UVHD+ coating change between 2015 and 2019? (1 Viewer)

[b-lilja]

I was at the Leica store buying my new 7x42 UVHD+s and they had an old demo pair from 2015 as well as a 2019 pair. Something compelled me to look at the objectives side by side, and clearly they are different. Going off memory now, but I think the 2015s were more green and the 2019s, more blueish and subtle. Any knowledge or thoughts about this?

Performance of both was great, but I thought the 2019s were slightly better.

Seeing just how many threads I can initiate with one buying activity!

 

[chill6x6]

I wouldn't give that amount of possible difference one seconds thought. The word minuscule comes to mind.

 

[dries1]

I wonder if House of Outdoor has done any data analysis on the transmission values of early and late production of the same model/glass, it would be interesting, however in many cases it would not be noticed by observers.

Andy W.

 

[John A Roberts]

Hi Andy,

A quick look through Gijs’ reports show that he’s tested the following x42 Leicas:
a) 8x42 UV HD+ vs 8x42 UV HD, and the Plus vs other brands

b) 8x42 UV HD vs other brands

c) 7x42 UV HD+, 8x42 Trinovid HD and 8x42 BL, again vs other brands, and also

d) 8x42 and 10x42 Noctivid vs each other, and the 8x42 vs other brands

I’ve downloaded graphs for the above, though not necessarily every graph from each report
And on each graph label I’ve included the month and year of the report that it's from
For those interested in more detail, the full reports can be found in date order at:
https://www.houseofoutdoor.com/verrekijkers/verrekijkers-testen-en-vergelijken/


. . . but as to just how much this should influence the decision a person makes about a particular binocular?


John

- - - -

a) 8x42 UV HD+ vs 8x42 UV HD
In comparing the two, Gijs included the exact values for 6 points across the spectrum

 

[John A Roberts]

b) 8x42 UV HD

 

[John A Roberts]

c) 7x42 UV HD+, 8x42 Trinovid HD and 8x42 BL

 

[John A Roberts]

d) 8x42 and 10x42 Noctivid

 

[Tobias Mennle]

I was at the Leica store buying my new 7x42 UVHD+s and they had an old demo pair from 2015 as well as a 2019 pair. Something compelled me to look at the objectives side by side, and clearly they are different. Going off memory now, but I think the 2015s were more green and the 2019s, more blueish and subtle. Any knowledge or thoughts about this?

Performance of both was great, but I thought the 2019s were slightly better.

Seeing just how many threads I can initiate with one buying activity!

Thanks for pointing this out, I find this VERY interesting and well worth investigating!

Generally, Leica coatings seem to differ a lot and change over the years. And it might be well possible that Leica used older HD lenses they still had in stock in HD+ binoculars.

Two points why I find this issue interesting:

- The UV+ together with the SLCs are the only alpha 42mm curved field bins left on the market, so for curved field fans like me there is not much choice and any progress in these models is very welcome.

- Comparing HD+ 7x42 vs HD+8x42 in a shop two years ago, the 8x was clearly more yellow - which might be a good thing because of stronger boosted contrast due to less blue. Could have been different generations of course.

- Having a new Swaro SLC 8x42, and contemplating buying the wonderful Leica HD+7x42 again, the SLC knocked me off my socks as the most transparent 8x42 ever and the most bright looking except the HT. Almost AK prism look in brightness and micro contrast and in perceived brightness way ahead the HD+ (having 8x32 as direct comparison). Images look extremely bright and always - but especially in the twilight - brighter than with my naked eye. From memory, with the 7x42 HD+ images always looked a bit darker than with naked eye. That saturated colours and was fine in bright light, but otherwise not so much.

- Noctivid colours feel a bit different and less nice to HD+ colours, maybe it is just a slight reduction in saturation due to slightly higher transmission.

So, if Leica tweaked the coatings (and glass?) in the HD+ to close the gap to the SLC a bit, that`d be nice.

SLC coatings seem not to have changed much since 2014, at least they look the same, pink and blue, fitting well with Gij´s transmission measurements.

 

[Mike F]

All of my Leica's, including two recent UVHD+, have slightly or very different coating colours. I also had two examples of very recent 12x50's (made within months of each other) to compare some months ago, and even they had noticeably different colour coatings.

I've understood that coatings are done in batches and can vary in appearance, but that the difference in performance is completely negligible - at least to the human eye. Of course that doesn't mean there haven't been changes and improvements to coatings over time, but I'm sure that these changes and improvements cannot be determined by the colour.

 

[Tobias Mennle]

All of my Leica's, including two recent UVHD+, have slightly or very different coating colours. I also had two examples of very recent 12x50's (made within months of each other) to compare some months ago, and even they had noticeably different colour coatings.

I've understood that coatings are done in batches and can vary in appearance, but that the difference in performance is completely negligible - at least to the human eye. Of course that doesn't mean there haven't been changes and improvements to coatings over time, but I'm sure that these changes and improvements cannot be determined by the colour.

In case of the SLC 8x42, magenta/tobacco and blue are reflected, suggesting a slight yellow-green bias. Exactly confirmed by Gij´s measurements. But granted this an exception, most coatings look more complex.

 

[Jessie-66]

From the reflection colors of only 1 lens (or outer lenses of eyepiece or objectives) one can speculate on the emphasis or suppression of spectral components only of this lens. Binoculars and telescope tubes consists of many more optical components. (A few binoculars enthusiasts use red or green laser pens to distinguish lenses through little reflections.)

I read an article by a Carl Zeiss Jena employee regarding reflection colors of individual lenses with T3M multiple coating: The coating machines produced measurably optically equivalent coatings, but the produced, multi-coated lenses reflected different colors. In order not to confuse, not worry customers, approximately the same reflexion colors for outer lenses were selected, same refleted colors for 1 pair of binoculars. I can no more find the post, the source of this statement.

Only transmission measurements of the whole binoculars, the whole tube are technically reasonable. When measuring both tubes there are already differences between the tubes. Statements about the representation of colors and contrasts of the whole bins or telescope due to observation of the reflection colors of outer lenses of binoculars and telescopes are probably pure speculation, for statements about changes in the coating due to different reflection colors at least many binoculars of of one series under the same lighting conditions (ambient light) have to be examined. Ebay photos of single-coated binoculars already show different colors. Ambient light is different, cameras and settings are different, differences in coating thickness of the bins are likely.

Thanks to Gijs van Ginkel and Arek (allbinos.com) for measured transmission curves over a wide spectrum of wave lengths, for facts without speculations. Thanks to John A. Roberts for point out measured facts.

 

[Renze de Vries]

In case of the SLC 8x42, magenta/tobacco and blue are reflected, suggesting a slight yellow-green bias. Exactly confirmed by Gij´s measurements. But granted this an exception, most coatings look more complex.

Tobias,
Am I right that you're suggesting that we can determine color hue in binoculars by looking at the coating colors? Also, are you of the opinion that Gijs' transmission graphs inform us about color as we know it, as perceived by us human beings?
Oh yes, I'd like to see this SLC 8x42 transmission measurement.

Renze

 

[Renze de Vries]

- Noctivid colours feel a bit different and less nice to HD+ colours, maybe it is just a slight reduction in saturation due to slightly higher transmission.

Excuse me, but is this a fact, higher transmission leads to reduction in saturation?

Renze

 

[Gijs van Ginkel]

The amount of transmission only tells us something about brightness and the shape of the curves is informative about the predominant color distribution. The Noctivids have a fairly flat transmission curve over a wide wavelenght range, but it is gradually declining from red to blue, giving it its saturated image impression due to the slightly higher red transmission. The transmission curves of the Swarovski NL pure are almost flat over a wide wavelenght range giving the binoculars such a bright image impression while yielding an almost perfect color representation.
Gijs van Ginkel

 

[dries1]

Thanks John for putting this together, much appreciated. Looking at the 8X42 UV HD and UV HD+ data, the average person is likely not going to notice any difference between the two glass with respect to light transmission; the average over the wavelengths provided is a bit over 2 % for the UV+ over the UV HD.

Andy W.

 

[Jessie-66]

The amount of transmission only tells us something about brightness and the shape of the curves is informative about the predominant color distribution. The Noctivids have a fairly flat transmission curve over a wide wavelenght range, but it is gradually declining from red to blue, giving it its saturated image impression due to the slightly higher red transmission. The transmission curves of the Swarovski NL pure are almost flat over a wide wavelenght range giving the binoculars such a bright image impression while yielding an almost perfect color representation.
Gijs van Ginkel

Hello Giis van Ginkel,

how do you measure transmission curves over a wide range of wavelengths? A narrow bar of light of different wavelengths sent in small areas around the optical axis - or over the entire lens surface or angle of view?

A few remarks with facts about it - whether these only contain a correlation or a causality, I do not know:

Own experiences and tests:
A Hawke Frontier EDX 8x32 clearly shows me more color saturation (subjectively more intense perceived contrasts) than a Kowa BDII XD measured by you. I tested 3 units of this binocular against 2 units of Hawke Frontier EDX with the naked eye. Deciduous trees with remnants of brown autumn foliage against a completely overcast, light grey sky and brown-green contrasts of ground plants were displayed with higher contrast (with more saturated colors) in the Hawke, whereas the KOWA BDII XD was dull. A second observer noticed the same "dullness" in the Kowa - large apparent field of view with a duller image. Literally: "The Hawke is a pipe opposite the Kowa, but the Hawke has a far more beautiful, real colored image.
A direct comparison of both binoculars on and under a street lamp shows significantly brighter and longer spikes on the Kowa. Directly under the street lamp, just outside the field of view, the Kowa showed snow, rain - which did not exist. The Hawke did not. My conclusion is that the quality of the roof prisms is important.

I noticed regarding specs from manufacturers:
Hawke produces several series with the same specs, differences in optics are not explained in a technically comprehensible way, examples: Frontier HDX and EDX with the same specs.

HAWKE UK | Frontier

All Frontier models feature Hawkes new H7 optics, offering stunning high definition viewing with incredible colour control and phase correction. High performance lens coatings and Dielectric Coated prisms ensure the highest level of light transmission. The all new Frontier APO offers extreme...

uk.hawkeoptics.com

Vortex apparently selects same roof prisms but with different qalities (different selections!) for different series, for more expensive series simply the better ones. I have to search for the link again, if the search is successful, I'll have to submit it later.

For now I draw the following conclusions for the facts:
The transmission of modern day binoculars, meanwhile > 85 percent already of mid-range binoculars, is practically irrelevant during the day. Users need color saturation and contrast within the animals and against the background for the observation and identification of plants and animals. It is not for nothing that Leica colors are popular.
A "dull" image (imho with little saturation and contrast) transmits less information to the user's brain in conjunction with his eyes. The details of plants and animals are less visible, and finding animals and plans against background is more difficult.
Measuring the transmission alone does not meet the requirements of nature observers during the day. Hunters now use binoculars with objective lens diameters up to 42 mm - brightness analogous to their riflescopes, for the raised hide the same (lightweight) day binoculars are sufficient in addition to thermal imaging cameras with rangefinder.
The measurement of highest transmission values is interesting for conventional hunters and nocturnal nature observers.
Day binoculars and night binoculars (easily distinguishable by their objective lens diameter/light gathering capacity) should differ in the emphasis or suppression of wavelengths at the edge of human perceivable wavelengths. Emphasis or supression on infrared or ultraviolet wavelength.

Links and sources I will search for in the next days ... if anyone is interested at all. ;-)
Best regards to all readers and writers - to Gijs van Ginkel for the facts. Jessie.

 

[Renze de Vries]

Generally, Leica coatings seem to differ a lot and change over the years. And it might be well possible that Leica used older HD lenses they still had in stock in HD+ binoculars.

Leica using older lenses in newer models... now that could be read as a serious accusation. Any evidence Tobias?

Renze

 

[Renze de Vries]

The amount of transmission only tells us something about brightness and the shape of the curves is informative about the predominant color distribution. The Noctivids have a fairly flat transmission curve over a wide wavelenght range, but it is gradually declining from red to blue, giving it its saturated image impression due to the slightly higher red transmission. The transmission curves of the Swarovski NL pure are almost flat over a wide wavelenght range giving the binoculars such a bright image impression while yielding an almost perfect color representation.
Gijs van Ginkel

Gijs,

Could you please supply us with the transmissions graphs of the Leica Noctivid and the Swarovski NL? So we're able to check your interpretations?
Thanks in advance.

Renze

 

[Gijs van Ginkel]

Dear Renze,
They are all shown in the test report on the WEB-site of House of Outdoor. Go to their WEB-site and from there to "Verrekijkers" and the following step is "Verrekijkers testen en vergelijken"and you get all the reports I have written the past years including the one you ask for. Must be easy for a Dutchman...
If you do not succeed let me know.
Best regards,
Gijs

 

[eitanaltman]

Renze - Here's the link to Gijs' tests: https://www.houseofoutdoor.com/verrekijkers/verrekijkers-testen-en-vergelijken/

Here's the NL Pure (and 8x32 SF) transmission:


As you can see it's >90% to over 600nm after which it declines a bit, with a fairly steep drop-off above ~650nm. Note that it stays >90% all the way down to the left edge of the graph (~450nm) so it has excellent transmission down into the deep blue, a trait shared by modern Swarovskis which is IMO why they have such a "crystalline" and vibrant view that tends to be perceived as slightly "cool".

Here is the Noctovid graph, it is also fairly flat and at a high level, but in typical Leica vs Swarovski fashion, it's almost reversed, with a drop off on the blue end but sustained high transmission well out to the right edge of the graph (~675nm) and beyond. This is the famous "saturated reds" of Leica, and why they appear more "luscious" and warm than the Swarovskis.