Sweet spot in binocular line ups (1 Viewer)

[Paultricounty]

Is there a sweet spot in each manufactures line up , that in some optical way out performs others in the same line up?

As an example, let’s take the Zeiss SF line, 8X and 10X 32’s and 42’s. Is there one out of that four that seem to hit or check all the boxes, or is it all in the brain of the individual?

Over the years I’ve noticed I like, prefer or enjoy one binocular size and magnification of a manufactures line up more than another in that same line up, yet in another manufactures line I prefer a different size and magnification.

Could this have something to do in the design hitting a sweet spot, due to lens shape at a specific objective size, with a specific magnification , coupled with or mated to a specific ocular design with a specific focal length? Is there some possibility to all the factors mentioned coming together that makes for a more pleasurable experience to the majority of individuals, image circle , framing , least amount of noticeable aberrations , eye box, eye relief etc. etc?

Or is all it about the individuals perception? And I’m not talking about preference of an optic for a specific task of observing, like in , I prefer a super wide FOV for scanning wide open vistas. In these cases we may choose an optic more for one feature than for an overall better image experience.


Paul

 

[Ratal]

I have to say that the 'sweetest spot' I've ever hit with a binocular are my Opticron Aurora 8x42.

Everything is there, and the sharpness / colours are sublime. I tried the 10x and didn't get that same joy.

So yes, 8x42 for me all the way.

 

[tenex]

There are so many factors involved, shuffling around different eyepiecs, prisms etc, maybe even focusing mechanisms (SF). And yet a certain similarity of optical quality and even character (with occasional exceptions) is generally maintained. It seems unlikely that there would be a clearly worst or best one, and of course it depends on the particular criteria chosen. To some extent a line may be optimized for its middle magnification. There can be particular pressure on 42mm models to stay smaller than they really should be, which can have consequences. But I don't think the design team says "we really nailed it with that 10x50, too bad about the others", and obviously most users just pick the format they want. When someone claims the 8x42 Aurora or 8x56 SLC has the magic the 10x doesn't, I think they're just saying they prefer 8x. But then again I don't even try all the models in a line, having no reason to.

 

[james holdsworth]

Lower mag and bigger aperture should always produce the best image. Where that doesn’t hit the sweet spot is when the owner needs smaller and lighter, or higher mag.

 

[b_reynolds_ak]

Is there a sweet spot in each manufactures line up , that in some optical way out performs others in the same line up?

As an example, let’s take the Zeiss SF line, 8X and 10X 32’s and 42’s. Is there one out of that four that seem to hit or check all the boxes, or is it all in the brain of the individual?

Over the years I’ve noticed I like, prefer or enjoy one binocular size and magnification of a manufactures line up more than another in that same line up, yet in another manufactures line I prefer a different size and magnification.

Could this have something to do in the design hitting a sweet spot, due to lens shape at a specific objective size, with a specific magnification , coupled with or mated to a specific ocular design with a specific focal length? Is there some possibility to all the factors mentioned coming together that makes for a more pleasurable experience to the majority of individuals, image circle , framing , least amount of noticeable aberrations , eye box, eye relief etc. etc?

Or is all it about the individuals perception? And I’m not talking about preference of an optic for a specific task of observing, like in , I prefer a super wide FOV for scanning wide open vistas. In these cases we may choose an optic more for one feature than for an overall better image experience.


Paul

I get what you’re saying. It’s not about someone’s preference for one combination of power and objective, it’s when one combo out of a company’s lineup hits just right, as in a 8x32, but the 10x32 doesn’t work as well as another company’s for you.

I absolutely think that is true.
For instance, the Zeiss 8x32 SF is fantastic. However I prefer having a 10x32 for my uses. In that case I move over to the Swaro 10x32NL, which I think is the best 32mil NL.
This comes down to blackouts, eye relief and viewing comfort.

I know that if I was to stay completely brand loyal for all of my optics, I wouldn’t get the best viewing experience possible.

 

[Paultricounty]

I get what you’re saying. It’s not about someone’s preference for one combination of power and objective, it’s when one combo out of a company’s lineup hits just right, as in a 8x32, but the 10x32 doesn’t work as well as another company’s for you.

I absolutely think that is true.
For instance, the Zeiss 8x32 SF is fantastic. However I prefer having a 10x32 for my uses. In that case I move over to the Swaro 10x32NL, which I think is the best 32mil NL.
This comes down to blackouts, eye relief and viewing comfort.

I know that if I was to stay completely brand loyal for all of my optics, I wouldn’t get the best viewing experience possible.

Yes, exactly. I tried the 8x and 10x NL’s , SF’s and Noctivids, for me the Noctivids in 8x seemed to be the one I liked the best in 8x , and in 10x I liked the NL’s the best. I could go on about why I preferred them but then I’m discussing preference. But this deviates a bit from my OP because I’m comparing what image I liked the most in each magnification in a 42mm optic, build quality aside. So again I’m getting into what appeared the best to me , not necessarily the company’s best performer in their line up. Another example somewhat , some (many) have said the Leica 7x42 UVHD is the sweet spot in the line.

Paul