 

[henry link]

Brock,

I think I've read all of your posts and links as well as Fiddler and other true believers on this subject. I'm still skeptical for several reasons.

First, you believers need to do better controlled and more repeatable tests to persuade me. Hand held observations at different times and places won't convince me of anything. I'd like to see tripod mounted observations (using one eye only) of the same target each time (not just similar targets), under identical lighting conditions (not just similar lighting conditions). I'd also like to see a distinction recognized between longitudinal and lateral color since these don't look the same and have different causes. Frankly, I find it hard to observe longitudinal CA in binoculars at all without boosted magnification and I find the appearance of lateral CA is very dependent on exact pupil position and the exact distance from the field center. I wouldn't trust the absolute accuracy of my own hand held observations of these things under field conditions so how can trust others.

Even with more careful observations it would still be difficult for a skeptic like me to establish cause and effect with confidence, because there are so few binoculars which differ only in lead vs non-lead glass. The 8x32 SE and 8x30 EII are not good for this comparison because the objectives have different focal ratios and the eyepiece designs are different. I've tried to observe a difference between the old lead glass 8x30 E and the lead free 8x30 EII. At least the objectives and prisms are identical between those two. I can detect no difference at all in longitudinal CA even when the magnification is boosted to 64X. Exchanging objectives between the E and the EII doesn't make any difference. Lateral CA is similar between them, not identical, but I can draw no conclusion because the eyepiece designs are different.

I'll give an apples to apples comparison one more shot. I noticed a store about 50 miles away still has an old stock Nikon 8x42 LX and a new Premier 8x42 LX L on display. The next time I visit I'll take along my CA target and a tripod and report what I see.

Henry

 

[brocknroller]

Brock,

I think I've read all of your posts and links as well as Fiddler and other true believers on this subject. I'm still skeptical for several reasons.

First, you believers need to do better controlled and more repeatable tests to persuade me. Hand held observations at different times and places won't convince me of anything. I'd like to see tripod mounted observations (using one eye only) of the same target each time (not just similar targets), under identical lighting conditions (not just similar lighting conditions). I'd also like to see a distinction recognized between longitudinal and lateral color since these don't look the same and have different causes. Frankly, I find it hard to observe longitudinal CA in binoculars at all without boosted magnification and I find the appearance of lateral CA is very dependent on exact pupil position and the exact distance from the field center. I wouldn't trust the absolute accuracy of my own hand held observations of these things under field conditions so how can trust others.

Even with more careful observations it would still be difficult for a skeptic like me to establish cause and effect with confidence, because there are so few binoculars which differ only in lead vs non-lead glass. The 8x32 SE and 8x30 EII are not good for this comparison because the objectives have different focal ratios and the eyepiece designs are different. I've tried to observe a difference between the old lead glass 8x30 E and the lead free 8x30 EII. At least the objectives and prisms are identical between those two. I can detect no difference at all in longitudinal CA even when the magnification is boosted to 64X. Exchanging objectives between the E and the EII doesn't make any difference. Lateral CA is similar between them, not identical, but I can draw no conclusion because the eyepiece designs are different.

I'll give an apples to apples comparison one more shot. I noticed a store about 50 miles away still has an old stock Nikon 8x42 LX and a new Premier 8x42 LX L on display. The next time I visit I'll take along my CA target and a tripod and report what I see.

Henry

Henry the Skeptic,

It's true the difference in the FLs btwn the EII and SE can contribute to the varying degrees of CA, but I also saw distinct differences in the amount of lateral CA between the lead glass 501 8x32 SE and lead free glass 505 8x32 SE (assuming Nikon is correct about changing over to lead free glass in all its optics in 2002).

I did mount the two SEs and compare them in the same lighting situations on the same targets. Color fringing on back lit, high contrast objects started closer to the center in the 505 and the "fringe" was noticeably thicker.

It was this test that finally convinced me that what I was observing was factual rather than perceptual. Nonetheless, I bought the 505 8x32 SE for its better coatings, though I wish I could have afforded to keep both models.

I have done comparisons of several bins at once (mounted), thanks to some BF members loaning me their bins. However, unlike some folks, who still have the first bin they ever bought, I usually need to sell a bin to buy a new one. At one time when my pockets jingled, I owned a ten bins and took them all outside to do a side by side comparison. Steve (mooreorless) took photos of all them lined up, but I'm not sure if he still has those photos.

We used boosted magnification for resolution tests on the SEs, LXs, and others, but not for CA tests. I didn't see the point of magnifying a bin to 64x to see differences in CA if I can clearly see the difference at 8x or 10x. CA will become more obvious boosted, but what counts most for me is whether or not I can see the CA during actual use in the field.

However, since you "find it hard to observe longitudinal CA in binoculars at all without boosted magnification," you will need to boost the magnification.

I look forward to reading your report of the boosted LX vs. LX L comparison.

However, the question I have to ask is if someone is unable to distinguish CA btwn two bins that's obvious to me, Fiddler, and others at normal power, will he be able to distinguish the difference at 64x?

IOW, can you trust your eyes as objective instruments if they are not sensitive to CA?

Brock the Believer

 

[henry link]

....I didn't see the point of magnifying a bin to 64x to see differences in CA if I can clearly see the difference at 8x or 10x. CA will become more obvious boosted, but what counts most for me is whether or not I can see the CA during actual use in the field.

However, since you "find it hard to observe longitudinal CA in binoculars at all without boosted magnification," you will need to boost the magnification.

I look forward to reading your report of the boosted LX vs. LX L comparison.

However, the question I have to ask is if someone is unable to distinguish CA btwn two bins that's obvious to me, Fiddler, and others at normal power, will he be able to distinguish the difference at 64x?

IOW, can you trust your eyes as objective instruments if they are not sensitive to CA?

Brock the Believer

Boosting magnification to observe CA isn't just useful for the chromatically challenged. It's the only way anyone can see the longitudinal CA of the entire objective in bright light. Remember, you are only looking through the center 16-20mm or so of any 8x binocular objective in bright daylight. If you want to see the true level of CA in the optics you need to reduce the exit pupil to less than 2mm and the only way to do that is to boost the magnification. I don't have any trouble seeing gobs of lateral color in binoculars at low magnification. Longitudinal is much more difficult for anyone to see because it's just a small fraction of the lateral visible at low magnification, especially in bright daylight when lateral is at its most vivid and longitudinal is minimized because the objective is stopped down by the pupil of the eye.

 

[Kevin Purcell]

Thanks for posting that information, but where is the "evidence" that all lead free glass used in binoculars since sports optics manufacturers switched over to lead free glass is of the N-BK7 type?

The N- prefix means none toxic formulation ... you just take the older glasses you were using e.g. BK-7 and replace the elements with those made from the corresponding N- glass (N-BK7 in that case).

The evidence is that the bins are the same (without a redesign) and they are now lead and arsenic free.

I just used teh Schott numbers for a clear example. All the glass makes do the same thing: they have a non-Pb/As glass replacement for each Pb/As glass with the same optical properties (dispersion, refractive index).

Are you sure there were no design changes from LX to LX L?

Finally the comment about APO design ... bins aren't APO designs and don't have a high f/number.

 

[John S.]

Some persistently seem to believe it (e.g. Brock) but the evidence is not there in the optical properties.

The N version of the glass (e.g. N-BK7) are those without lead and arsenic and have the same optical properties of the glass they replace.

http://refractiveindex.info/?group=SCHOTT&material=N-BK7
http://refractiveindex.info/?group=SCHOTT&material=BK7

Of course if you find someone who believes that there is a difference then you should ask more for the bins.

I have no training in optical design so I couldn't even begin to enter into a discussion about the properties of glass used in binoculars. I can only report my experiences as an end user, an observer of wildlife and the skies through binoculars. The 8x30 and 10x35 EII glasses that I own give exceptional images. They deliver a lot of detail, focus quickly and have excellent ergonomics. Indeed they are the best I've used for wildlife.

I'm thinking that the decision by Nikon to switch from leaded to lead-free glass was not just done on a whim and that a lot of research was put into developing the optical system used in their new models. I find it hard to believe that Nikon would simply switch to binoculars with inferior optical properties in order to improve their corporate green image.

Is anyone aware of any comparisons of binoculars that use leaded and lead free glass? I'm thinking it would take several examples to come up with any meaningful results.

 

[ceasar]

I read somewhere that the switch was done for environmental concerns about their employees. I don't know. You would think that the lead used in glass is in about as safe a place as it could be. There is an old Lead/Silver mine not far from where I live that was working during the Civil War. There are still old chunks of ore laying around and it is as heavy as, well,:h?:lead! It is near a popular swimming hole but no one has put it out of bounds for safety purposes.
In fact, I think I have a chunk of it laying around somewhere.

Bob

 

[elkcub]

Boosting magnification to observe CA isn't just useful for the chromatically challenged. It's the only way anyone can see the longitudinal CA of the entire objective in bright light. Remember, you are only looking through the center 16-20mm or so of any 8x binocular objective in bright daylight. If you want to see the true level of CA in the optics you need to reduce the exit pupil to less than 2mm and the only way to do that is to boost the magnification. I don't have any trouble seeing gobs of lateral color in binoculars at low magnification. Longitudinal is much more difficult for anyone to see because it's just a small fraction of the lateral visible at low magnification, especially in bright daylight when lateral is at its most vivid and longitudinal is minimized because the objective is stopped down by the pupil of the eye.

Ah, so. Excellent points, Henry.

My problem with some of this discussion (I'm not sure how much) is that a constant finger of derision seems to be pointed at Eco-glass, in general, because it's associated with more apparent CA. As I've mentioned on other threads, actual and apparent lateral CA are obviously not the same thing. A narrow bandwidth filter will reduce apparent fringing simply because the color spectrum is restricted. This, I suspect, accounts for many vintage binoculars appearing to be better corrected for CA. Improved transmission, given identical optical designs, i.e., lens curvatures, spacings, and glass properties, should make fringing more apparent. As transmission approaches 100% the distribution must flatten out and colors reveal themselves to their full extent.

If this bit of logic is correct, then the need for low dispersion glass is, probably, a necessary result of improved coatings and higher transmissions. Religion aside, therefore, until someone can separate the glass types from coating improvements it's going to be very hard to prove that Eco-glass is a villain.

Just some thoughts.
Ed

 

[RJM]

Ah, so. Excellent points, Henry.

My problem with some of this discussion (I'm not sure how much) is that a constant finger of derision seems to be pointed at Eco-glass, in general, because it's associated with more apparent CA.

In the case of Japanese glass I have looked through, Eco-glass shifted the out-of-focus spectrum up a notch. Instead of violet/blue-green/yellow, I now see cyan-magenta fringing if any CA is visible at all.

Rick

 

[henry link]

A narrow bandwidth filter will reduce apparent fringing simply because the color spectrum is restricted. This, I suspect, accounts for many vintage binoculars appearing to be better corrected for CA. Improved transmission, given identical optical designs, i.e., lens curvatures, spacings, and glass properties, should make fringing more apparent. As transmission approaches 100% the distribution must flatten out and colors reveal themselves to their full extent.

Ed

Ed,

I considered the same idea and tried to test it by comparing both longitudinal and lateral CA visible through single layer coated and multi-coated Nikon 8x30 E's, binoculars that should be identical except for coatings. My one test effort was inconclusive. Maybe I'll try it again. The idea makes good sense for at least a subtle difference.

Henry

 

[elkcub]

Ed,

I considered the same idea and tried to test it by comparing both longitudinal and lateral CA visible through single layer coated and multi-coated Nikon 8x30 E's, binoculars that should be identical except for coatings. My one test effort was inconclusive. Maybe I'll try it again. The idea makes good sense for at least a subtle difference.

Henry

Henry,

I've compared partially multicoated Swift 804R Audubons with later HR/5 models that are fully multicoated. Even though the overall color casts are obviously different, I had difficulty seeing reliable fringe differences. I suspect the problem may be due to my own "color constancy," which is a group of perceptual effects that complicate multicolor comparisons. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_constancy. It might be best, therefore, to use a camera to uncouple the observer from the optics.

Ed

 

[henry link]

It might be best, therefore, to use a camera to uncouple the observer from the optics.

Ed

I agree, that would be best with the right equipment. I've tried to photograph the longitudinal CA differences through binoculars with my Nikon D40. It works well enough if the differences are large, but I haven't been able to achieve a critical and repeatable focus fine enough to make reliable comparative images when the differences are small.

Henry