Biggest eyepiece ocular lens - is there bigger than swarovski SLC 8x56 ? (1 Viewer)

[Jon.Bryant]

No, according to ISO it's 2 arctan 33,5x16/1000 i.e 56,38°

Yes thanks. I was using the same formula, but made an error. Still not an bad AFoV.

 

[Yellow hammer]

Hi! The ocular lens diameter is a interesting topic for me. I didnt know that SLC 8x56 had so large lenses. Nice! Does someone have a clue why the big brands don’t mention this in the specs? For me it is a very important measurement when buying a bino. And I guess that more people than me also wants to see this in the specs.

I remember my dissapointment when I first recieved my Zeiss Victory FL*T 10x32 - the pretty small ocular lenses. Well, I am very happy with it anyway. 😊

 

[Binastro]

The instrument in post #52, when built, will be the sixth or seventh largest refractor in the world.

Regards,
B.

 

[kimmik]

Hi! The ocular lens diameter is a interesting topic for me. I didnt know that SLC 8x56 had so large lenses. Nice! Does someone have a clue why the big brands don’t mention this in the specs? For me it is a very important measurement when buying a bino. And I guess that more people than me also wants to see this in the specs.

I remember my dissapointment when I first recieved my Zeiss Victory FL*T 10x32 - the pretty small ocular lenses. Well, I am very happy with it anyway. 😊

Me too, would like to see this in specification.

However it is not an easy spec to interpret, and makers don’t want to be judged like “x has 1mm larger eye lens than y”.

The main correlation I find with this number is the effective eye relief, so bigger the better effective eye relief, usually.

 

[Canip]

Me too, would like to see this in specification.

However it is not an easy spec to interpret, and makers don’t want to be judged like “x has 1mm larger eye lens than y”.

The main correlation I find with this number is the effective eye relief, so bigger the better effective eye relief, usually.

I could easily add this spec to the binos in my collection (The PINACOLLECTION – Binoculars Today). Would this be of general interest?

 

[mwhogue]

Me too, would like to see this in specification.

However it is not an easy spec to interpret, and makers don’t want to be judged like “x has 1mm larger eye lens than y”.

The main correlation I find with this number is the effective eye relief, so bigger the better effective eye relief, usually.

I could easily add this spec to the binos in my collection (The PINACOLLECTION – Binoculars Today). Would this be of general interest?

Yes Canip, thank you.

Mike

 

[dries1]

That looks like a lot of work, the data placed into a graph, could have mag on the bottom, left axis lens diameter, right axis effective eye relief.

 

[henry link]

Me too, would like to see this in specification.

However it is not an easy spec to interpret, and makers don’t want to be judged like “x has 1mm larger eye lens than y”.

The main correlation I find with this number is the effective eye relief, so bigger the better effective eye relief, usually.

It's a spec that's impossible to interpret because the eye lens diameter only tells us the diameter of the base of a cone with a height formed by the eye relief and a vertex angle equal to half the true AFOV angle. If all we know is the base we can't tell whether the binocular has very long eye relief and a narrow AFOV or very short eye relief and a wide AFOV or something in between. Knowing the diameter of the eye lens could be useful for finding the true AFOV if the eye relief is accurately known.

 

[Yellow hammer]

I could easily add this spec to the binos in my collection (The PINACOLLECTION – Binoculars Today). Would this be of general interest?

Yes indeed. Very kind of you like to add this in your fine collection! As far as I know only Opticron have this measurement under ”Technical specifications” on their webbsite.

 

[kimmik]

Knowing the diameter of the eye lens could be useful for finding the true AFOV if the eye relief is accurately known.

And vice versa!

 

[Canip]

Knowing the diameter of the eye lens could be useful for finding the true AFOV if the eye relief is accurately known.

Good point, but how accurate does „accurate“ have to be? I guess your AFOV is quickly off if ER is not measured with high precision (my own measurements, even with the Dynameter, are probably not good enough). Or am I wrong here?