• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Why are those dang Habicht's so BRIGHT! (1 Viewer)

The surest sign of brainwashing! ;)
It's weird.... I went to specifically buy Habichts about 2 years ago.
Against the Leica's and those FL's I bought, they were definately lacking something.... So I bought the FL's.
They were too big, so sold, and I now have Meostars which work so well for me.... just fantastic...


But I still want some Habichts, even though I walked away from them a few years back.
Don't know why, I know newer optics are better..... it's a curse:mad:
 
I’d like to ad whenever someone looks through a Swaro Habicht, they go, Wow! That doesn’t seem to happen as often with the run of the mill roofs, until you get well over $1500. The SE’s have some other issues, kidney bean, eyebox issues, small FOV (for an 8x) and there not available , out of production for years, Nikon barely services them anymore. Habicht’s are throwbacks from Yesteryear with better glass and newer coatings that still work in the modern world. I think they are more than mere tools that have to check all the modern boxes.

And they look dang cool 😎

Paul
 
Yep, it can look "nice" as long as it's hand held and the eyesight acuity of the observer is no better than say 20/20 and there isn't a lower aberration reference instrument available for comparison.
With all it’s imperfections and Aberrations, that center image is still nicer and sharper than any $1000 roof in my opinion , unless course you want to just look at the edges and not the center. Then I’m with ya. But for some reason , I’m not sure why, I don’t usually look at objects at the edge.

Have I been doing this all wrong all these decades ,was I supposed to ignore the center and move the binoculars so the object is at the edge ✌🏼.
 
I guess I'll drag out this post once again since it's the best visual demonstration I can offer of the difference between the center field image of the 8x30 Habicht and an "8x30" with lower center field aberrations, not off-axis aberrations . Just follow the directions for how far away to view it in order to simulate different levels of eyesight acuity.

 
Last edited:
I guess I'll drag out this post once again since it's the best visual demonstration I can offer of the difference between the center field image of the 8x30 Habicht and a lower aberration "8x30". Just follow the directions for how far away to view it in order to simulate different levels of eyesight acuity.

Never used the 8x30, just 7x42. They look sharp to me, maybe simpler eye pieces help that or maybe it's just that it's a qualitative rather than quantitative preference. I did back to back them with the Zeiss mentioned a few weeks back, I preferred the habichts view (within the small fov) but not by much. Also is this thread really still going!
 
Hi William,

I haven't seen a 7x42 in many years, but it's center field image certainly could look sharper than the 8x30 just because its magnification is lower and also because when its objective lens is stopped down in daylight that would increase the lens' effective focal ratio and therefore lower its axial aberrations, just like the Zeiss 8x56 in the photos.

Henry
 
I guess I'll drag out this post once again since it's the best visual demonstration I can offer of the difference between the center field image of the 8x30 Habicht and an "8x30" with lower axial aberrations, not off-axis aberrations . Just follow the directions for how far away to view it in order to simulate different levels of eyesight acuity.

I didn’t read all the reply posts. But this is a very interesting testing criteria. A coupe of things pop out to me , maybe you could educate me a little, please.

On the surface this seems like a very scientific test method, but somewhere it was said that part of the test results were beyond everybody’s eyesight acuity, so where is the eye or brain being fooled to think one pair of binoculars are better than another ?

The next issue or observation is the Instruments themselves being used for the test. Your comparing the Habicht’s to one of the most expensive premium optics available. My eyes don’t seem to lie to me , I’m noticing clear, better, brighter , sharper images in the Habicht’s than any roof has in its price class. And that’s taking into consideration the aberrations caused by the old design and glare in the 30’s. I’m not seeing any magic when I compare them to the roof price point.

Id like to ad that you tested one Zeiss and one Habicht. What were the condition of both of the instruments, how much use and/or abuse did either one of them have. Were they excellent examples from the manufacturers, the latest and greatest, were any of them ever damaged, or refurbished. These are questions that answers could have a profound effect on the believability of the outcome.

i’m not from Missouri, but that test method with one example of each binoculars definitely can be taken seriously, but if you did that with five Habicht’s and FL‘s , I’d be more apt to agree with the results.

Specs and numbers do count , nobody should deny that. But I couldn’t count the times that I’ve read reviews with technical data, and that technical data implies a better optical image. Yet fall short when in real world application.

Paul
 
Ähm...now that wasn't a winner, note the "huge" FOV of the 7x42 Habicht, If that's a issue with the SE, then what about the Habicht...a disaster?

Andreas
Andy

I was referring to the post where it was said the Habicht 30 had a small FOV, when the SE came up as a better example of a porro. I was just pointing out the FOV is smaller on the SE (not sweet spot) than the Habicht’s , 7.5 to 7.8.
7x42‘s are tunnel vision as some have described. The Habicht 742 is a FOV disaster , but even it serves a very useful purpose after dark when the zombies come out.

This discussion was mainly talking about the 30mm and how awful Henry seems to feel about it.

It appears we always circle back to, certain binoculars are not for anybody. And obviously Habicht’s not for Henry. I’m sure, I could bank on the fact that there is a Binocular that Henry loves, that somebody has a problem with. It always gets deep into the woods with so many here with all the spec testers/reviewers, Albinos anybody.

Paul
 
😳😮😲😡 Line up the firing squad
I just wanted to write the same…it’s like Habicht “cult members” are persona non grata or are mentally disabled.
They are just very good binoculars with an old classic design, why all this hate?
 
I just wanted to write the same…it’s like Habicht “cult members” are persona non grata or are mentally disabled.
They are just very good binoculars with an old classic design, why all this hate?
I bought mine because they gave me at least as good a view as a Swaro roof prism bino, a better 3D, less weight and good handling. At about half the price. 10*40 black, chosen because as x-military I didn't want the green rubber armour.
And I'm happy with them.
 
Last edited:
I hope to get to the Birdfair (or whatever it is called now) in July with a view to maybe an SF, SFL or NL.

But the Habicht 8x30 stay. I do think some of the criticisms are overstated. I wear glasses and just fold down the eyecups so not a problem. Focuser a bit stiff but, after much use, not bad and very smooth with not much movement required unless focusing very close. Edge to edge sharpness is actually good horizontally though huge fall off vertically. The centre is very sharp and the resolution of detail high. And I love the view (maybe I'm just not very discerning).

And they are lightweight, comfortable to hold and a whole lot cheaper.

Apart from the eyecups, what's not to like? :D
 
I bought mine because they gave me at least as good a view as a Swaro roof prism bino, a better 3D, less weight and good handling. At about half the price. 10*40 black, chosen because as x-military I didn't want the green rubber armour.
And I'm happy with them.
I forgot: and I have a Zeiss Conquest HD 8*32, a Nikon Monarch 5 8*42, a Vortex Diamondback 15*56, etc but the CL 7*21 and the Habicht 10*40 are the ones that go in the bag (the Curio in the pocket) with the MM3*60/EDF w/tripod. And get used.😃
And the Sony Xperia...DSC_3928.JPG
 
I bought mine because they gave me at least as good a view as a Swaro roof prism bino, a better 3D, less weight and good handling. At about half the price. 10*40 black, chosen because as x-military I didn't want the green rubber armour.
And I'm happy with them.
The black ones are great and even lighter than the armored. For my uses i choose the GA version but i would be very happy with the black, they look very stylish.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 2 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top