Variations from binocular to binocular, same model (1 Viewer)

[Ted Y.]

For the same model, are variations from one binocular to another one relevant?
If I decide to buy a specific model, better to try a sample of three binoculars? A sample of five?

Example: a 90% transmission on paper can be in reality from 91% to 88%, no surprise for me here. But not 85%.

Are tests done with one single binocular (for well known test sites)?

 

[Maljunulo]

Legend and tradition claim that the further down in price you go, the grater the variation within any given model.

I have no experience on which to draw.

 

[yarrellii]

I'm sure forum members with more experience (like dealers, reviewers, collectors, etc.) can give you good references.

In my case, the first time I had two units of the same binoculars was the Monarch 7 8x30, which I really like but that (as has been said many times) has a weak point with glare in difficult light conditions. I tested two units back to back and there was indeed a noticeable difference. I had an earlier unit (according to serial number) that displayed more glare, and a later one that handled it better. We are talking about a 300 - 400 $ device.

Recently I've compared two units of another Nikon, a cheaper CF III 7x20, and the difference was larger (one had a much wider sweet spot).

Moving up the price ladder. At home we have two Swarovski 8x32 EL SV, the focus on one is way better than the other... oddly enough is the new (Field Pro) that has the worst focus action. It turns out that the old one had been to Absam and got a new focus wheel (in theory, on par with the new version).

As Maljunulo says, cheaper optics are cheaper (amongst many other things) due to a less strict quality control. I've had really cheap optics (I remember a 7x30 Porro from TS, that I bought new for around 20 €) that was simply unusable. I contacted them in order to send it back and they told me to keep it (and get refunded), because the shipping cost were not worth it.

 

[Binastro]

I have tried three, six and twelve identical binoculars in order to buy the best.
Often.

With the £7.50 6x18 waterproof binocular I tried thirty.
I bought them all. Ten were good, ten acceptable, ten rubbish.
But even the ten rubbish examples could be cut in half to make 20 mmonoculars.

Generally the higher the price the less variation.

With the Kowa 99 scopes it seems that six is not enough.

I would say that three of any binocular or scope is the minimum.

B.

 

[Pileatus]

I have tried three, six and twelve identical binoculars in order to buy the best.
Often.

With the £7.50 6x18 waterproof binocular I tried thirty.
I bought them all. Ten were good, ten acceptable, ten rubbish.
But even the ten rubbish examples could be cut in half to make 20 mmonoculars.

Generally the higher the price the less variation.

With the Kowa 99 scopes it seems that six is not enough.

I would say that three of any binocular or scope is the minimum.

B.

How is the average consumer going to test three samples side-by-side?

 

[Binastro]

When manufacturers send out test samples they have usually been tested first, so this is not a good way to judge a binocular.

Sky and Telescope used to buy optics retail, anonymously, to test.
This is much better.

But often one has to buy one binocular and hope for the best.

With new Rolls Royce cars, they vary in quality.

With military aircraft they vary in quality.
There was an English Electric Lightning that was particularly fast.
It was the only aircraft that intercepted the Concorde and streaked past it at Mach 2.3.
It continued to climb up to about 80,000 ft.

Perfection probably doesn't exist.

B.

 

[Binastro]

The average consumer does not know how to test a binocular, so the question doesn't arise.

Usually one just buys one binocular and is either satisfied or not.

Even bad binoculars can, and do, provide good observations.

It is only people here who obsess about these matters.

I would think that 90% of consumers don't care.
They buy something and use it.

Regards,
B.

 

[Binocollector]

I don't have multiples of modern day binos but of vintage ones. Often they have the same specs, same name on it, but were not even made by the same manufacturer -- many of the vintage binos sold between the 70's and 80's in Germany were Made in Japan and relabeled. I have two 8x30 "Bresser" Everest models. I bought the 2nd as I liked the 1st one so much. The coatings are different, the leatherette has a different structur and they are slightly different optically. I also have two Eschenbach "Luna Super" both have the same specifications but are vastly different when it comes to coatings and are also not made by the same Japanese company. They look roughly the same though. Or my Komz 7x30 -- I got 2, the "Seconda"-version (made '94) which has internal individually focusing oculars and twist-up eyecups, the newer version has externally focusing oculars with fold-down rubber eyecups. Optically they are pretty similar however. Coatings are slightly different.
I am certain however that on newer models the variations will not be as big. The vintage ones often have a few years between them. In case of my two Komz -- almost 30 years (!) between vintage one and current production model. I am not sure how many models have even been made that long. The Swaro Habichts maybe? Fujinon FMT?

 

[Binastro]

The 7x30 I think have 7 element eyepieces.

I think the original version had 8 element eyepieces.

There are at least two eyepiece versions of the 12x40.

The Canon 8x25 IS has at least two different types of IS.

B.

 

[dipped]

For the same model, are variations from one binocular to another one relevant?
If I decide to buy a specific model, better to try a sample of three binoculars? A sample of five?

Example: a 90% transmission on paper can be in reality from 91% to 88%, no surprise for me here. But not 85%.

Are tests done with one single binocular (for well known test sites)?

Also individual barrels may vary in resolution and depending on your dominant eye one pair of may binoculars be acceptable and another pair not. Seemingly most reviewers just give an impression of the aggregate view.

I remember years ago trying every sample budget porro binocular in stock on a reserve to find the pair with the least "bridge rocking". I went through about 5/6 pairs but this was pre covid of course and I doubt that could happen now.

I once tried some cheap 7Day Shop compact roofs despite them sending me a number of replacements none of them could bring both barrels to focus simultaneously.

 

[Binocollector]

The 7x30 I think have 7 element eyepieces.

I think the original version had 8 element eyepieces.

From what I read -- the original had 7, the current one 6 elements. At least that is what they say on the Komz-homepage. I don't see much if any differences between them optically. The newer one might be a teeny-tiny bit brighter and more contrasty. But that might just be the age difference and slight dust, hazing, etc. There is a hair inside one of the oculars in the vintage one, so who knows what else got inside. Also -- on the vintage one the coatings on the eyepieces are slightly different between left and right. On the new one too but different lenses inside seem to have different coatings compared to the old one. Judging by the reflections on the glass, some of which are golden on one model and purple on the other one.

 

[Binastro]

Regarding quality control, I would say top end binoculars were better in the past than today, although there are improvements in coatings and design now.

The lower end binoculars now can be dreadful or good. There is no way to know without testing.

Yet there are surprises.
A family member showed me his 10x25 Amazon roof prism binocular.
The image was very good. The inside spotless, The alignment very good.
Cost about £8.

I don't buy from the internet, so I had to ask someone to get me the VisionKing 5x25.
It genuinely has a 15 degree field.

The star images are good, yet something was wrong.
It took careful testing to show that the resolution in one barrel is good, but the other barrel is dreadful, despite good star images.

Normally, I would have bought at least three, but because my helper would think I am mad, I asked for only one.
I knew I would have a much better chance of getting a good one if I bought three.

Regards,
B.

 

[jring]

Hi,

while I am quite certain that sample variation is a thing in consumer optics - in spotting scopes even more than in binoculars - I am quite sure that a few percent up or down in transmission is way above the usual sample variation.

It might obviously be caused by different transmission measurement techniques used by different or even the same testers... but that's not the fault of the binoculars. Or you have samples of the same model from different years when the later one has received a coating upgrade.

With spotting (or astro) scopes, you can probably bring an artificial star and do a quick star test, if you know how... I did numerous times before buying optics.

With binoculars you need a very good magnifier to put behind your binocular under test's eyepiece for sufficient magnification and of course multiple tripods to keep things steady for this...

Joachim, would love to see the face of the optics merchant when sb. tried to pull this off in a store...

 

[henry link]

Here's what you can find when you star test a binocular at high magnification. This is the full aperture of one side of a very expensive "alpha" binocular. These high levels of astigmatism and coma will not be found in the same amount in every specimen of this binocular and even this mess is not as damaging to the image as it would be in a spotting scope at high magnification. Binoculars are saved (mostly) from displaying their full awfulness in normal use by very low magnification and the effective aperture stop down provided by the eye's pupil in daylight.

 

[Maljunulo]

The optics are not going to be any better than the manufacturer has to make them.

Once the limit of human vision is reached, further improvement is silly, and not economical.

From what I read here, it doesn’t seem that many see even that well.

 

[pete_gamby]

There are two ISO standards relating to binocular specifications and what are termed "acceptable deviations of optical characteristics". Adherence to ISO 14133-1 means a binocular is classed as general purpose while adherence to ISO 14133-2 means it would be classed as high performance.

The tolerances are given as +/-x% or a variation in an appropriate unit of measure depending on the specification in question. As you'd expect, the specifications covered include things like magnification, field of view, etc. Other things covered are what markings should be on the binocular and what specifications should be published in product literature.

Since access to the full details of two standards is chargeable and the documents are copyright I can't really give more detail than that.

There are also a number of standards relating to the requirements of and processes by which the specifications should be measured. These are ISO 10109-4 and 14490-1, -2 and -7.

Some contract optics manufacturers state whether the measured specifications meet one or other standard compared to the design and/or published specifications, others don't e.g. brand A asks for a binocular to have a field of view of 8°, contractor B says when measured it meets ISO 14133-2 tolerance for that specification.

I can't see anything in a Google search that suggests any binocular brand says one of its products meets either of the standards.

Nikon makes reference to ISO 14132-1 in relation to the way it calculates apparent field of view*. That standard describes the vocabulary for telescopic systems. This covers a whole raft of terms from lens hood to entrance pupil to veiling glare. ISO 14132-2 lists a number of terms and definitions - the full content of that standard can be viewed on the ISO website.

* worth noting that only a binocular with AFOV over 60° is considered wide angle according to the information published by Nikon and which refers to the standard.

 

[tenex]

Since access to the full details of two standards is chargeable and the documents are copyright I can't really give more detail than that.

Incredible. How can ISO standards not be public information?

Nikon makes reference to ISO 14132-1 in relation to the way it calculates apparent field of view

This is actually odd because that standard ("tangent formula") underestimates AFOV, often significantly. It's hard to believe that manufacturers don't simply measure it instead, as Swarovski seems to.

 

[henry link]

Incredible. How can ISO standards not be public information?

You can get a copy of the ISO standards. You just have to pay. I've seen them, although maybe not the latest version. They're extremely lax. I don't think anything but a toy binocular would fail to meet them.

 

[Hermann]

Here's what you can find when you star test a binocular at high magnification. This is the full aperture of one side of a very expensive "alpha" binocular. These high levels of astigmatism and coma will not be found in the same amount in every specimen of this binocular and even this mess is not as damaging to the image as it would be in a spotting scope at high magnification. Binoculars are saved (mostly) from displaying their full awfulness in normal use by very low magnification and the effective aperture stop down provided by the eye's pupil in daylight.

This is one of the reasons why you should NEVER try the Zeiss 3x12 tripler on any of your expensive alpha binoculars ... Chances are you'll discover they look really bad at 3x their specified magnification, and, even worse, that both tubes are significantly different.

Hermann

 

[Maljunulo]

Maybe I’m just ignorant, but I think that unless you have 3x eyes, it is irrelevant.

(no disrespect to Herman)