Visit the SWFA.com site to check out our current specials. |
How much better is HD glass |
Post Reply | Page 12> |
Author | ||
MikeT
Optics GrassHopper Joined: January/22/2013 Status: Offline Points: 8 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Posted: February/05/2013 at 12:35 |
|
In a similar product such as Swarovski SLC vs SLC HD Binoculars, or Zeiss Conquest riflescopes Vs the HD product about what percentage is gained from HD? I'm talking about comparisons outside of a store.
Thanks,
|
||
Bitterroot Bulls
Optics Master Extraordinaire Joined: May/07/2009 Location: Montana Status: Offline Points: 3416 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
It isn't a percentage.
Typically HD refers to the inclusion of extra low dispersion lens elements in the objective assembly that reduces chromatic abberation (color fringing). This positively affects many areas of optical performance including apparent resolution and apparent contrast. the HD in the products you listed refers to this type of HD rather than the other Heavy Duty type of HD. It improves the image quality, if the design is executed properly. If it is worth it or not is an individual preference. |
||
-Matt
|
||
stickbow46
Optics Master Extraordinaire Joined: January/07/2009 Location: Benton, Pa Status: Offline Points: 4678 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
To add to an already excellent definition by Matt,HD is an industry pharse meaning that a certain amount of Florite Crystall coating has been added to enhance color rendition.I beleive the only company that uses an all florite glass on their spotting scope is KOWA on their top of the line TSN 880 series! The reason is that florite is very fragile.
Zeiss makes a scope called Victory Diavary FL.which is about as good as it gets for long distance shooting.Hopefully Ilya will jump in and share his wealth of knolwege on the subject. My answer to the original question is the glass difference worth it?When I owned a Zeiss FL ,I thought so till I looked through my now owned Zeiss Heinsoldt.FL glass is about as good as it gets but it does have it's place.
|
||
Pearls of Wisdom are Heard not Spoken
|
||
Peddler
Optics God Joined: July/04/2012 Location: Oswego,NY Status: Offline Points: 13532 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
You are correct on the Kowa Fluorite Lens Stickbow. Peddler |
||
When you are dead, you don't know you are dead.It is difficult only for others.
It is the same when you are stupid. |
||
Bitterroot Bulls
Optics Master Extraordinaire Joined: May/07/2009 Location: Montana Status: Offline Points: 3416 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Actually,
HD refers to flourite (or another ED ingredient) is in the composition of the actual glass, not a coating.
Kowa does use a flourite crystal in the 88mm Prominar. Although rumored to be brittle, it seems like Kowa doesn't have much problem with it, from what I gather. I know some military units are using them.
|
||
-Matt
|
||
JGRaider
Optics Master Joined: February/06/2008 Status: Offline Points: 1540 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
If you're into long range shooting/spotting, or digiscoping with your spotter, HD can help quite a bit. For general hunting, Im not sure it's necessary, but the views through high end, high mag HD spotters can be phenomenal, particular that Prominar 884. Remember HD/ED glass is used by companies as a marketing term too, as there are many grades of ED/HD glass out there.
|
||
MikeT
Optics GrassHopper Joined: January/22/2013 Status: Offline Points: 8 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
My eyes have been impressed looking through a KOWA spotting scope at 300 yard bullet holes in a target on a warm humid day. I appreciate you guys sharing your knowledge and expertise.I'm thinking I may update my Conquest scope which seems to have only mediocre glass. I'll probably just keep the Swaro SLC Neu that seems to have an extraordinary view for my 67 year old eyes. Does that sound like a good choice specifically on these two products?
|
||
RifleDude
MODERATOR EVIL OPPRESSOR Joined: October/13/2006 Location: Texas Status: Offline Points: 16337 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Actually, "HD" is a marketing term that doesn't necessarily mean fluoride lens elements were used anywhere in the design. It simply means "high definition," and rather than specifying specific lens types used, the term simply refers to the result of the combined attributes of the optical design.
Having said that, "HD"-termed optics may indeed employ fluoride (FL) lenses in their design in order to achieve the "high def" distinction, but not necessarily. It may mean the optic has "ED" (extra-low dispersion) glass, which also may or may not include FL glass. Oxides of rare earth elements are often used instead of fluoride in ED glass, for example. Other terms besides "HD," "ED," and "FL" to denote high def, low dispersion optics also includes "APO" (apochromatic), which refers to multiple elements of different types of glass designed to bring varying wavelengths of light to the same focal point. Further confusing things, sometimes, these terms are used together. However, regardless of the terminology used or the method employed to get there, the intent of these optics is the same: reducing chromatic aberration (CA) so that resolution isn't compromised by these color fringes at the boundaries of high contrast objects being viewed. The degree to which there is a noticeable difference between HD vs. non-HD versions of the same optic will naturally vary with which optics are being compared, what design elements were used in its construction to justify calling it "HD," the integrity of the company making the claims, the magnifications/ focal lengths being compared, and on and on. It's virtually impossible to say "Company A's" HD optic is "better" than "Company B's" non-HD optic, because the fact is, some brands non-HD stuff is better than other brands so-called "HD" optics. Such is the nature of marketing hype. When you're comparing the "HD" versions of high-end optics vs. their previous generation "non-HD" versions of the SAME basic optic design, generally the difference is subtle and not immediately apparent to the average person (provided the two optics being compared are of the same basic design generation). For a picky person with really high standards who readily notices CA, the difference may be more significant. Even though it's impossible to quantify the "improvements" in HD/ED/FL/APO optics across the board as a whole category, if I were forced to, I'd say 5% or less, just for the sake of establishing some context. This also assumes you're comparing HD vs. non-HD optics from the same manufacturer, as obviously not everyone's version of "HD" is created equal; not even close. This also assumes you are able to see CA in images; not everyone can. One thing is for certain: just like with engine horsepower and rifle accuracy, at some price point, getting very slight optical improvements comes at a steep price penalty as the law of diminishing returns rears its ugly head. Edited by RifleDude - February/05/2013 at 17:36 |
||
Ted
Money can't buy happiness... but it's much more comfortable to cry in a Porsche than on a bicycle. |
||
RifleDude
MODERATOR EVIL OPPRESSOR Joined: October/13/2006 Location: Texas Status: Offline Points: 16337 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Definitely yes on the second part of your question; Swaro SLC Neu is world class. On the first, if Conquest only has mediocre image quality to you, then you have really high standards, so get ready to spend some serious jingle. To truly see a significant improvement over Conquest-level optics, you're gonna need to get into the $1K + level scopes. If you're prepared to do that, fine, but be forewarned, things start getting really expensive, really fast. |
||
Ted
Money can't buy happiness... but it's much more comfortable to cry in a Porsche than on a bicycle. |
||
Bitterroot Bulls
Optics Master Extraordinaire Joined: May/07/2009 Location: Montana Status: Offline Points: 3416 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
An optic well-corrected for CA can help in many hunting situations that show a lot of high-contrast areas. I particularly appreciate low CA when hunting the snowy burns of MT. Even through high-end non-HD glass, it can look like the burned area is still on fire with CA. If I only hunted low-contrast areas, I would probably get by just fine without.
OP,
The SLC neu is one of the best non-HD bins available for CA correction, IMO, but I certainly noticed lower CA levels in the SLC HD. The Meopta Meostar HD also has excellent CA control, especially in the center of the FOV. I mention this, because it otherwise has a very similar view to the SLC neu, and is priced under $1000.
|
||
-Matt
|
||
338LAPUASLAP
Optics Master Scope Swapper Joined: October/17/2009 Status: Offline Points: 2596 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
I get so excited when all these terms are used...
|
||
No one
|
||
Kickboxer
MODERATOR Moderator Joined: February/13/2008 Status: Offline Points: 23679 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
"chromatic aberration" ... has a kind of a chewy feel to it... doesn't it...
|
||
Opinion,untempered by fact,is ignorance.
There are some who do not fear death... for they are more afraid of not really living |
||
Kickboxer
MODERATOR Moderator Joined: February/13/2008 Status: Offline Points: 23679 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Here you go... enjoy... this is an excellent "discussion" of chromatic aberration...
It is photography oriented, but photogs are much more demanding than us simple rifle scope users. Most of us don't really care if it is a little blurry with purple or green "fringe" when the bullet enters... The target certainly doesn't care...
|
||
Opinion,untempered by fact,is ignorance.
There are some who do not fear death... for they are more afraid of not really living |
||
RifleDude
MODERATOR EVIL OPPRESSOR Joined: October/13/2006 Location: Texas Status: Offline Points: 16337 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
That's an excellent discussion of CA.
I can tolerate certain flaws in rifle scope optics (depending on the price paid for the scope, of course), but when it comes to strictly "observational" optics -- binos, spotters -- I'm just as picky as photogs with regards to CA, excessive linear distortions, flare, etc. |
||
Ted
Money can't buy happiness... but it's much more comfortable to cry in a Porsche than on a bicycle. |
||
Kickboxer
MODERATOR Moderator Joined: February/13/2008 Status: Offline Points: 23679 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Yea, but you're WEIRD...
|
||
Opinion,untempered by fact,is ignorance.
There are some who do not fear death... for they are more afraid of not really living |
||
koshkin
MODERATOR Dark Lord of Optics Joined: June/15/2004 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 13182 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Very good post which leaves very little for me to add. I do have a comment about "same basic design with HD glass vs non-HD glass": this almost never happens. It is not like you simply take one lens out and replace it with a different one made out of ED glass. Changing glass types requires a re-design, so the original question is a non-sequiter for the most part. Lastly, the presence of an HD moniker in the model name does not guarantee presence of extra-low dispersion glass or anything else really. It is a marketing term. A lot of the HD-labeled optics out there do have low dispersion glass, but not all. Also, I think I saw somewhere earlier in the thread something about "fluroide coatings". That is a misconception. No such thing exists. Some of the low dispersion glass out there is dopes with fluoride ions. It is not a coating. ILya
|
||
RifleDude
MODERATOR EVIL OPPRESSOR Joined: October/13/2006 Location: Texas Status: Offline Points: 16337 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
No doubt! |
||
Ted
Money can't buy happiness... but it's much more comfortable to cry in a Porsche than on a bicycle. |
||
RifleDude
MODERATOR EVIL OPPRESSOR Joined: October/13/2006 Location: Texas Status: Offline Points: 16337 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
You're absolutely correct, and that's an excellent point, as, among other things, changing the "glass" types changes the refractive index, which changes focal length. For clarification, by "same basic design," I was speaking more generically about model series and generation, i.e., SLC vs. SLC HD, Ultravid vs. Ultravid HD, etc made within successive years of each other, and the niche the mfg designed the optic to fill and compete against, so the reader wouldn't think I was attempting to lump, say, a Swaro HD in the same classification as a Bushnell Legend HD. |
||
Ted
Money can't buy happiness... but it's much more comfortable to cry in a Porsche than on a bicycle. |
||
Kickboxer
MODERATOR Moderator Joined: February/13/2008 Status: Offline Points: 23679 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
|
||
Opinion,untempered by fact,is ignorance.
There are some who do not fear death... for they are more afraid of not really living |
||
De_Tomaso
Optics Apprentice Joined: January/01/2010 Location: Slovenia Status: Offline Points: 65 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
It has been written enough about HD marketing labels and glass so I only write about Zeiss Conquest HD 8x42 and Conquest 8x40 comparison. There isn't even single area where the new model would not be better. It offers better color, less CA and crisper image. I also offers higher build quality. I even thing that no other binoculars are a match for it in this price range and only complain I have is that eyepieces could have been better. Vortex Viper HD has better eyepieces and it cost less, however everything else on Conquest HD is really superb for this price range.
|
||
Post Reply | Page 12> |
Tweet
|
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |