Which binoculars are less stressfull for the eyes? (1 Viewer)

[etudiant]

Binoculars are probably limited to 100x because of collimation problems.

Unless you include the enormous Alvan Clark? 6 inch binocular telescope, which probably had the same limits as the 6 inch telescope.

My friend made several 150mm binoculars using 150mm f/8 Chinese scopes and mirrors.

There is an 8 inch amateur British binocular, with folded optics.
The Ross fortress of Malta 6 inch plus binocular made with old Zeiss objectives.
An Italian binocular of about 10 inch aperture.

There were three Zeiss 30cm binoculars on rotating mounts that weighed over a ton.
I think they were destroyed.

There is the Japanese 180 binocular and a 250mm binocular in a Japanese museum.

I suppose the APM 30cm binocular is good at 200x.
Probably $500,000.

Mirror binoculars of 16 inch aperture.
But collimation can take an hour when moved to a star meeting.

Or the professional binocular telescope of several metres aperture.

I have a Japanese 25x-135x80 binocular that is well aligned up to 135x, but shows no gains above 80x.
Even at 80x it is no match for a fine 80mm telescope.

Personally, I have had no use or desire to own large binoculars.

One of the best planetary observers uses a 16.5 inch Dall Kirkham with a binoviewer.

Regards,
B.

Thank you, Binastro, for this impressive list.
Clearly a lot of very talented people worked hard to create these massive instruments, even though the mechanical aspects are serious handicaps.
I don't understand why the binoviewer option was not the preferred choice, it eliminates more than half the mechanical and optical costs, with no obvious deficiencies other than possibly the much discussed 3D effect, if that is even perceptible in an astronomical or air defense observation.

 

[Northman]

1. Swarovski 8x56 SLC
2. Fujinon 7x50 FMT

Nothing else comes close to ease of viewing of all binoculars I have owned.

 

[tenex]

I don't claim that CA improves an image - quite the opposite in fact - but an optical designer has said that it can be an inevitable by-product of going all out for sharpness in a real optical design.

Oddly enough, maximizing "sharpness" (whatever precisely is meant by that) would require excellent control of longitudinal CA, so the claim here would be that this necessarily involves compromising on lateral CA? I'd need to hear more about that myself.

But the argument here really seems to revolve around a syllogism that's defective regardless of whether its major premise is true:

Maximizing sharpness requires accepting a certain amount of (lateral) CA (?)
Noctivids show lateral CA
So this must be because they're maximally sharp? ...Er, no. Exactly what's going on in the Noctivid design isn't that obvious.

 

[Ted Y.]

Oddly enough, maximizing "sharpness" (whatever precisely is meant by that) would require excellent control of longitudinal CA, so the claim here would be that this necessarily involves compromising on lateral CA? I'd need to hear more about that myself.

Yep, me too. Good point.

 

[Paultricounty]

Oddly enough, maximizing "sharpness" (whatever precisely is meant by that) would require excellent control of longitudinal CA, so the claim here would be that this necessarily involves compromising on lateral CA? I'd need to hear more about that myself.

But the argument here really seems to revolve around a syllogism that's defective regardless of whether its major premise is true:

Maximizing sharpness requires accepting a certain amount of (lateral) CA (?)
Noctivids show lateral CA
So this must be because they're maximally sharp? ...Er, no. Exactly what's going on in the Noctivid design isn't that obvious.

Which brings up a good question, why do Leica binoculars have slightly more CA when comparing to like priced other brands lineup. That’s not to say that there is no CA in current line ups of the others. Certainly Leica must be capable of reducing it a tad more ( that’s all that would be necessary) to at least the level of the others. Could it be there not concerned with 10% give or take of the time that CA creeps in? Is that similar to Swaro easily being able to reduce any trace of glare that effect a small percentage of users.

 

[Conndomat]

Which brings up a good question, why do Leica binoculars have slightly more CA when comparing to like priced other brands lineup. That’s not to say that there is no CA in current line ups of the others. Certainly Leica must be capable of reducing it a tad more ( that’s all that would be necessary) to at least the level of the others. Could it be there not concerned with 10% give or take of the time that CA creeps in? Is that similar to Swaro easily being able to reduce any trace of glare that effect a small percentage of users.

The ways of Leica are unfathomable...

Where is the Leica Noctivid 8x32 and why is the company putting maximum energy into new Geovids and who needs something like that?
Maybe the CA are something like a trademark, Made by Leica, not a CA, not a Leica, a visual unique selling point.

In fact, I don't think they care much about it, Leica has its own optical recipe like the other top manufacturers and in some cases there are slight improvements at CA, the older lenses were a bit more colorful.

And...most users won't mind it or won't even notice it, let's be honest, we're looking for every lint on the carpet...
Perhaps it is the analytical view that makes CA a problem at Leica in the first place, the interested viewer enjoy and remain silent.

Andreas

 

[Maljunulo]

If you are “mature” and the OEM lenses in your eyes are yellowed, you aren’t going to see a purple fringe very well, if at all.