BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!

Register for an account to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tobias Mennle" data-source="post: 3317570" data-attributes="member: 117315">Hm. Both the latest 8x42 and 8x32 look very similar in field curvature and distortion to me. Are you sure you did not have the EDG in your hands? 3<img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" />Sorry, I still disagree. It is the fabulous coatings and the HT glass, plus the old Ultravid design that manages to keep veiling glare levels in the image center low for superb macrocontrast, and of course great microcontrast due to design and manufacture. In fact I found the warping when panning worse in the Ultravid than in the HT, so I checked again, and it is strong pincushion through and through, and definitely no flatfield in the 8x42. Quite the contrary, a rather small sweet spot. With the 8x32 I first had the impression of a flatter field, but could not confirm it. Actually I suspect the baffling might be so tight in the 8x32 that the effective aperture even with closed pupil might be slightly smaller than in the 8x42, increasing depth of field. The 8x32 always looks a bit darker and therefore contrastier than the 8x42. The stronger vignetting in the 8x32 might affect perception, too...</blockquote>