Why do Leicas have more CA than Swarovski or Zeiss? Leica makes superb binoculars, but most birders agree they have more CA than Swarovski or Zeiss. Is it the glass or the optical design? What are your thoughts?
-
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.
Why do Leicas have more CA than Swarovski or Zeiss? (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter [email protected]
- Start date
So you agree that Leicas have more CA. Which models of Leicas are the worst for CA in your experience?
I own only one Leica so cannot comment about more. However, I see CA in my UV 10x32 HD. I am the third owner of it and the first owner (a dear BF member) mentioned the reason for selling is because it has too much CA and a darker view than his liking. However, I enjoyed it quite a while (good color saturation and glare resistance are plus points of it) and didn't find the CA bothering me until recently. When I was watching large flocks of Black Headed Gulls, Mallards, and Great Cormorants from the Rhine river bank, I found the CA was way too much. That was the main reason for me buying SFL 10x40. Yesterday I went to the same location with both binoculars. SFL is also not free of CA. It has more CA under particular lighting conditions than I like. However, it performs certainly better than UV 10x32 HD. I believe that I will be happy with EL 10x42 because of its superior optics and better CA control. Unfortunately, the EL is bulkier. All binoculars come with some drawbacks and we users have to choose the better suited one and deal with shortcomings. In this case, I am planning to buy an NL 12x42 in the future to use in particular conditions closer to water bodies.
Hi Viraj,
I keep wondering why you still have the NL 8x42. Or did you sell it already? I have the feeling you prefer 10 power (or even 12 power) and lightweight. A NL 12x42 is as light as you can get with 12 power. I have the EL 12x50 now and I like it a lot! I have quite large hands and the 50mm tubes are nice to hold steady. However, I think the ergonomics of the NL 12x42 are even better. I see very little glare in the EL 50's. Actually almost nothing at all. I have the NL 10x32 and get some glare. With the EL 12x50 I have a better dimlight performer and less/no glare. That is what I wanted.
I have had the EL 10x42 and sold it. I didn't really like the ergonomics of it. I prefer the EL 50 and the NL's. My hands are a bit to large for a comfortable grip I think.
I think you would like the NL 32's. I also think you made a good choice with the SFL 10x40, because it should be a bit better in lowlight. I have thought about buying the SFL 10x40 in stead of the NL 10x32, but went for the latter. A was a bit biased I think.
I have never been overwhelmed by Leica's. The ones I tried had too short eyecups for me. I think I am not sensitive to CA, because I actually have never seen it! The UVHD 32's are the ones I do like though, at least it's weight and compactness.
Hi ReinierB,
I still have the NL 8x42. I really wanted to sell it because of my recent financial difficulties and the minimum use it's getting. However, every time I think about selling, my mind drags me back. I just want to keep it for low-light (it is not normally happening) use and due to its big FOV. Keeping it become quite possible because my wife is getting a job from January. NL 8x32 would be a better choice for me if I bought it in the first place. Now considering the resell value it does not make sense to sell NL 8x42 and buy 8x32. Yes, I really like x10 power even to use under the canopy cover. However, I think you also facing the same dilemma as me about your SLC 8x42. Maybe one day I will sell 8x42 and buy NL 10x42 or buy NL 12x42 while keeping the 8x42.
Of course, I also think the EL 50 is a better option considering low-light capabilities and the less-glare issue it inherits. However, I am afraid it is too bulky for my personal use. If I go for an EL 50, it would definitely be an EL 10x50. I saw the very good price you are offering for your EL 10x50 and even got a craving for it 😉
I may use NL 10x32 more than 10x42 due to its portability. However, I am a bit afraid of the small exit pupil of NL 10x32. Normally, I prefer to have more than 4 mm exit pupil. Now having SFL 10x40, NL 10x32 could be a complement to it.
Every binocular has its own drawbacks, and CA is not one for NL (at least for me Swarovski does it better). Considering that, you made a better choice. In my case, SFL has a bit too much CA to use closer to water bodies. However, SFL 10x40 is good in every other condition. Maybe a Habicht 10x40 would be a nice choice for me to fulfill that particular use case. It has better CA control and I never had a problem with it for the purpose I mentioned above. However, it was giving reflections under canopy cover and dark conditions. That was one of the main reasons for me to sell it. The tight focus wheel was not a problem for me as it was for many users. Now, having SFL 10x40, I could use it for every other purpose while using Habichts closer to water bodies. Yes, I think I need a few more binoculars 🤔🤔
norway
🔻FP🔻
Optical design always involves compromise, so stronger correction of CA necessarily entails drawbacks in other areas. Personally, I don't find some colour fringing at the edge of the FoV to be a big deal, but I do highly appreciate the incredible central image quality that Leicas tend to deliver.
I enjoy others such as Swarovski as well, but the image doesn't tend to wow me in the same immersive, 3D way.
I enjoy others such as Swarovski as well, but the image doesn't tend to wow me in the same immersive, 3D way.
On which model did you observe this? Perhaps I'm less sensitive to it, but I've personally never had an issue with on-centre CA with Leica.
You are right! That's why I will keep them. The 5.25mm exit pupil is very nice for dimlight. Yesterday I compared the SLC 10x42 with the SLC 8x42 when it was pretty dark and the 8x42 was a bit brighter! The bigger DOF is also a benefit in difficult light... Okay, I have said nothing: keeping the NL 8x42 makes sense. I think the SLC 8x42 is just a bit brighter than my EL 10x50 too. Have you ever considered the Habicht 7x42 as a lowlight performer?
You are totally right about that! Selling binoculars is no fun, because you will always loose money (when you have bought them new).
Thanks! I too think the price is good, but I think 50mm is not really popular at the moment. I like them too and am reluctant letting them go. But having 10x50 and 12x50 make no sense, because when I like to carry the bulk I will always take the 12x50. I compared them at dawn one day and there was not a lot of difference in brightness. So the 12x50 is very usable in dim light as well. For darker forests I will take the SLC 8x42. Or maybe I will bring them both with me. The 12x50 bandolier style.
I doubt that actually. Just be happy with the very compact Leica 10x32, the brighter SFL 10x40, the even more bright and stable NL 8x42 ans save you money for the NL 12x42!
The Habicht doesn't let me go either. Don't know which one yet, but definitely a leather version.
That was the only thing I really didn't like about the Habicht 8x30 I once tried. If Swaro cannot make it loser, it would be show stopper for me. Maybe the Habicht 7x42 with it's bigger DOF would be more interesting for me. I can image going out in the dark and bringing with me the EL 12x50 together with the Habicht 7x42
.LOL! How many do you already have?
I told myself: enough is enough. I want to settle with just 5 bins. Maybe stretch is to 6... or 7...
Yes, I also think it would be nice to have one. I prefer a higher mag, but it will also increase the weight and size.
And it will bring bad luck 😉
I personally think EL 10x50 is one of the best binoculars. I would not buy an EL 12x50 unless I intended to use it with a tripod. It would be too unstable for me to use handheld.
You are right. The only advantage of NL 10x32 is the lighter weight. NL 12x42 has a bit bigger exit pupil as well as a higher mag. Of course, I doubt that the higher mag would degrade the contrast and the overall quality of the image.
It is totally up to you. Anyway, better test them both before buying. I thought the GA version was better due to the better grip it offers. However, I didn't like it that way. I have an old Habicht 10x40 in the leather version which has a much lighter feel and better stability.
This is my list. However, all are not expensive binoculars.
1. Hontry 10x25 (It is 22 euros reverse porro and the actual mag is x7. However, I use it quite a bit).
2. Eschenbach 8x20 (It was my pocket binocular before buying Curio).
3. Curio 7x21
4. Papilio 6.5x21 (For macro observations. Rarely used due to lack of waterproofness).
5. Monarch 7 8x30 (It is kind of my first binocular and still I believe it is a good compromise. I would not get much more even with NL 😉).
5. UV 10x32 HD (I like it a lot. However, a bit darker and shows some CA on some occasions. The focus travel after infinity is too low in my unit).
6. SFL 10x40
7. NL 8x42
8. Canon 12x36 IS III (It has too much CA and lacks of waterproofness).
9. Habicht 10x40 ( It is an old model with a yellowish tint).
This is all I got. However, not all are expensive.
In the future, one day, I would like to have,
1. Noctivid 8x42 and/or UV 8x32
2. NL 12x42 and/or NL 10x32
3. Habicht 7x42 and/or Habicht 10x40
4. SLC 8x56 and/or EL 10x50
5. A good and portable scope 😀😀😀😀
I think I have a few more decades to own them all if I don't die early. In the near future, I would like to have at least 2 more optics, one pair of binoculars (probably NL 12x42), and a scope.
I think that I went too far off-topic. As everyone thinks, I too think the Leica has the best colors and glare control. CA would not be a big problem for many models except 10x32 or 10x42s in some conditions. I could happily use UV 10x32 most of the time. Swarovski for me offers the best CA control and a bright view. I appreciate it a lot, however, the lack of swaroclean and glare issues are a bit of frustration associated with them. I don't know much about Zeiss but the SFL 10x40 is lighter and very good at glare control. Only the CA in some conditions is a problem for me (Also I am not happy about the QC). So, we need a dozen of binoculars to enjoy the view in different habitats with different light conditions. However, it is enough for me to have my trusted Monarch 7 8x30 for 95% time if my only intention is identifying birds.
I sold my NL Pure 8x42 by following reasons:
I needed money to vacation with my dearest, and the amount of money invested in this binocular felt too high in relation to how rarely I brought it out. The more compact and lightweight Viper HD 6x32 was and is the usual choice.
But maybe I will get it again if my life situation becomes changed. If so, I will first try out the 10x42 because the design and headrest provides a very stable view.
I needed money to vacation with my dearest, and the amount of money invested in this binocular felt too high in relation to how rarely I brought it out. The more compact and lightweight Viper HD 6x32 was and is the usual choice.
But maybe I will get it again if my life situation becomes changed. If so, I will first try out the 10x42 because the design and headrest provides a very stable view.
Last edited:
hopster
Well-known member
Unless my eyes are in the wrong place (ER & IPD) I don't get any CA at all in the centre from a Noctivid 8x, even in the worst possible case; just excellent sharpness, contrast and colour. Off-axis, yes it can happen in certain lighting conditions but it rarely offends. High contrast edges such as tree lines or mountain ridges at the edge of the FOV can sometimes have slightly irritating green or purple 'shadows'.
All binoculars produce some CA, and some that have the least produce a drab, flat, washed-out, synthetic look lacking subtlety in shadows. I would prefer some occasional lateral CA to that. Meopta Meostar HDs seem to have it about right: very little CA but nice sharpness and colour saturation at the same time. I have not looked through Nikon EDGs for quite a while but I seem to remember them being a nice balance too.
Last edited:
Be forewarned about glare in the NL 12x42, especially over bodies of water.
I know because Meopta and Kowa are short and compact, so it could have nothing to with focal length and having a fast F ratio. I think in particular Kowa uses very HG fluorite glass. The Prominar series controls CA better than almost any binocular outside of the Zeiss FL.
I think Swarovski would giggle at that statement because I am sure Leicas sales of binoculars wouldn't put a dent in what Swarovski sells.Perhaps Leica 'build' their binoculars so well, but engineer a bit of CA into them... to be fair to the other manufacturers..... to share out the sales a bit
It probably does have something to with the focal length or F ratio of the binocular. Look at the old Zeiss Dialyt. They didn't even have HD glass, but they were long, and they controlled CA quite well.
Try looking at a Crow against a white background like snow to see CA, or look at a heater exhaust pipe on the roof of a house and move your binocular from edge to edge vertically. You will see orange at the top and green at the bottom. That is how I test for CA. The thicker the band of color, the worse the CA is.
Most Leicas have to short of eye cups for me also, so we both must have shallow eye sockets. I prefer the EL 50s over the NL for similar reasons. They have less glare, and they perform better in low light. There is no substitute for a bigger aperture. The EL 10x50 is a gem. I believe there is one for sale in the classifieds.
Conndomat
United States of Europe
The fact that some small glasses have less CA speaks against this!
Example Zeiss FL 8x32 vs. Leica Ultravid 7x42.
Which binoculars would you guess has less CA?
Andreas
Similar threads
