Tried Noctivid and SF 10x today (1 Viewer)

[Kiwimac]

So. I got a chance to try both of these today.

Probably heresy but I didn’t like either.

The Noctivid was very good but the CA purple fringing in winter tree branches against the sunny blue sky was really not good.

The SF didn’t even get out of the gate because the diopter adjustment isn’t sufficient for my eyes and one side remained blurry because it just didn’t go far enough.

The search continues I guess. Suggestions welcome!

 

[Canip]

Probably heresy but I didn’t like either.

Did not like Noctivid and SF?
That‘s not only heresy, but blasphemy as well and all this kind of things ….. 🤣
Just wait for the religious zealots to catch up with you.
But it’s great that you admit your dislike openly despite the risk of being burnt at the stake. Just make sure you don‘t scare the Swaro and Nikon fans away who stand ready with buckets of water …

 

[Kiwimac]

The SF was simply unusable. It had insufficient correction range to correct for my eye. Other than that it seemed nice.

The Noctivid was nice but CA was more what I’d expect in something 2/3rds of the cost. It just didn’t feel like it was worth the asking price.

 

[Richard D]

The SF was simply unusable. It had insufficient correction range to correct for my eye. Other than that it seemed nice.

The Noctivid was nice but CA was more what I’d expect in something 2/3rds of the cost. It just didn’t feel like it was worth the asking price.

Definitely best to try binoculars before you buy - I didn't like the SF, although I've tried FLs and liked them. I really like the Noctivid - it does show a bit more CA than the SFs/ELs/NLs but I found it tolerable and otherwise thoroughly enjoyed them. If you find CA too high in the Noctivid I think you'll have to cross Leica off your list - the Duovids show much more.

 

[Kiwimac]

Hmmm.

I have a pair of pre HD+ UV 10x32 and they can be provoked to produce yellow fringing on things like mountain ridges against the sky.

It’s not so much that the CA itself bothered me as much as the fact that it shouldn’t be there in a top of the table binocular.

I shoot Leica M cameras and they can certainly remove CA in the lenses for those to a far greater degree than I saw this afternoon. Literally the entire tree I was looking at against the sky was fringed in purple.

I liked the Zeiss but they just seem to have far less range of diopter adjustment than the NV or indeed my 10+ year old UV.

If Zeiss, Swarovski and Leica are off the board, what’s left?!

 

[Richard D]

If you can find a stockist maybe try Meopta? Some swear by the high end Nikons. It's very much a case of what you're prepared to compromise on.

 

[William Lewis]

Leicas do seem to show a bit of c.a to me as well, I'll probably have a glance through the 8x noctivid in a couple of weeks as apparently they show less than the 10x and are my preferred mag, only for curiosities sake really though, I'm content with my SLC 8x56 and Nikon e2 8x30 - both show very little c.a although the Swarovski does have a fair bit of axis. What wrote off the swarovski's for you?

What is it your looking for in a binocular? I'm guessing 10x mag and 42mm size but what else, low c.a obviously, wide field of view? Bright? Sharp across the whole field or with some curvature, I'd assume from your long term ultravid ownership that you don't mind a little curvature? Waterproof?

It sounds from your interest in the duovid etc and ownership of the cannon i.s 10x50 and ultravid that you have most niches covered already, so is it the ultimate grab and go all-rounder your seeking?

Will

 

[Kiwimac]

We don’t seem to get high end Nikon here. The most expensive are the Monarch 5 aside from the Astroluxe. I doubt the WX will arrive here!

Likewise I can’t find high grade Meopta. The most expensive are $899 compared to $4500 for Noctivid. I doubt that’s a fair comparison!

Leicas do seem to show a bit of c.a to me as well, I'll probably have a glance through the 8x noctivid in a couple of weeks as apparently they show less than the 10x and are my preferred mag, only for curiosities sake really though, I'm content with my SLC 8x56 and Nikon e2 8x30 - both show very little c.a although the Swarovski does have a fair bit of axis. What wrote off the swarovski's for you?

What is it your looking for in a binocular? I'm guessing 10x mag and 42mm size but what else, low c.a obviously, wide field of view? Bright? Sharp across the whole field or with some curvature, I'd assume from your long term ultravid ownership that you don't mind a little curvature?

Will

I had some 12x42 NL which I couldn’t get on with. Amazing view in general but eye position issues and I perceived a strange striating pattern when panning.

Add to that the reports of disintegrating armour, handicapped close focus and removal of water repellent coating and they just seem too expensive for reduced quality.

I would like more magnification - 12 or even 15. Duovid 10/15 is good in theory but perhaps not so much in practice.

Ultravid 15x50 isn’t imported to NZ although I could get on special order but no returns. They’re mine whether I like them or not if I do that.

SLC 15x is available but I’m not sure if it suffers the aforementioned downgrades.

I use whatever I have for multiple purposes. Bird watching. Ocean watching. Curiosity when out and about etc. magnification of at least 10x is required.

 

[William Lewis]

I can't speak for the most recent production of the SLC, mines a 2020 but for what its worth the armour is a different texture and thickness to the nl and el and mine shows no signs of use but has seen plenty!

The view is slightly brighter than NL and with the same correction of field curvature within a slightly narrower field of view. It's just as good as controlling c.a centre field but worse off axis.

For what its worth!

 

[Ratal]

Shrugs Well, I stepped down from Zeiss SF 8x42 to Opticron Aurora, and couldn't be happier with zero regrets.

When something doesn't gel, and you are not delighted with your instrument? Swap it up and move on.

 

[Kiwimac]

Do all the Ultravid line behave similarly?

I get on well enough with my 10x32 ones so I wondered if that increased the likelihood of getting on with the other versions?

 

[mwhogue]

Do all the Ultravid line behave similarly?

I get on well enough with my 10x32 ones so I wondered if that increased the likelihood of getting on with the other versions?

Mac,

I'm not an expert nor do I notice CA in any high end binoculars except when looking for it in tough conditions.

That said, based on you getting along with the 10x32 and my experience with the Leica 10x32 and 10x50 HD+, you would probably get along with the UVHD+ 10x50 (or 10x42 but I've never tried the latter). If relevant, unlike other models in the UV line, the 10x50 is slightly larger and heavier than comparable formats of different makes.

A lot of my extended viewing happens on the beach looking out over the water in the direction of the early morning sun. In comparing various bins, it seems to me that the high end Japanese makes show less CA (if any) than SW/Leica/Zeiss. Specifically the EDG II, Kowa Genesis (10.5x44) and Fujinon 10x50 porro are all superior in this respect.

Good luck with the Quest.

Mike

 

[Binocollector]

@Kiwimac
Look through a Fujinon HC if you have the chance. Still very happy with mine. Very little CA and neural color rendition. Super comfy eyecups (but they can get cold in winter) and enough eye relief to use with glasses.
From what I have read, Kowa Genesis is supposed to control CA very well.

 

[Paultricounty]

Hmmm.

I have a pair of pre HD+ UV 10x32 and they can be provoked to produce yellow fringing on things like mountain ridges against the sky.

It’s not so much that the CA itself bothered me as much as the fact that it shouldn’t be there in a top of the table binocular.

My experience with the Noctivids is that the 10x has more CA on this level than other top 10’s. The 8’s were much better in this area, still not as well as the SF , NL or EL’s. I’m a little surprised about the Zeiss being the one that gave you diopter issues, that’s usually a complaint of Leica for some. Maybe it was an issue with that floor model, who knows. I had that issue with a 10x42 Conquest on one, which was replaced , no issues with the replacement.

I shoot Leica M cameras and they can certainly remove CA in the lenses for those to a far greater degree than I saw this afternoon. Literally the entire tree I was looking at against the sky was fringed in purple.

I liked the Zeiss but they just seem to have far less range of diopter adjustment than the NV or indeed my 10+ year old UV.

If Zeiss, Swarovski and Leica are off the board, what’s left?!

What was the reason Swaro is off the table? You could try another SF or the SFL , although that might also be an issue with CA for you. You could try the Nikon EDG, and the Kowa’s Genesis 10.5x44, no CA there. Of course you could go the 2/3rds route and call it a day. 🙏🏼✌🏼.

 

[bgc38]

I just bought a pair of Swarovski NL Pure 8x42. It's the only way.

 

[Paultricounty]

I just bought a pair of Swarovski NL Pure 8x42. It's the only way.

The green armor is probably peeling in the box on the way as we talk 🤭😏🤪. Just kidding , I think. Your going to love them, a phenomenal modern masterpiece of optical and mechanical technology.

Paul

 

[bgc38]

Yes, I've been using them for a week, now, and just cannot fault them. At last, after around a dozen pairs of binoculars, all with problems of one sort or another. These are keepers!

 

[Scott98]

We don’t seem to get high end Nikon here.

You can order 10x42 EDG through Kyoie Osaka in Japan. The air shipping to USA was about $50. The EDG are one of the best for suppressing false color. The EDG and SF's are my favorite top binos.

I don't know about the diopter range and whether it's larger than the SF's though. Kyoie has excellent customer service and I"m sure you could return them easily although you would have to pay the shipping.

 

[[email protected]]

If you are sensitive to CA or fringing like me, get a Zeiss Fl. It is the best binocular available for controlling CA because it uses Fluorite glass. It is way better than the NL, EL, SF, Noctivid, UVHD+ or even EDG. Compare the CA numbers at Allbinos.

CA Ranking at Albinos
1) FL 9.5
2) EDG 8.6
3) SF 8.3
4) NL 8.3
5) Vortex UHD 7.2
6) EL 6.9
7) UVHD+ 6.8

Binoculars rankings - 10x42 - AllBinos.com

The best binocular tests on the net. The comprehensive database of binoculars with their parameters and users opinions. Interesting articles and comparisons.

www.allbinos.com

 

[jafritten]

Do all the Ultravid line behave similarly?

I get on well enough with my 10x32 ones so I wondered if that increased the likelihood of getting on with the other versions?

Well, I think it depends on what you mean by "similarly". I know the 8x20, 8x32, 10x32, 10x42 and 7x42 very well. Comparing any one of them to Zeiss (e.g. FL 8x32 or SF 8x42) or Swarovski (e.g. Habicht 7x42 or EL 8.5x42), I'd say they are very similar; they are unmistakably different from the aforementioned ones.

To my eyes (subjective!!!), there are, however, also notable differences within the UV line. They differ in CA control (10x32 bad, 8x32 and 7x42 good, 10x42 is a bit better than 10x32 in this respect), panning behaviour (10x32 good, 7x42 not so good), field curvature and distortion, and colours/saturation/colour contrast. I reckon, if you like your 10x32s you will get on with the others as well. Unfortunately, I cannot say anything about the x50s because I have never tried them out. I am sure they're great - possibly even better than the smaller apertures - but they're too big for me.