Print Page | Close Window

Steiner Peregine 8.5X44 XP

Printed From: OpticsTalk by SWFA, Inc.
Category: Other Optics
Forum Name: Binoculars
Forum Description: Anything that requires two eyes to look through it
URL: http://www.opticstalk.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=7148
Printed Date: September/25/2018 at 19:57
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.10 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Steiner Peregine 8.5X44 XP
Posted By: Narrow Gap
Subject: Steiner Peregine 8.5X44 XP
Date Posted: July/09/2007 at 18:39
How good are these binoculars?  I have a pair of the Zeiss Victory 8X56 T*P* and are the binos I mentioned in the same class as the Zeiss? Thanks Ahead for the feedback!



Replies:
Posted By: lucznik
Date Posted: July/10/2007 at 10:37
I think you would probably be better off sticking with the Zeiss.

-------------
What if the hokey pokey really is what it's all about?


Posted By: ND2000
Date Posted: July/10/2007 at 12:26

Narrow -

 

+1 on Lucznik's comment.  Most poeple would not confuse Steiner with Zeiss (or Leica and Swarovski for that matter).

 

ND2000



-------------
You either get what you pay for or what you deserve.


Posted By: Dale Clifford
Date Posted: July/10/2007 at 18:07

heres what I want to know

 

steiner advertises using indexed matched lenses

 

1) are they the same index matched lenses used by leo??

2) do they use the same method of measurement (as leo) to classify indexed match ??

3) are they riding on an advertising coattail?

4) does indexed matched mean anything??



Posted By: koshkin
Date Posted: July/10/2007 at 18:36
I do not know anything about Steiner's versoin of "index matched" lenses, but as far as Leupold's version goes, it is a marketing term, nothing more.

ILya


Posted By: lucznik
Date Posted: July/10/2007 at 18:38
Originally posted by Dale Clifford Dale Clifford wrote:

heres what I want to know

 

steiner advertises using indexed matched lenses

 

1) are they the same index matched lenses used by leo??

  • Sure, why not? (see below)

Originally posted by Dale Clifford Dale Clifford wrote:

2) do they use the same method of measurement (as leo) to classify indexed match ??

  • Who knows but, it doesn't really matter.  (see below)

Originally posted by Dale Clifford Dale Clifford wrote:

3) are they riding on an advertising coattail?

  • Probably. (see below)

Originally posted by Dale Clifford Dale Clifford wrote:

4) does indexed matched mean anything??

  • Ah, now you've hit the crux of the matter.  Yes, "index matched" does mean something - though not what the advertisers want you to think it means.  What it means is that Leupold's marketing dept. found a way to advertise a fairly common, normal part of the manufacture of optics in a way that made it seem new and innovative. That's not to say that the process itself is unimportant, just that they aren't the only ones doing it nor are they likely the originators of the process. In short; what they are doing in their manufacturing plant(s) is not particularly unique but, their ability to develop a marketing campaign to capitalize on it with the consumer market is pure genius.


-------------
What if the hokey pokey really is what it's all about?


Posted By: Narrow Gap
Date Posted: July/10/2007 at 18:50
Thanks for the replies! I might just sell my Zeiss Victory 8X56 and use that money toward the Zeiss FL 8X56. I have been watning the FL's since I found out Zeiss was going to introduce the FL 8X56's.


Posted By: Roy Finn
Date Posted: July/10/2007 at 19:01

lucznik, if we could ever get a straight answer on what "index matched" meanings according to Leupold, then I want to know what "Total Light Throughput" means as well.

 

FWIW, Burris has been using "index matched" as well for a couple of years in their ad campaigns.



Posted By: anweis
Date Posted: July/11/2007 at 07:51
Originally posted by Dale Clifford Dale Clifford wrote:

heres what I want to know

 

steiner advertises using indexed matched lenses

 

1) are they the same index matched lenses used by leo??

2) do they use the same method of measurement (as leo) to classify indexed match ??

3) are they riding on an advertising coattail?

4) does indexed matched mean anything??

 

 

1) and 2) most likely not.

3) yes.

4) probably not.

 

I have not looked through that new Peregrine, they could be a very good binocular. I have looked through many other Steiner binoculars. They never convinced me.

You would be better off with lucznick's advice.

 



Posted By: Bird Watcher
Date Posted: July/11/2007 at 10:04
"Leupold's exclusive DiamondCoat and Index Matched Lens System matches lens coatings to each lens for superior performance and optimal light management. DiamondCoat on exterior lens surfaces provides superior scratch resistance". (www.leupold.com)


Posted By: Roy Finn
Date Posted: July/11/2007 at 10:18

BW, you are probably right, but this question was asked by ILya directly to a Leupold rep on another site and never got a straight answer. ILya seemed to be leading him into some follow-up Q's which I saw coming (and was amused) such as If the VX-3 and VX7 are "Index matched only, does this mean no other previous Leupold products were matched. I guess the guy started to realize he was not talking to an idiot. I just asked my friend Sven Harms (President of Steiner USA) what they mean by Index Matched? I will post if allowed.

 

Roy



Posted By: Bird Watcher
Date Posted: July/11/2007 at 10:24
That's nothing new! I talked with some customer service technicians on the phone and got the impression that "the less said the better". It was like pulling teeth!


Posted By: lucznik
Date Posted: July/11/2007 at 10:34
Originally posted by Roy Finn Roy Finn wrote:

...I want to know what "Total Light Throughput" means as well.

 

This one's fairly easy, actually.  Bird Watcher began explaining it:

 

Originally posted by Bird Watcher Bird Watcher wrote:

Fujinon, for example, guarantees that their patented advanced electron beam coating technologies (both the coatings and coating application systems) permit 99.9% light transmission. (by the time it reaches your eyes peak of light transmisson is better than 93%)

 

I don't know about Fujinon's claims (they sound a bit like advertising hype to me) but, the basic idea is that no glass surface can allow for the pass through of 100% of the light that hits it.  Therefore, if we accept that an optic's lens coatings have been optimized to allow each lens surface to permit 99.9% of the light through then, after the first pass through a glass surface, you have 99.9% of the total amount of light remaining.  The next lens surface that the light hits will also allow 99.9% of light to pass but, it's 99.9% of the light remaining after the light has passed through that first glass surface.  This continues for every glass surface in the optic (of which there can be many,) each one reducing the total light by a bit more.   The final amount of light to reach your eye after it has passed through all of the glass is the "Total Light Throughput"  This final quantity of light-loss can be quite significant. In the best cases you end up with about 95% of the total, initial, ambient light passing through to your eyes. In the worst cases, this phenomenon can ammount to as much as a 20% loss of light.

 

This principle of light loss for each glass surface encountered is, by the way, also why no scene through an optic can ever be as bright (let alone brighter) than the same scene viewed through the naked eye - no matter what your brain (or the "expert" author of some magazine article) is trying to tell you.  When things appear this way, it's just another optical illusion.



-------------
What if the hokey pokey really is what it's all about?


Posted By: Dale Clifford
Date Posted: July/11/2007 at 10:35
Is this like ordering a military sporter from Century arms and getting a hand picked one for $20 more??


Posted By: Bird Watcher
Date Posted: July/11/2007 at 10:40
The hand that picked it, also picked your pocket!


Posted By: Dale Clifford
Date Posted: July/11/2007 at 10:54
I wanna know how it got in the UPS box if they aren't all hand picked.


Posted By: lucznik
Date Posted: July/11/2007 at 10:55

Originally posted by Bird Watcher Bird Watcher wrote:


Here are the definitions of the various optical coatings:

Coated = A single layer on at least one lens surface.

Fully Coated = A single layer on all air-to-glass lens surfaces.

Multi-Coated = Multiple layers on at least one lens surface.

Fully Multi-Coated = Multiple layers on all air-to-glass surfaces.
 

 

This is true and this "scale" gets quoted quite often, especially in the various magazines but, there are some severe limitations to its applicability.

 

For example, if I manufacture a "cheap" binocular and decide that, as a part of the build process, I am going to coat every air-to-glass surface with exactly two coatings of magnesium flouride, then (according to this scale) I have produced a "fully multi-coated" optic.  However, there is nothing to identify the quality of my work nor can it be reasonably asserted that my two coatings are going to be as good as the 30 - 60+ layers of coatings applied by the more mid to high-end optics manufacturers. Yet, I still get to claim "fully multi-coated lenses," just like they do.

 

This same need to recognize that quality of workmanship is at least as important as the materials and/or processes utilized, applies to the addition of phase correction coatings, hydrophobic coatings, usage of "Bak 4" glass, etc., etc., etc.

 

Like Bird Watcher said:

Originally posted by Bird Watcher Bird Watcher wrote:

The BEST binoculars on the planet are not available for under $100.oo

 

I would add that this is true no matter what their spec sheets say they have.



-------------
What if the hokey pokey really is what it's all about?


Posted By: Bird Watcher
Date Posted: July/11/2007 at 11:25
lucznik

Your comments remind me of the posting done by Chirs Farris on JIS water-proof standards.

Ain't it fun trying to keep up with all the "little secrets" that are hidden within the optics industry?


Posted By: lucznik
Date Posted: July/11/2007 at 13:00

Yes, I remember that thread as well.

 

To be fair, we should point out that the optics industry is not the only guilty party here.   Almost all industries engage in more advertising hype than they do legitimate informing of consumers. It's only natural to want to make your product look at least as good, if not better than anything else available.  Advertising is BIG business and it takes a very wary and ambitious consumer to dig through the crap to find the few nuggets of truth.

 

You're right though.  It is fun trying to uncover all those "little secrets."

 

 

 

 



-------------
What if the hokey pokey really is what it's all about?


Posted By: Roy Finn
Date Posted: July/11/2007 at 13:58

lucznik, your explanation of " index matching" is the closest to the description i just got from Steiner with regard to their advertising. It was explained that the "index" was referring to the various types of glass used in the Peregrine XP to optimize light and image quality transfer. My typing stinks so that's the short version from the horses mouth.

 

 

Roy



Posted By: Bird Watcher
Date Posted: July/11/2007 at 15:14
Interesting!

One company uses the word index to describe their glass.

Another company uses the word index to describe their matching lens coatings.

Ain't advertising grand? (confusing?)

Do they say what they mean, or, do they mean what they say?


Posted By: Roy Finn
Date Posted: July/11/2007 at 15:28
I wonder what happens when you combine a scope with "matched indexes", "extended twilight lens systems", sealed in space age gases with diamond like coatings and throw in some "total light throughput"??? I guess them deer's just walk right in to ya and surrender....


Posted By: Bird Watcher
Date Posted: July/11/2007 at 16:35
Only if you are wearing the proper "scent".

Don't forget the HD (High Definition) camo clothing while you are at it.

Are Americans the only ones who have to put up with this nonsense, or is it a worldwide phenomenon


Posted By: koshkin
Date Posted: July/11/2007 at 19:48

OK, before we get too carried away here.  When talking about optics, index refers to one optical parameter: "index of refraction". 

 

Index of refraction is the ratio between the speed of light in the vacuum and the speed of light in the material we are looking at here.  Index of refraction, as the name suggests, defines the angle of refraction of glass.  It also defines which fraction of the light gets reflected from the boundary between two materials of different indices of refraction.  For two materials with indices of refraction n1 and n2, the reflected fraction of light (R) will be equal to [(n1-n2)/(n1+n2)]^2.

 

For a common example of light being reflected at the interface between air (index of refraction = 1.00001 or so) and glass (index of refraction varies for different glass melts, but let’s assume it is 1.5 for the time being), R=0.04, or 4% of the light gets reflected (ignoring angular considerations for the time being).

 

In the example above, if you deposit a thin layer of additional material with n=1.25 (or anywhere in between the refractive indices of air and glass) onto a glass surface, you will end up with two interfaces that reflect light: air to “thin deposited layer” and “thin deposited layer to glass”.  However, since the differences between indices of refraction at each interface are smaller, despite the fact that there are two reflections now, the total amount of light reflected is actually smaller.  On top of that, by matching the thickness of the deposited layer to the wavelength of incident light (more exactly, to the quarter of the wavelength of the incident light in the particular material), you can interferometrically cancel out the reflected light.

 

By adding additional thin layers of material of varying indices of refraction, you can minimize the reflection even further.

 

Pretty straight forward so far, right?  When you are doing this in practice, things get a little more complicated.  The index of refraction of glass is different for different wavelengths of light (different colors).  The variation of index of refraction with wavelength of light is called dispersion (think ED glass, for example).  From a coating standpoint, different colors are a major pain: to optimize for a particular color, you need coating layers of different thickness, and of very uniform thicknesses.  There is something called “Abbe number” which is a measure of glass dispersion for visible light.

 

For example, here is a picture of the transmission/reflection profile of cerulin-plus coatings used by Optolyth (I was just reviewing a couple of very nice Optolyth spotters).  You always have to compromise with coatings.  Optolyth made sure there is good transmission of blue light and when you play with their scope in poor light, it shows.  They sacrificed some transmission between blue and green to get a good peak in the blue/violet region that is important in low light.

 



Back to Leupold. I have talked to several different Leupold reps.  They always give me the same speech on how their “index matched” system has the coatings with the refraction indices matched to the type of glass used and glass with the refraction indices matched to the visible light spectrum.

 

Well, anti-reflection coatings, by definition have to be matched to the glass they are deposited on, and glass has to be selected appropriately for the light.  Every manufacturer in the world does it.  It is very good marketing and when they say all this stuff about matching indices, they are not lying.  However, the only thing Leupold invented with regard to this whole index matching thing is the marketing slogan.  They improved their coatings compared to Multicoat4 they used before, and simply came up with a new name for their new coatings.  The rest is bologne.

 

ILya

 

 



Posted By: Roy Finn
Date Posted: July/11/2007 at 20:47
Thanks ILya. Not sure if you have an answer for this but I'll through it out  just the same. Would you say that the thickness of the material applied is more important than the type of material?


Posted By: koshkin
Date Posted: July/11/2007 at 20:53
Both are important. 

If material is of the wrong type you will not get the desired effect (for example, if the index of refraction of the material is actually greater than that of the glass in question, you will have more reflection, not less).

However, if the material is of the wrong thickness, you will only get a part of the desired effect: the itnerferometric component (destructive interference) will not work.

ILya


Posted By: Roy Finn
Date Posted: July/11/2007 at 21:33
Thanks ILya.


Posted By: RUBLE
Date Posted: July/12/2007 at 16:11
 HI, new to this site but have been a bird watcher for some time now. I bought a pair of Zeiss 8x56 FL-T last week and can tell you that after looking throught every high and mid end binoculars, they won hands down! Some had what i  though was  better ergonomics but none were better, if you wear eyeglass, than the Zeiss. I just love these binoculars!

-------------
IT AN'T COLD UNTIL IT HITS -60F


Posted By: RifleDude
Date Posted: July/12/2007 at 17:47

Welcome, Ruble!  The Zeiss Victory FL is an awesome binocular for sure.  You made an excellent choice that will provide you with many years of incredible viewing.

 

Koshkin,

Thanks for the excellent information on coatings, refraction indices, and glass.



-------------
Ted


Money can't buy happiness... but it's much more comfortable to cry in a Porsche than on a bicycle.



Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd. - https://www.webwiz.net