• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS. Discover the fascinating world of birds, and win a birding trip to Columbia

Swarovski 10x42 NL Pure – High expectations, but twice disappointed. (1 Viewer)

BabyDov

Well-known member
Supporter
United States
Henry,
Thanks for your observations. I was looking at the OPs photos in the wrong way. I see now that his photos show the CA only at the edge of the NL image. I had thought incorrectly that where the CA was obvious, it was at the center. With a large flat FOV, your eye has a difficult time seeing the edges without forcing your eyes to either side while viewing. It's a bit uncomfortable for me to do that, when focusing on subject matter in the center 80 percent of the view. Perhaps, that's why I don't see CA, at all, with my NL's.
 

Holger Merlitz

Well-known member
The amount of CA shown in those pictures doesn't look unusual to me. There is always some CA at the edges of field and it is generally worse with wide-angle eyepieces. To minimize CA, the top lines of Zeiss and Kowa are usually good choices, while Leica should be avoided. Swaro ranks somewhere in between ...

Cheers,
Holger
 

SUPPRESSOR

Well-known member
England
My 8x42 NL is the best of any binocular I have ever owned for chromatic aberration and believe me I am very sensitive to it. The full moon on axis is just sublime.
As is my 12x42,excellent correction.

What John James Audubon would make of all this moaning and what he wouldn't give for a pair of current binoculars!
Do any of you actually spend anytime looking at birds.
Pete.
 
Last edited:

BabyDov

Well-known member
Supporter
United States
The OP clearly "sees" something they do not want to see in their binocular. The notion that an opinion, based on personal observation, is irrelevant sounds quite silly, especially on this forum. Until there's scientific certainty regarding happiness I'll listen to opinions with an open mind.
I agree that we have a right to our own opinion. However, I respectfully disagree that we don't "want to see" what the OP sees.

I do see in the photos the CA that the OP sees. So do most of us, I think. But, as Henry pointed out, the CA is only in the periphery where it is usually inconsequential and typical for the Nl. That the OP has different expectations than Henry or many of us, is certainly the OPs right.

Furthermore, we all may see differently. As much as I may want to see CA, through my Nls, I just can't. Perhaps that's not a good thing, especially after my upcoming cataract surgery, when I may.
 
ZEISS. Discover the fascinating world of birds, and win a birding trip to Columbia
ZEISS. Discover the fascinating world of birds, and win a birding trip to Colombia
ZEISS. Discover the fascinating world of birds, and win a birding trip to Colombia

Users who are viewing this thread

Top