Zen 7x36 out in the field. (1 Viewer)

[chartwell99]

I'm not sure but I suspect they must be silver otherwise they'd have a "cold" bluish bias.

I thought the issue with using aluminum for the reflecting face of the roof prism was much reduced reflectivity and noticeably dimmer images (like 2 "f" stops vs. silver or dialectric coatings) rather than a distinctive color cast.

 

[Kevin Purcell]

I thought the issue with using aluminum for the reflecting face of the roof prism was much reduced reflectivity and noticeably dimmer images (like 2 "f" stops vs. silver or dialectric coatings) rather than a distinctive color cast.

Al is less reflective but its more reflective at the blue end (peak at 550nm) which leads to a blue (or blue green) bias. In the bins I've handled I can usually tell (especially in the midrange and below) what the coating is by the color bias. It's not "blue" blue but colder.

There are "enhanced" Al coatings out there that bump up the reflectivity over most of the passband but have a sharp cutoff at 450nm so they loose deep red and still have a peak at 550nm.

It's certainly not 2 f stops (0.25x) less reflective than silver: something like 85% reflective compared to silver being 93% plus or minus. Dielectric coatings can be 99% and better across the whole visible passband.

The other issue with using al is it tends to be deposited in small crystals (which are actually very reflective) with deep gaps between them. Those edges of those crystals scatter light in all direction so non-specularly reflected light tends to get scattered messing up the contrast. More of a problem to terrestrial users than astronomers (though the pros take some efforts to reduce this effect when depositing the Al).

Here's something that doesn't get enough airplay. To realize the advantages of a sub 42mm bin over it's 42mm competition, there has to be some. Otherwise, what's the point?

In this particular case lower magnification with the same size exit pupil as an 8x42 and a wider FOV that goes along with that lower magnification.

And usually they're lighter too. The Monarch is an interesting exception in that it's a very light 42mm bin (with a very narrow FOV!). The ZR 7x36 is a larger 36mm (see other threads in BF) mostly because it has longer barrels and with that I presume a larger f/number to help minimize longitudinal CA.

As I said above you need to take all the properties of a binocular into account when selecting it.

But if you need a 5mm exit pupil, and a light bin and are willing to forgo FOV and CA correction then the Monarch is a good (and still widely used) choice. For others, other parameters are more important.

 

[Kevin Conville]

In this particular case lower magnification with the same size exit pupil as an 8x42 and a wider FOV that goes along with that lower magnification.

Ok that's pretty obvious. You could make a 7x42 with even more goodness.

And usually they're lighter too.

But, these aren't.

I want a pair of wide field 7x35/36 very much. I also want them to be short, and light.

 

[Kevin Purcell]

Well, you are stuck then as you don't have a lot of choice.

I have a 7x42 too but as a bifocal glasses wearer I actually find value in smaller exit pupils (with less overlaps in the reading segment of my various glasses). And the ZR is actually lighter (smaller exit pupil means less glass) than the Zeiss 7x42.

Interestingly the barrel size of these ZR 7x36 is about the same as a Zeiss 8x32. I think Zeiss upsized them for ergonomics (like Pentax and a few others do on their 32mm bins). The Meopta 8x32 on the other hand is more more like a "real 32mm". It seems small compared to the others.

That observation means that Zeiss could actually make a 7x35 about the same size and weight (perhaps a little heavier: wider field and bigger prisms). But they don't. And I'm sure that's about marketing "not wanting to confusing the users".

But I'd love to see more ED glass 7x35ish bins out there.

 

[Fireform]

Interestingly the barrel size of these ZR 7x36 is about the same as a Zeiss 8x32. I think Zeiss upsized them for ergonomics (like Pentax and a few others do on their 32mm bins). The Meopta 8x32 on the other hand is more more like a "real 32mm". It seems small compared to the others.

You kind of lost me there. The Zen and Meopta are both longer than the Zeiss (the Zen by more than an inch). I think of the 7x36 Zen as being more the size of the more slender 40-42mm bins out there--they're not a lot smaller than my SVs, for instance. The Zeiss barrels have those ribs that make them feel larger around than the Ultravid, maybe that's what you mean, but they're still a pretty petite binocular.

 

[Fireform]

The last really good compact 7x roof I can think of was the Swaro SLC 7x30.

 

[Kevin Purcell]

You kind of lost me there. The Zen and Meopta are both longer than the Zeiss (the Zen by more than an inch). I think of the 7x36 Zen as being more the size of the more slender 40-42mm bins out there--they're not a lot smaller than my SVs, for instance. The Zeiss barrels have those ribs that make them feel larger around than the Ultravid, maybe that's what you mean, but they're still a pretty petite binocular.

"Barrel size" I used was ambiguous ... I meant barrel diameter not barrel length.

The Zeiss are actually one of the fatter compact bins and about the same diameter as the ZR 7x36. Surprising, but true. The Pentax are a little thinner but not by much.

I actually measured them and intended to write an article here about it as its a curious feature that hasn't been mentioned before. Most bin makers do it. It only became clear when I got my Meopta with it's quite thing barrels.

And the Zeiss 8x32 is all of 3mm shorter than the Meopta

 

[mayoayo]

The Pentax is thinner than the Zeiss FL?..That is surprising..because the rubber armor of the pentax is THICK (part of the weight of this model,is the thick armor ),and the Zeiss has a smaller IPD setting than the Pentax or the Zen..The Zeiss barrell is not perfectly cilindrical either,is more a slight cone ,versus a cilinder in the Pentax or Zen models..right?...

 

[Tero]

Maybe it was barrel outer diameter, not length?

 

[Kevin Purcell]

The Pentax is thinner than the Zeiss FL?..That is surprising..

Has a smaller diameter housing at the objective end. Correct.

because the rubber armor of the pentax is THICK (part of the weight of this model,is the thick armor ),and the Zeiss has a smaller IPD setting than the Pentax or the Zen..

Not sure what you mean by "IPD setting" ... the distance between my eyes remains constant with different bins.

The Zeiss barrell is not perfectly cilindrical either,is more a slight cone ,versus a cilinder in the Pentax or Zen models..right?...

Not checked.

The Zeiss housing at the objective end is the same diameter as the ZR 7x36. Yeah, I was surprised too.

 

[mayoayo]

I meant that the Zeiss can close the barrels (one barrel towards the other,at the hinge)to adjust to smaller IPD settings than both the Zen or the Pentax..

 

[Kevin Purcell]

Ah, I get it.

The 8x32Fl has a minimum IPD of 52mm (as measured by me) compared to the 57mm of the Pentax SP. I think the ZR 7x36 is 56mm (but I don't have it to hand).

I'd not noticed that before.

 

[edwincjones]

the take home point for me in this thread is the amount of effort Zen-Ray (Charles) made to make things right with the customer.

edj

 

[bearclawthedonut]

edwincjones:

I think that is an excellent and accurate point for your consideration. I found Charles to be very helpfull as well as being very concerned that ZR's product met my expectations, which may have been unrealistic. The ZR 7x36 ED2 is not the next best thing to raison bread toast. But if your looking for a wide FOV, mid-power (7x) with outstanding depth of field and you do not mind a rather largish, not exactly light format - then that bin will meet and/or exceed your expectations.

In truth the only one of those qualities that I found desirable was the exceptional depth of field. In error, I expected a significant step up from my Nikon Monarch 8x42 in resolution. I was very disappointed to say the least. Charles certainly did everything he could to satisfy me. Then he provided a credit. That's excellent customer service from my viewpoint.

 

[eyeonthesky]

Received a 7x36 EDII this week. I like the clarity in the center. However, I find the large ring on the outside that is out of focus somewhat distracting. Also if I look close to the sun, I am getting some strange light (is that called CR)? I think these make fine glasses as I can use the broad fov to pick up movement and then can move things into the center to look at them which is what we do naturally anyways. However, the big blurry ring does null some of the value of having such a large fov.

Also I found that the binos didn't hang straight down when using rings to attach the straps. (Pounded a little wood in to keep the rings to the far side, and the binos now hang straight down.)

So all in all, quite good for less than $400.

I'm not a bino expert, but have used a Leica 10x25 a lot (TILL I LEFT THEM IN A TAXI!!!) and some of my dad's Ultravid 8x42. Perhaps, that is why I find the big blurry ring distracting.

I was afraid that I would not like the 7 mag low power. However, I actually find it very comfortable. Objects are bigger than I thought they would be. I see why some guys use the 7x so much for birding.

I intend to keep the binos and give them many years of use. They are now my main pair.

 

[brocknroller]

Received a 7x36 EDII this week. I like the clarity in the center. However, I find the large ring on the outside that is out of focus somewhat distracting. Also if I look close to the sun, I am getting some strange light (is that called CR)? I think these make fine glasses as I can use the broad fov to pick up movement and then can move things into the center to look at them which is what we do naturally anyways. However, the big blurry ring does null some of the value of having such a large fov.

Also I found that the binos didn't hang straight down when using rings to attach the straps. (Pounded a little wood in to keep the rings to the far side, and the binos now hang straight down.)

So all in all, quite good for less than $400.

I'm not a bino expert, but have used a Leica 10x25 a lot (TILL I LEFT THEM IN A TAXI!!!) and some of my dad's Ultravid 8x42. Perhaps, that is why I find the big blurry ring distracting.

I was afraid that I would not like the 7 mag low power. However, I actually find it very comfortable. Objects are bigger than I thought they would be. I see why some guys use the 7x so much for birding.

I intend to keep the binos and give them many years of use. They are now my main pair.

EOTS,

"Objects may appear bigger than you thought they would be" should be a warning sticker on roofs.

Even though the FsOV are almost the same, and the EII is 8x, the image scale in the ZR 7x36 ED2 appears noticeably larger than in my Nikon 8x30 EII, because the roof's close set barrels produce the illusion of a larger image.

Reverse porro compacts can do the same thing, because their objectives are close together.

Plus, a WF bin can create the illusion in some people of a smaller image scale, particularly in WF porros, because the target is surrounded by a lot more background.

For example, the image scale in the 7.5* 8x32 SE seems larger than in the 8.8* FOV 8x30 EII.

Your comments about the blurry edges make me wonder what's going on with this model. My sample has good edges. The sweet spot is large and the fall off at the edges is gradual until the very edge.

If you bought the latest updated version with the baffles, you shouldn't be getting glare/flare effects (not sure what "CR" stands for) when pointing in the direction of the sun like the first model, according to others who own the updated version.

I have the original model, and I do experience this problem on occasion, particularly at the bottom of the field.

I was planning on buying a ZR 7x36 ED2.1 in the future, but after hearing these reports about blurry edges by you and others, I'm concerned that there was some trade-off in edge sharpness for reducing the glare/flare problem.

As far comparing the edges to the 10x25 Leica... the Leica only has a 5.2* FOV, which is much easier to correct for than a 9*, which is the one of of the widest FOV available today in binoculars.

My 7x36 ED2 juts out just a bit from my body, but that's due to my belly not the "hang". If I push them up to my chest, they lay flat. Another mystery.

If you want to see what a bin that doesn't hang straight down looks like, put a 8x30 EII around your neck and start walking with it. If you make the straps long and let the bins rest on your stomach, you can get a good bounce going, particularly if you have a "beer belly".

I think you may have gotten an under par sample with the ZR 7x36 ED2. I would contact Charles about returning it.

Or it could be that your focus accommodation is worse than mine. In which case, it must be pretty bad, because mine isn't very good. If your focus accommodation isn't good, you're more likely to see fuzzy edges due that are due to field curvature.

 

[eyeonthesky]

Checked and I do have the latest version of baffles in the 7x36 ED2. See http://www.holgermerlitz.de/zen7x36.html. The glare I get is on the bottom as well. I suppose it has to do with the sun shining from above. It is occasional and not constant.

I think maybe I have spent to long on the forums and am looking for flaws. I checked again.

I think I am exaggerating to say a blurry ring. However, objects do get out of focus before I expect towards the outside of the binos. When looking at a mountain about a half mile away, I find the blurriness distracting. Looking at birds at close range, I don't notice it.

 

[Kevin Purcell]

If you are having glare issues make sure you are centering the bins correctly on your eyes. If you have them too high (i.e. your eye is below the optical axis) you are more likely to see stuff at the edge of of the exit pupil. I noticed I had a habit of doing this (to avoid the bifocal section of my eyeglasses).

It also depends on how close you get to the sun. Under 20 degrees (a hand span at arms length) and most bins do show something.

The 7x36 does have a bit of field curvature: you can check to see how much if field curvature by changing the focus when looking at the edge.

I find it more distracting on a static scene as you describe but not when I'm birding. I think some of that is due to the defocused light at the edge of field seeming brighter when looking at the sky. It's an effect I've seen on the Zeiss FL to a lesser extent (there it's astigmatism at the edge of field rather than field curvature).

It's a trade off between showing more field (where you can see bird movement) even though its fuzzy or showing less FOV with sharper edges.

 

[Fireform]

Checked and I do have the latest version of baffles in the 7x36 ED2. See http://www.holgermerlitz.de/zen7x36.html. The glare I get is on the bottom as well. I suppose it has to do with the sun shining from above. It is occasional and not constant.

I think maybe I have spent to long on the forums and am looking for flaws. I checked again.

I think I am exaggerating to say a blurry ring. However, objects do get out of focus before I expect towards the outside of the binos. When looking at a mountain about a half mile away, I find the blurriness distracting. Looking at birds at close range, I don't notice it.

I saw the same thing. I used mine for hunting and extended glassing at a distance and the field curvature in the outer margins drove me batty. I felt like there was a doughnut of blur everywhere I looked. If you were only using them for birding and keeping your object of interest somewhere near the center of the FOV, that characteristic of these bins would bother you much less.

 

[whitneymuse]

You really hit a note with me; the proprioceptive weight of the ZRs vis vis Monarch is large, especially for my hands post-CVA, although, if needed a holster and a monopod steady view cures much. For a while after receiving the ZRs contemplated bequesting them to a relative; however, I'd miss their featherweight compared to the precision-machined build of the ZR. I've started to use hand and finger exercise devices again to have better control of the weight of the ZRs http://www.amazon.com/Gripmaster-Exerciser-Medium-Tension-7-Pounds/dp/B0006GC5D8/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=sporting-goods&qid=1271575290&sr=8-1
Your whole discussion about the 7X is so on point for me; theoretically that's what I concluded would/should be the outcome in viewing, too. Since, you did the "science" on it, it's saved me the anguish of thinking I'm missing out on so much good viewing. At least it provides another level of zen-patience. Thank you for your work. Between the hunters and the birders my points on the learning curve got filled in rapidly.