Click here if you are having trouble logging into the forums
Privacy Policy |
Please read our Terms
of Service | Signup and
Troubleshooting FAQ | Problems? PM a Red or a Green Gu.... uh, User
nunciusaustralis
member
Reged: 09/25/09
Posts: 95
Loc: Rio de janeiro, Brazil
|
|
What about those ruby coated binos with those red lenses? Always heard that they dont fit astronomical use. But i tested a 17X80mm and saw most messier i tried. What is the min problem with ruby coated binos? 
--------------------
Nuncius Australis
70mm celestron EQ
9x50 finderscope
15X80mm binocular
20mm e 10mm k eye pieces
2xomni barlow
www.nunciusaustralis.blogspot.com
|
brentwood
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 11/04/05
Posts: 1107
Loc: BC Canada
|
|
I don't think that it's the actual colour itself but every ruby tinted lens I have seen reflects a lot of light back. You do not want that, you want any reflections in the objectives to be dim, which means that the light is passing through the binoculars to your eyes.
--------------------
Big telescope.Small telescopes.
Ridiculous binocular collection
I've cut it twice and it's still too short.
|
charen
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 05/28/05
Posts: 1082
Loc: New Zealand
|
|
They also do not give true color fidelity. Images can take on various yellow / green / redish tints that are not true to the natural image.
So with ruby lens the image never appears 'bright' and the color is 'unnatural' which is not desirable in binos.
Chris
--------------------
35 binos.
80mm Cat.
WO66ED
SV NH 80mm / EQ3
Meade 8in.LX90
Skywatcher Equinox ED120 / Goto HEQ5.
|
Solar B
scholastic sledgehammer
Reged: 02/28/07
Posts: 911
Loc: By Edinburgh , Scotland
|
|
Ive never tried a pair but can remember seeing them
marketed as Infra-Red Binos  in Lanzarote.
Brian
--------------------
" Gentlemen only ever use Refractors "
|
Glassthrower
Vendor - Galactic Stone & Ironworks
Reged: 04/07/05
Posts: 16348
Loc: Kuiper Belt
|
|
Ruby coatings, on average, have a much lower light transmission. They are optimized for daytime observing and are considered a hinderance for stargazing. Also, many of the cheaper binoculars have these coatings - and such binoculars wouldn't be very good, regardless of the coatings used. In general, ruby coatings are the hallmark of the lower-grade optics in this respect.
Of course, it's all relative, because at one time all binoculars used uncoated glass.
Best regards and clear skies,
MikeG
--------------------
Michael Gilmer - Member of the Meteoritical Society & Collector of Falling Stars.
Meteorites, Moon Rocks, Mars Rocks, Tektites, Fossils, Minerals, Crystals, & Trinitite.
|
DJB
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 02/23/05
Posts: 1589
Loc: Lisle NY
|
|
Hi all,
Yep, I agree with all of you. Basically, stay away from them.
Poor colour rendition, and a latent optical through-put.
I can not, for the life of me, see how these could actually improve the observation situation.
Now, on especially great transparent nights, these may APPEAR to have a great enhancement--but I doubt it. I've never owned one, nor do I wish to. Just my "observations."
Best regards,
Dave.
|
harbinjer
super member
Reged: 12/17/08
Posts: 126
Loc: Southeastern Minnesota
|
|
I would assume that a singe MgF2 coating is way better than a ruby coating. But would it be better to be completely uncoated than to have ruby coatings?
The one or two that I've looked through looked very dim and everything was tinted green. Neither of which is beneficial.
|
Andresin150
sage
Reged: 08/14/07
Posts: 305
Loc: Bogotá - La Calera / Colombia
|
|
The ruby coatings are not "anti reflection" coatings, so they certainly don't increase light transmission in any way.
In fact, those are reflection coatings  ! Those coatings are suppose to block certain wave lengths of light as if the binoculars have some filter similar for example as an "anti glare". So my thinking would be that it would be preferable to have no coatings at all than ruby coatings for astronomy since they'll end up blocking some precious light. Those coatings may have some utility in daylight viewing if you are at the sea or in snow.
--------------------
25x150 MT
30-50x120's
Ultra 15x70's
GOTO NEX Planetarium
1 Macaw, 1 Toucan, 1 parrot and many other little ones...
And the nicest greenhouse!
|
DJB
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 02/23/05
Posts: 1589
Loc: Lisle NY
|
|
Hi harbinjer,
If you are speaking to me, then the answer is a definite yes.
A magnesium floride coating, properly applied, would be much more effective than any so-called ruby coating.
The modern coatings, which can consist of somewhere between 10 and 20 or more separate coating applications, increase the better optical qualities only some 3-5%--(almost) undectable.
Sure looks good in the specs, but, the original WWII coatings, developed by the military, were some of the best.
I worked in a military black hole project which required coating very large mirrors. Sometimes the older coatings worked best. And MIL had to accept our findings. Food for thought. FYI.
Best regards,
Dave.
|
nunciusaustralis
member
Reged: 09/25/09
Posts: 95
Loc: Rio de janeiro, Brazil
|
|
I see the light. I do agrre . Ruby coated are a optical disaster. As soon i did a look on a good finder i notice that my wild 17x80 do much less than that 9x50 finder. 
--------------------
Nuncius Australis
70mm celestron EQ
9x50 finderscope
15X80mm binocular
20mm e 10mm k eye pieces
2xomni barlow
www.nunciusaustralis.blogspot.com
|
|
5 registered and 10 anonymous users are browsing this forum.
Moderator: EdZ
Print Thread
|
Forum Permissions
You cannot start new topics
You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled
UBBCode is enabled
|
Thread views: 275
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
