Wish List... (1 Viewer)

[Buff1ehead]

The Zeiss Design Selection "Night Owls" were a roof prism binocular built on a carbon fiber frame. Official designation was Carl Zeiss 10x56B/GA DS T* C.F. They also made an 8x56 version, which I have. These were being manufactured in the mid 1990s, and were the last lead-crystal binoculars Zeiss ever made. Super heavy, they were, despite the carbon fiber. But great owling binoculars otherwise. I've never had problems with the carbon fiber and temperature, although the focus has always been stiff on these bins because of the weight of the optics themselves.

For my Swarovski dream binoculars I'd settle for a nice pair of EL 7x32 SL's. And on the fantasy dream list I'd love if my BTX 95 could weigh half as much. Please?

 

[ticl2184]

The Zeiss Design Selection "Night Owls" were a roof prism binocular built on a carbon fiber frame. Official designation was Carl Zeiss 10x56B/GA DS T* C.F. They also made an 8x56 version, which I have. These were being manufactured in the mid 1990s, and were the last lead-crystal binoculars Zeiss ever made. Super heavy, they were, despite the carbon fiber. But great owling binoculars otherwise. I've never had problems with the carbon fiber and temperature, although the focus has always been stiff on these bins because of the weight of the optics themselves.

For my Swarovski dream binoculars I'd settle for a nice pair of EL 7x32 SL's. And on the fantasy dream list I'd love if my BTX 95 could weigh half as much. Please?

Thanks for that.

A pair of Swarovski 7x32 and 7x42's seem quite a popular choice.

Cheers
Tim

 

[Swedpat]

If you could ask Swarovski to provide you with any two products what would they be ?
This can include products that don't currently exist..

Personally I'd love a Carbon Fibre chassied 8, 10 and 12 x 42 Zoom Binocular with Apo glass plus a 20-45 x 50 ultra portable spotting scope with image stabilisation....

Cheers
Tim

If I got the opportunity to get a binocular from Swarovski it would be a 5x25(or 5x30) NL Pure. Imagine ~ 70 deg APOV/14deg TFOV and sharpness to the edges.
It would be excellent for relaxed and stable long time use when you want a really good overview.
Or why not a 3×15 NL Pure eyeglass binocular!

 

[eronald]

Edmund,

I think that optical designers will give priority to the optical properties and would not shy from using a soft flint glass in the outer elements of eyepiece or objective if it met their requirements. If Swarovski and Meopta are to be believed, their outer coatings are harder than the glass substrate, though significantly less than a micrometre thick.
If you are using uncoated spectacle lenses then you are sacrificing around 8% transmission, not to speak of the effects of glare if driving at night. My multicoated CR-39 spectacle lenses are over four years old and are pristine having survived about 1500 cleanings.
Go get yourself some new multicoated Trivex lenses, clean them under running water with a drop of liqid soap between your finger tips and dab them dry with a fresh cosmetic tissue.

John

John,

My experience with spectacle coatings has been variable. Often they degraded after a few years. Some of these were Nikon bought in Paris, another pair was bought in NY. Also, people I see with coated lenses from hight tech Japan or China often have glasses which flash green or blue obscuring eye contact.

The glare issue is complex as well, as grease and fingerprints on a lens will create glare. My Nikon coated lenses were fingerprint and dirt magnets. Another constant irritating source of glare was internal reflections from lights behind me. I could actually see behind me using the glasses as mirrors. Also, a serious problem arose on these rimless mounts with light above or on the side lighting up the fat sides of the lenses. These expensive thin coated pairs were high-tech hell.

I have been cleaning my cheap uncoated glasses a couple of times a day with soapy fingers for 10 years, and they're still ok. My advice to any friend would be to go with cheap uncoated, not least because the opticians here have to sell you a pair but are probably doing so at a loss and don't want to see you coming back

It's interesting how little money we spend on eyeglasses compared to binoculars, and how tolerant we are of their faults.

Edmund

 

[Tringa45]

John,

My experience with spectacle coatings has been variable. Often they degraded after a few years. Some of these were Nikon bought in Paris, another pair was bought in NY. Also, people I see with coated lenses from hight tech Japan or China often have glasses which flash green or blue obscuring eye contact.

The glare issue is complex as well, as grease and fingerprints on a lens will create glare. My Nikon coated lenses were fingerprint and dirt magnets. Another constant irritating source of glare was internal reflections from lights behind me. I could actually see behind me using the glasses as mirrors. Also, a serious problem arose on these rimless mounts with light above or on the side lighting up the fat sides of the lenses. These expensive thin coated pairs were high-tech hell.

I have been cleaning my cheap uncoated glasses a couple of times a day with soapy fingers for 10 years, and they're still ok. My advice to any friend would be to go with cheap uncoated, not least because the opticians here have to sell you a pair but are probably doing so at a loss and don't want to see you coming back

It's interesting how little money we spend on eyeglasses compared to binoculars, and how tolerant we are of their faults.

Edmund

Edmund,

You are drawing the wrong conclusions here. A clean multicoated surface will transmit up to 99,8% of light so any soiling will be immediately visible. An uncoated surface will reflect around 4% and fingerprints can get masked by the reflections.
The suggestion that multicoated lenses can cause more glare than uncoated is just turning the facts on their head.

John

 

[eronald]

Edmund,

You are drawing the wrong conclusions here. A clean multicoated surface will transmit up to 99,8% of light so any soiling will be immediately visible. An uncoated surface will reflect around 4% and fingerprints can get masked by the reflections.
The suggestion that multicoated lenses can cause more glare than uncoated is just turning the facts on their head.

John

I'm just a glasses user - all I can say is that my cheap glasses have been much more usable than the expensive ones.
Also, I think the coatings on the Nikons kept degrading, and cr*p would stick to the glasses because they were in effect rugous. But then that was most painful in Tokyo, and I agree that it is not exactly the least polluted place in the world.

Edmund