Glare Monsters! (2 Viewers)

[[email protected]]

So you're now saying, for example, my two favourites, Swarovski 12x42NL and Zeiss 7x42FL give a mediocre view.

I remember when you thought Swaro made sticky focusers:

Death Of The Alpha?

I have had quite a few alpha level binoculars and generally have been satisfied with them although lately I have had a LOT of problems with the focus on Swarovski's being sticky. This frustrating problem has led me to search out other alternatives. I have tried different mid-priced binoculars in...

www.birdforum.net

And when classic Leicas were more your thing:

Leica 7x42 Bn's Best Binoculars I Have Ever Used!

I just want to say I have had almost every brand and size of binocular and for my eyes Leica 7x42 BN'S are the best optically and mechanically I have ever seen. They are just fantastic! Thanks Leica for building such a great product. They are so good I just had to say that. Dennis

www.birdforum.net

You're going back almost 15 years on those posts! Binoculars have changed a lot since then. Swarovski did use to make sticky focusers, but they have improved them now. The Leica 7X42 BN's are still a very good binocular and quite glare resistant like most Leica's.

I tried all the NL's and I had problems with glare in all of them unless I got the eye cups adjusted exactly right, and what is bad about it is the glare was unpredictable for me. I never know when it was going to popup. They may work better for you, but for me, they didn't work.

The Zeiss is a good 42 mm and since it is 7x and has a large exit pupil it is quite glare resistant but not as glare resistant as an SLC 8x56 or FL 8x56. The SLC 8x56 or FL 8x56 will still give you a higher quality view than either the NL 12x42 or the Zeiss FL 7x42, with better contrast, less glare, have fewer aberrations, and you will see into the shadows better.

After comparing many different binoculars, I still found a good 8x56 will outperform any 32 mm or 42 mm binocular. Have you ever compared an SLC 8x56 or FL 8x56 to your NL 12x42 or Zeiss FL 7x42? Try it sometime. It might surprise you. The FOV will be smaller than your NL, but the quality of the view will be better and you will have way less glare.

 

[[email protected]]

I wear Denises ignore status of me as a badge of honor. Lots of times the truth hurts.

I may be mistaken, but I’m pretty sure it was Dennis who said the NL 8 x 32 is the best birding Binocular in the world. It’s possible he meant just for birding, in any event I’m sure will hear about it in the ad verbiage.

That was until I started comparing 8x56's to 8x32's and 8x42's. I never compared 8x56's that much before now. They kill 32 mm and 42 mm binoculars.

Size Matters: The Case for Really Big Binoculars

Size Matters: A Case for Really Big Binoculars Contrary to what some of us would like to believe size really does matter. Flight, for example, imposes strict limits on size. Ostriches...

www.audubon.org

World's Best 8X42: The Zeiss 8X56FL

The image provided by the best current binoculars looks so good that it’s easy to fall into the assumption that binoculars are now so close to optical perfection that further improvement wouldn’t accomplish anything as it would be invisible to the eye. Every now and then I disabuse myself of...

www.birdforum.net

 

[[email protected]]

Let's get this thread back on topic. At this point in the thread, let's summarize what to look for in a binocular to avoid glare and list some of the binoculars members have found to be glare resistant and glare prone. We will add to this list as more glare resistant and glare prone binoculars are noted.

Glare resistant Binoculars

1) Zeiss FL 8x56
2) Swarovski SLC 8x56
3) Most 8x56's (Big EP)
4) Most Leica's (Well Baffled)
5) Most Zeiss SF's 42 mm, especially the 10x42 (SF 32 mm are not as glare resistant)
6) Fujinon HC 8x42
7) Opticron Aurora 8x42
8) Most EDG's especially the 7x42
9) Canon 10x42 IS-L
10) Swarovski Habicht 7x42
11) Meopta Meostar 7x42 SLC
12) Nikon EII 8x30

Glare Prone Binoculars

1) Nikon M7 8x30
2) Swarovski Habicht 8x30
3) Hawk Frontier EDX 8x32
4) Swarovski EL 8x32
5) Kowa 8x25 SVII
6) Swarovski NL's
7) Zeiss 10x42 HT

Important things that control glare in Binoculars

1) Good Baffling (Leicas are known to be well baffled and blackened inside)
2) WA can be worse than narrower FOV binoculars because of the binocular design
3) Large EP aids glare control because it never reaches your eyes
4) Binocular design failures, especially reflective surfaces in the light path

 

[Paultricounty]

That was until I started comparing 8x56's to 8x32's and 8x42's. I never compared 8x56's that much before now. They kill 32 mm and 42 mm binoculars.

Size Matters: The Case for Really Big Binoculars

Size Matters: A Case for Really Big Binoculars Contrary to what some of us would like to believe size really does matter. Flight, for example, imposes strict limits on size. Ostriches...

www.audubon.org

World's Best 8X42: The Zeiss 8X56FL

The image provided by the best current binoculars looks so good that it’s easy to fall into the assumption that binoculars are now so close to optical perfection that further improvement wouldn’t accomplish anything as it would be invisible to the eye. Every now and then I disabuse myself of...

www.birdforum.net

Yadda, yadda, yadda. So how does somebody say something is the best if they haven’t tried everything available, why should I take anything you say seriously. I thought you put me on ignore, you know you’d miss me 😉.

 

[[email protected]]

Yadda, yadda, yadda. So how does somebody say something is the best if they haven’t tried everything available, why should I take anything you say seriously. I thought you put me on ignore, you know you’d miss me 😉.

I have tried everything available! Or almost. You know that. An SLC 8x56 is not the best binocular for everybody because some birders may prefer a larger FOV and some birders may prefer a smaller, more compact binocular for hiking. The point is, if you don't mind carrying a big binocular, a bigger aperture is almost always going to give you a higher quality view. and it is usually going to have less glare. Henry was correct when he said the Zeiss FL 8x56 gave him the highest quality view he has seen in a binocular, and he explained why. An SLC 8x56 will give you a higher quality view than an NL 8x42 for $1000 less.

World's Best 8X42: The Zeiss 8X56FL

The image provided by the best current binoculars looks so good that it’s easy to fall into the assumption that binoculars are now so close to optical perfection that further improvement wouldn’t accomplish anything as it would be invisible to the eye. Every now and then I disabuse myself of...

www.birdforum.net

 

[GrampaTom]

2007? Anybody know what Henry's using now?

 

[CharleyBird]

You're going back almost 15 years on those posts! Binoculars have changed a lot since then. Swarovski did use to make sticky focusers, but they have improved them now. The Leica 7X42 BN's are still a very good binocular and quite glare resistant like most Leica's.

I tried all the NL's and I had problems with glare in all of them unless I got the eye cups adjusted exactly right, and what is bad about it is the glare was unpredictable for me. I never know when it was going to popup. They may work better for you, but for me, they didn't work.

The Zeiss is a good 42 mm and since it is 7x and has a large exit pupil it is quite glare resistant but not as glare resistant as an SLC 8x56 or FL 8x56. The SLC 8x56 or FL 8x56 will still give you a higher quality view than either the NL 12x42 or the Zeiss FL 7x42, with better contrast, less glare, have fewer aberrations, and you will see into the shadows better.

After comparing many different binoculars, I still found a good 8x56 will outperform any 32 mm or 42 mm binocular. Have you ever compared an SLC 8x56 or FL 8x56 to your NL 12x42 or Zeiss FL 7x42? Try it sometime. It might surprise you. The FOV will be smaller than your NL, but the quality of the view will be better and you will have way less glare.

Well now Dennis, you seem very sure for someone who appears to change his mind as often as his shirt.
Are you saying you have compared these binoculars you write about side by side?

I haven't, and don't doubt the SLC are excellent, but until someone actually compares and tests an older SLC8x56 side by side with a new 12x42NL, I'm minded to think the newer design is likely to be optically 'better' in a number of ways.

Comparison tests of the centre sharpness, colour fidelity, control of CA and the various aberrations in the FOV that become apparent away from the centre, would be very interesting.

However one would hope and expect that, over a decade, Swarovski researchers will have improved some of these things.

The older SLC model will have easier eye placement and will appear brighter when dusk sets in, so has specialist appeal.

Putting aside the advantage of seeing more detail with greater magnification (one could argue that both require a tripod), the fact is that only the newer NL model is portable & practical. Does that make the 1350g SLC a backyard or car bin only? It's what my 9x63 is.


As for glare, the 12x42NL shows none for me during normal UK everyday use.
When tested side by side with my Leica 12x50UV in a rare situation forcing glare, facing low sun with ground snowcover, the NL was the clear winner. I was surprised because Leica baffling is often said to be the best, along with some Nikon.
The Leica had white out throughout the FOV and was unusable (!), the NL had crescent rings at lower part of the FOV, but the rest of the view remained clear.

So Dennis, unless you have tested all the binoculars side by side in the same glare-forcing situation, your theoretical listing of supposedly
prone/resistant instruments is useless.

 

[Paultricounty]

Well now Dennis, you seem very sure for someone who appears to change his mind as often as his shirt.
Are you saying you have compared these binoculars you write about side by side?

I haven't, and don't doubt the SLC are excellent, but until someone actually compares and tests an older SLC8x56 side by side with a new 12x42NL, I'm minded to think the newer design is likely to be optically 'better' in a number of ways.

Comparison tests of the centre sharpness, colour fidelity, control of CA and the various aberrations in the FOV that become apparent away from the centre, would be very interesting.

However one would hope and expect that, over a decade, Swarovski researchers will have improved some of these things.

The older SLC model will have easier eye placement and will appear brighter when dusk sets in, so has specialist appeal.

Putting aside the advantage of seeing more detail with greater magnification (one could argue that both require a tripod), the fact is that only the newer NL model is portable & practical. Does that make the 1350g SLC a backyard or car bin only? It's what my 9x63 is.


As for glare, the 12x42NL shows none for me during normal UK everyday use.
When tested side by side with my Leica 12x50UV in a rare situation forcing glare, facing low sun with ground snowcover, the NL was the clear winner. I was surprised because Leica baffling is often said to be the best, along with some Nikon.
The Leica had white out throughout the FOV and was unusable (!), the NL had crescent rings at lower part of the FOV, but the rest of the view remained clear.

So Dennis, unless you have tested all the binoculars side by side in the same glare-forcing situation, your theoretical listing of supposedly
prone/resistant instruments is useless.

Everything you said hits the bull’s-eye. But you’re wasting your time if you think you’re going to convince Dennis that any particular Binocular that he’s talking up is not better than the others, is an exercise in futility. I guarantee you after those are sold a conversation will come up where he describes all the negative characteristics of the 8 x 56 SLC. The pattern is written in stone.

I compared my SLC 10x56 (2020 version) with my NL 10x42 for weeks before I sold the SLC. During the day in good lighting conditions the NL was superior in almost every way. It was shaper, larger sweet spot, a better edge and it was just as bright. When lighting conditions went south is when the SLC shined. That’s when you can really see a difference with the larger objective size, and of course the excellent optics. I will say glare control was better in the SLC, but there are other binoculars that are not 56mm that also are slightly better than the NL’s.

So as far as I’m concerned during 90% of observing conditions the NL was/is the superior all around optic.

Paul

 

[jgraider]

Right on Paul......he loved those 8x56's so much he sold them. His opinions change faster than the wind direction.

 

[Hermann]

But you’re wasting your time if you think you’re going to convince Dennis that any particular Binocular that he’s talking up is not better than the others, is an exercise in futility. I guarantee you after those are sold a conversation will come up where he describes all the negative characteristics of the 8 x 56 SLC. The pattern is written in stone.

Yep. It's always the same pattern, and has been for many years. What I wonder is why people keep responding to his posts.

Hermann

 

[PHA]

Hi,

Having had 4 earlier, from the 70´s and late 80´s plus two of the last iterations Habicht 10x40, a Leica BA 10x42, a Zeiss FL 10x42 and a Zeiss HT 10x42, the WORST of ALL was the HT 10x42. Period. May be a bad sample or something else but no doubt about that. The FL was much, much better controlling that annoying milki veiling glare when looking with the sun somewhere in front, not even close to the line of sight. I regret to change the FL for the HT. My one and only 10x binocular now, is the great Habicht W GA. The last binocular I would sell.
Anyway, I must say that HT has, to me, the best ergonomics off all binoculars I have tried. Is a pity that VG issue. In my opinion, the only flaw in this otherwise great binocular...
About that high level of veiling glare, I see the point 1- and 4- of Dennis, the principal reasons. My HT had a poor baffling, with very poor blackening! That baffling had a shiny grey finish. Nothing to do with the Noctivid 10x42 I had in my hands and worse than my present Habicht 10x40 (2019).

Best!

PHA

 

[[email protected]]

Hi,

Having had 4 earlier, from the 70´s and late 80´s plus two of the last iterations Habicht 10x40, a Leica BA 10x42, a Zeiss FL 10x42 and a Zeiss HT 10x42, the WORST of ALL was the HT 10x42. Period. May be a bad sample or something else but no doubt about that. The FL was much, much better controlling that annoying milki veiling glare when looking with the sun somewhere in front, not even close to the line of sight. I regret to change the FL for the HT. My one and only 10x binocular now, is the great Habicht W GA. The last binocular I would sell.
Anyway, I must say that HT has, to me, the best ergonomics off all binoculars I have tried. Is a pity that VG issue. In my opinion, the only flaw in this otherwise great binocular...
About that high level of veiling glare, I see the point 1- and 4- of Dennis, the principal reasons. My HT had a poor baffling, with very poor blackening! That baffling had a shiny grey finish. Nothing to do with the Noctivid 10x42 I had in my hands and worse than my present Habicht 10x40 (2019).

Best!

PHA

Thanks. I will add those binoculars to the glare list. How is the Habicht 10x40 compare to your other binoculars for glare? When I had one, I thought it was pretty good. Nat as good as a Habicht 7x42, but better than a Habicht 8x30.

 

[CharleyBird]

8x32 roof with least glare

Hi. I use the EL 10 32s, they are just lovely to use and look through despite the glare - and despite the strap, which is just awful. I’ll switch to either of the others if birding in forest and needing a wider field (Leica 8 32s, UV or BA). Unfortunately, the BA focussing is getting gritty but...

www.birdforum.net

See post #24 in the thread above by pbjosh

 

[[email protected]]

8x32 roof with least glare

Hi. I use the EL 10 32s, they are just lovely to use and look through despite the glare - and despite the strap, which is just awful. I’ll switch to either of the others if birding in forest and needing a wider field (Leica 8 32s, UV or BA). Unfortunately, the BA focussing is getting gritty but...

www.birdforum.net

See post #24 in the thread above by pbjosh

A 5 mm EP is not big enough, so you don't see the glare, you need at least a 6 mm or 7 mm EP before the glare passes the field stop of the binocular, and you don't see it. So with binoculars under a 5 mm EP, good baffling and good design probably make more difference.

 

[Scott98]

The SLC 8x56 is only 9 oz. heavier than an NL 8x42, and it is better and $1000 cheaper. All the optical wizardry in the world in the NL 8x42 can't defy the laws of physics. The SLC 8x56 still has a huge aperture advantage, and it makes it superior to the NL. Astronomers know that aperture rules, and birders should know it too.

Yeah! I'm definitely on-board with this latest rant. It's probably the wrong website for it though - birders don't use more than 42mm. They see you with the 8x58 and they're thinking, here comes the crazy-man! For birders it's like 2 spotting scopes stitched together.

The key thing for me about the 56mm SLC is that they're the full Swaro experience. Because of the lower price I expected some kind of drop-off compared to the EL's and NL's, but there isn't one. They're not like Conquest compared to SF's, they're equal, the price is just lower. (the focuser action is actually better than EL, and the knob better-placed). Swaro says 93% transmission versus 90 in EL and 91% in the 42mm NL's.

I have used the 10x56 SLC for birding, they're great for car-birding where you drive between viewing spots and get out to view for a short time before getting back in the car. But 98% of the time I choose my 8x42, 7x35, or 10x35 for birds, the 10x56 are just ridiculously over-sized for a few hours of walking and trying to view dozens of bird species. For astronomy, the situation is reversed, there's no reason to use any of my smaller binos for astronomy. Except for aesthetic views like looking at the moon through clouds or something.

 

[CharleyBird]

Dennis, your quest to list an hierarchical glare-order to the many instruments available is admirable, but will be effectively useless and very probably misleading, unless you compare individual binoculars side by side in a meaningful and methodical way.

Please note as an example the excellent way Canip did just this in his survey of 8x32 binoculars in the link I posted.

 

[Paultricounty]

You just repeated what I have been saying all along! The SLC 10x56 is way better with glare and low light. Sure, the NL 10x42 is going to have a larger sweet spot because the FOV is way larger than the SLC. I am not so sure about the edges sharpness because the SLC 8x56 I have is tack sharp to the edge and by memory it is as sharp as all my NL's.

No ,we all know SLC it’s not tack sharp (what ever tack sharp means) to the edge. I don’t do , by memory.

My EL's had sharper edges than my NL's because Swarovski backed up on edge sharpness to avoid RB. As far as being sharper, there is no way at the 10x magnification that binoculars operate at that are you are going to see a difference in sharpness between two high quality binoculars like the NL and SLC, and that comes right from Zeiss's optical engineers. You would have to use a doubler to see any difference in resolution.

Absolutely people can see a sharpness difference between two different binoculars, you can and do eveytime your going to be selling something.

I got rid of all my NL's because of the confounded, unpredictable glare! The glare was made worse because you never know when it would pop up! It was there and then it was gone. It largely appears in the bottom of the FOV when you change the angle of the binoculars and is very dependent on the precision of your eye cup settings.

Sounds to me there’s a pattern to some of your posts about glare, I think the common denominator is you eye site.

Another big advantage I notice with the bigger aperture 56 mm binoculars is contrast and seeing into shadows in the daytime. The 8x56 SLC seems to cut through glare and allows you to see into darker areas much better than a 42 mm. It is almost like you removed a film from the view and there are less optical aberrations because you are using the sweet spot of the big 56 mm lens, and you avoid the optical artifacts caused by the edge of the lens.

If all things are equal objective size usual will win out, but all things are not equal most of the time. And you know this, but this is how you try out binoculars , then sell them, then we’ll hear From you all the flaws the optic had. does that sound accurate.

There are advantages to a SLC 8x56 and a NL 8x42, and it applies to the 10x42 also. The biggest advantage of the NL 8x42 is the bigger FOV. The rest of the advantages I would have to give to the SLC 8x56. For me, the biggest advantage of the SLC 8x56 is NO GLARE!

You know what the advantages are, and if you were more honest and less contradictory your opinions would have more legitimacy.

 

[Paultricounty]

Dennis, your quest to list an hierarchical glare-order to the many instruments available is admirable, but will be effectively useless and very probably misleading, unless you compare individual binoculars side by side in a meaningful and methodical way.

Please note as an example the excellent way Canip did just this in his survey of 8x32 binoculars in the link I posted.

And at least a small group people to come to a consensus , not one guys opinion with degrading eyesight.

 

[[email protected]]

Yeah! I'm definitely on-board with this latest rant. It's probably the wrong website for it though - birders don't use more than 42mm. They see you with the 8x58 and they're thinking, here comes the crazy-man! For birders it's like 2 spotting scopes stitched together.

The key thing for me about the 56mm SLC is that they're the full Swaro experience. Because of the lower price I expected some kind of drop-off compared to the EL's and NL's, but there isn't one. They're not like Conquest compared to SF's, they're equal, the price is just lower. (the focuser action is actually better than EL, and the knob better-placed). Swaro says 93% transmission versus 90 in EL and 91% in the 42mm NL's.

I have used the 10x56 SLC for birding, they're great for car-birding where you drive between viewing spots and get out to view for a short time before getting back in the car. But 98% of the time I choose my 8x42, 7x35, or 10x35 for birds, the 10x56 are just ridiculously over-sized for a few hours of walking and trying to view dozens of bird species. For astronomy, the situation is reversed, there's no reason to use any of my smaller binos for astronomy. Except for aesthetic views like looking at the moon through clouds or something.

The SLC 8x56 is kind of a secret in the Swarovski lineup. It is way less expensive than the NL's but outside of the smaller FOV it actually performs better. Even the transmission at 93% is 2% higher than the NL's 91% because the SLC 8x56 has AK prisms and the NL has SP prisms. Another advantage and the reason, the SLC 8x56 has a more stereoscopic view compared to the pie plate flat view of the NL., better color accuracy and better contrast.

It has a way bigger objective and higher transmission to boot because of the much more efficient AK prisms which have three instead of four reflective surfaces like the SP , so which one is going to be brighter? You guessed it. The SLC 8x56. The focuser knob on my SLC 8x56 is better than the EL and as you say better placed. I wouldn't use them for hours of walking, either. An 8x42 or 8x32 is better for that.

The SLC 8x56 kills the smaller aperture 32 mm and 42 mm binoculars for astronomy. They go way deeper into the sky, the same way a bigger aperture telescope does.

 

[[email protected]]

Dennis, your quest to list an hierarchical glare-order to the many instruments available is admirable, but will be effectively useless and very probably misleading, unless you compare individual binoculars side by side in a meaningful and methodical way.

Please note as an example the excellent way Canip did just this in his survey of 8x32 binoculars in the link I posted.

Canip is still comparing the binoculars subjectively with just his eyes. IMO, it is better to get multiple opinions from several people on what binoculars are glare resistant and what binoculars are glare prone because that allows for a larger sample size and will always lead to greater statistical accuracy than one persons opinion.

Most of the big reviews like the Cornell Study involve many people with varying opinions when judging binoculars and then tabulating a final result which is much more accurate than one person's opinion.

Also, most of the time it takes a while under field conditions with different lighting to see if binoculars exhibit any glare problems, just as Dorubird pointed out. Glare is almost impossible for one person to judge. One person can see it in one binocular and another person may not. That is why it is important to get multiple opinions.