Old versus New (1 Viewer)

[Rg548]

Just out of interest, how far have optics come along.
So, for example, an old favourite of mine which I couldn't afford back in the day, the Leica Trinovid BA series, which just 'look' great anyway.... how does that now compare to a Conquest, or Kowa for example.
The Leica's seem to go for about the £500 mark now for good ones, and obviously Conquest are more.
I've seen a few 8x32 BA's for sale, one here, another on an Optics shop website.
Has anyone got some, and where do they sit in relation to optical quality alongside newer mid range stuff.

 

[pppppvvvv]

I'm just a simple birder, but my optics have all been noticeable upgrades...
Trinovid BA -> Duovid -> conquest 8x32.

So I'd say the advance in technology/materials/manufacturing (?) is huge

 

[Binocollector]

Some of my vintage porros compare very favorably to modern offerings. Roof prisms not so much.
Biggest advance is mainly coatings. So modern porros are brighter. But sharpness of some of the vintage porros is just as good, sometimes even better. I especially like my old military binos but these all have radiation resistant glass and UV- and blue light gets filtered out to some degree, hence the "yellow tint" (which really isn't a tint but absence of certain wave lengths). For birding those are not ideal.

 

[tenex]

When I was in high school I couldn't afford a Leicaflex... decades later I finally bought a nice one, and used it for my last years of shooting film. That was very satisfying, and I'll never part with it, so if you're looking for that sort of experience, go for it. BAs are nice, though I'd recommend a late (>145xxxx) BN instead; we still use and enjoy ours. Optically a modern mid-range bin will be a bit brighter etc, but you wouldn't find a BN disappointing without careful comparison; they're still serviced too. So it all depends on what you're after. For most people, the choice would be between a more recent used alpha and a new mid-range. The fact that you're asking about BAs suggests there might be something more in it for you.

 

[Trinovid]

BAs are nice, though I'd recommend a late (>145xxxx) BN instead; we still use and enjoy ours. Optically a modern mid-range bin will be a bit brighter etc, but you wouldn't find a BN disappointing without careful comparison...

Having two pairs of x32 Ultravids, I still thoroughly enjoy my 149xxxx BN and don't see them as any sort of compromise, at least for me. Something really nice about those BA/BN series Leicas.

 

[Rg548]

When I was in high school I couldn't afford a Leicaflex... decades later I finally bought a nice one, and used it for my last years of shooting film. That was very satisfying, and I'll never part with it, so if you're looking for that sort of experience, go for it. BAs are nice, though I'd recommend a late (>145xxxx) BN instead; we still use and enjoy ours. Optically a modern mid-range bin will be a bit brighter etc, but you wouldn't find a BN disappointing without careful comparison; they're still serviced too. So it all depends on what you're after. For most people, the choice would be between a more recent used alpha and a new mid-range. The fact that you're asking about BAs suggests there might be something more in it for you.

It's just that I always liked them, even the look of them, but could never afford them.
There's plenty of motorbikes from the 80's/90's I loved too, but I bet theyre like wheel barrows now, and I'd be disappointed. 😅
Never meet your heroes???

 

[Rg548]

What was the difference between BA and BN..... and why >145....any of you knowledgeable folk know??
Thanks for the info so far.

 

[[email protected]]

The Leica Trinovid BA/BN series are a modern day cult classic because of their exceptional build quality, great ergonomics and excellent optics. They don't have the advanced coatings of the newer binoculars, so they lag behind a little in transmission and contrast, but they make up for it with a very relaxed "natural" view with plenty of the color saturation that Leica is well known for. Some people still prefer this "natural" view, and that is why they continue to be popular and in demand on eBay.

 

[[email protected]]

What was the difference between BA and BN..... and why >145....any of you knowledgeable folk know??
Thanks for the info so far.

The BN had a closer focus than the BA. The N meaning near focus.

 

[14Goudvink]

And presumably a coating upgrade from 145... upwards.

 

[tenex]

And presumably a coating upgrade from 145... upwards.

Yes, and surely others before that as well. The Ultras were sold for about 16 years.

 

[lilcrazy2]

What was the difference between BA and BN..... and why >145....any of you knowledgeable folk know??
Thanks for the info so far.

In this thread in post #11, John Roberts has included a chart showing focusing differences between BA's and BN's

Leica Trinovid 10x32 BN Focuser Question

I recently picked up a pair of Trinovid 10x32 BN's that appear to be mint and unused. Not a mark, scratch, or sign of use anywhere on them. Bought them to compare to a Hawke Frontier ED-X 10x32 I purchased previously. But I have a question on the focuser, and feel that it is defective. It's been...

www.birdforum.net

And the conventional wisdom on BF says that serial numbers above 145xxx have better and improved coatings.

I have a 10x32 BN ser 147xxx and a Hawke Frontier ED X 10x32 and there is not a lot of difference optically, but I would give a slight edge to the Hawke. Even has that similar Leica look.

 

[Hermann]

Some of my vintage porros compare very favorably to modern offerings. Roof prisms not so much.

Any roof without phase coatings won't be able to compete against ANYTHING nowadays. And even the Zeiss Dialyts BGAT*P of the late 1980s/early 1990s or indeed the Leica BA aren't a match for more modern roofs. Beautifully made, probably more robust and a joy to use - but not really up to scratch optically anymore.

Biggest advance is mainly coatings. So modern porros are brighter. But sharpness of some of the vintage porros is just as good, sometimes even better.

Sharpness isn't the problem. Transmission and contrast are another matter. Take one of the Zeiss porros, e.g. the 10x50 or the 8x30B and compare it to a modern roof. The difference in contrast in particular is very visible. You'd need to get something like a Nikon SE or current a Nikon E2, or indeed a Habicht (made after ~2005 at least) if you want a porro that can compete against modern roofs. Or the Canon 10x42 IS - that's a porro, too ...

I especially like my old military binos but these all have radiation resistant glass and UV- and blue light gets filtered out to some degree, hence the "yellow tint" (which really isn't a tint but absence of certain wave lengths). For birding those are not ideal.

You can say that again. The Baigish 7x30 or the Zeiss Jena EDF 7x40 are sure nice binoculars and fun to play with. But they're not for birding. The only modern military binoculars that MAY work for birding are the current Hensoldt Fero-D series - if the laser filters have been taken out by someone who knows what he's doing and you can live with IF.

Hermann

 

[Trinovid]

What was the difference between BA and BN..... and why >145....

The BN brought closer focusing capability and being newer, also the newest of coatings, particularly following the 145xxxx serial number range.

 

[forent]

Some things are just a matter of love, methinks.

What's your favourite bins of all time..... and why?

This is so hard to answer. For all-round nature observation my all -time favourite is SF8x32 but for a view that is simply a pleasure to look at then I immediately think of my Meopta MeoStar 7x42 for much the same reasons as mentioned by Yarrellii. Really regret never having had the opportunity...

www.birdforum.net

 

[yarrellii]

The BN brought closer focusing capability and being newer, also the newest of coatings, particularly following the 145xxxx serial number range.

Regarding coatings on the BN, last week I re-read the delicious "old and new 8x30-32" comparison by Gijs van Ginkel for «House of outdoor» (it's here) and was pretty shock to read the transmission figures for a 2001 8x32 Trinovid BN (75 - 77 % / 500 - 550 nm), which sounds a little low. Just checked Allbinos figure for a 10x42 BN (published in 2010) and it quotes a single 87 % (+- 3%), I wonder if it was due to the 10x42 being a more modern BN having received coatings upgrades compared to the 2001 BN tested by Dr. van Ginkel. Anyway, 77 % would be nothing to write home about in 2022. Yes, obviously the view is made up of many other factors than pure % of light transmitted. In fact, I had a 7x42 BA (which I guess had an even lower %) and found it to be really nice. In fact, I didn't find it was lacking in brightness against other more modern Porro 7x (like Fujinon 7x50 or Vixen Foresta 7x50, I compared it here). Maybe the view was a little warmer (but then, it's a Leica).

On the other hand, I've had serious disappointments with "holy cows" (you know, sometime you shouldn't meet your heroes, as the say). However, recently I've had quite a surprise. Back in june I bought a 7x40 IOR (a copy of the military grade Zeiss)... from 1976! While the yellow cast takes some getting used to, I can't get over the sharpness and "pop" of the thing. I mean, it's absolutely remarkable. I don't know how it works, but it's better than some other more modern Porro binos I have, like a pretty nice Vixen/Celestron Ultima 7x50 that it's my "kitchen window" bino. So I've also wondered many times about what makes the view through the IOR so special, sharp and pleasing (if you forget about "the yellow world out there" for a minute). It's obviously not coatings, so it must be... "glass quality"?, prism size? I don't have the faintest idea about optics (currently waiting for the postman to bring my copy of Holger Merlitz's book), so I wonder how that works.

 

[tenex]

(currently waiting for the postman to bring my copy of Holger Merlitz's book)

Viel Glück und Spaß! My general sense is that "pop" and sharpness are about minimizing aberrations, and what I can't understand is why this happens in a Nikon EII but not some alphas at 5x the cost. Apart from optical design being complex and full of compromises of course, so I suppose what I don't understand is why this isn't always a priority. It would be to me.

 

[Maljunulo]

Yellow (or amber) tinted eyeglasses are widely known to increase the contrast of one’s view of the world.

Some might call it “pop”.

 

[Binocollector]

That's only part of the reason. Those old military optics where just designed to give the best and sharpest views under the worst conditions. The Komz 7x30 is probably one of the sharpest binos I ever looked through. The development of the Zeiss EDF 7x40 took 10 years. It's still one of my grail binos. Another part of the reason is that these binos have relatively simple orthoscopic eyepieces with narrow FoV but that narrow FoV is really well corrected and sharp. The Komz 7x30 for example doesn't even have a strong 'tint' compared to the IOR. It's still wonderfully sharp. The ultimate test is to use it for astronomy and see how needlepoint fine the stars are. That's where some of the 'tinted' military optics really shine (and at night there is no tint visible). Well, except for the ghosting of the Komz for example.

 

[Bino Steve]

I always wonder what triggered manufacturers to make roof binos. They only out perform porros with gobs of coatings. Was is cheaper and easier to make them or a real need? I never like when mfgs get stuck with a design and can't reverse, so they have to gob on technology to cover up a mistake, (rear engine cars) , but sell it as a positive. Don't be fooled that these designs are always for our good.