Jump to content

  •  

CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.

Photo

Fujinon 10x50 FMTR-SX vs Lunt MS 10x50: A honest reiew

  • Please log in to reply
52 replies to this topic

#1 Bosco

Bosco

    Sputnik

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 25
  • Joined: 10 Sep 2016
  • Loc: Bilbao(Spain)

Posted 11 June 2021 - 08:35 AM

Hi folks,

 

Here is a brief review/comparison of these two binoculars. Hope you find interesting to read :)

 

I've been a Lunt 10x50 FMC Magnesium owner for 5 years and their optical quality outperformed by far my previous Nikon Aculon 8x42 in every aspect. Sharpness in the center of Field Of View (FOV) is amazing, wide field of view, bright due to high transmission... However, these Lunts have one big flaw: They suffer from field curvature, that is, the stars remain in focus in 50-60% of the FOV and then they become progressively out of focus as they become closer to the edge of the FOV.

 

Personally this field curvature bothers me a lot and doesn't let me enjoy the views. So one of my priorities when choosing a binocular is to have Flat-Field. I bought a Kowa prominar BD XD 8x32 for casual observing 2 years ago as a compact bins for hiking and traveling. I was AMAZED by their optical performance. They are almost 100% flat field: The amount of blurring in the edge of FOV is almost zero and stars remain in perfect focus in (almost) the entire FOV. With 55° of AFOV these Kowas are not wide angle bins but I prefer by far to have "narrow" and well corrected FOV instead of having wide FOV and poor edge sharpness as some binocs have. So these Kowas became my second astro binoculars and I enjoy a lot looking though them night sky despite they are not very bright.

 

Then I read a lot of threads and reviews about the Fujinon 10x50 FMTR-SX. These bins have Field Flattener lenses in eyepieces so it is expected to have better field correction towards the edge of FOV. After 2 years thinking about buying a pair of Fujis (they cost 1100€ but you can find then at 900€) finally I aquired a pair last week.

 

I was looking for the non-rubber version but seems it is discontinued by 2021 so the only version available was the rubbered one. When they arrived I made a first quick test through my window looking some TV antennas and buildings during daylight. They have clear better FOV correction than the Lunts. The amount of edge blurring is almost zero!!!

 

But the real test will be under stars...

Next day I had the opportunity to test then under Bortle 4 sky and make a direct comparison between Fujis and Lunts.

 

*Build Quality:

 

Both bins are very well built and seems they will last longer than I will. Fujis are better built and the mechanics are a little bit stiff but ok. Only time will tell how the rubber armouring will age… (I will storage the fujis in a foamed transport box like a flying case)

 

*Whiteness of image:

 

Lunts show yellowish images during daylight and the Fujis have almost perfect neutral color correction.

 

*Field Of View:

 

I prefer to observe with the eyecups retracted for both Lunt and Fuji since in this configuration I set my IPD and rest eyepieces in my nose and can observe the entire FOV. Both bins state 6.5deg of FOV and 65º of AFOV. This seems to be true but initial impressions showed that Fujis seems to have apparently a slight wider AFOV.

 

I realized this is because with eyecups retracted I can see the entire of FOV with the Fujis but not with Lunts due to huge eyepiece diameter (I can see almost the entire fov with lunts, the difference is small). I was not expecting this since both bins have same eyepiece diameter and dimension but the Fujis work better with my face and nose anatomy (my nose is small and my IPD in Fujis is 64mm)

 

*Stray Light, internal reflections:

 

Lunts have some internal reflections and this can be seen when looking at the area near to M57 when the ghost image of Vega apperas. Fujis do not suffer from this. Lunar tests have to be done...

 

*FOV Edge Sharpness:

 

Here is where I wanted to come...

It is important to set properly IPD, and eye placement to be in the optical axis. Taking this into account let´s try to focus a bright star at the center of FOV and move it towards the edge of FOV…

Lunts have moderate to big amount of blurring towards the egde of FOV and stars get out of focus progressively. In the edge the stars appear as a radial tear drops  (think this is coma). No matter how I set eye placement, tilting the binocs of moving them together with my head gives similar results. The stars can be focused in perfect points at the edge of fov if you refocus the binos, but leaving the center of fov unfocused.

 

In the case of Fujis... well, the field correction is improved significantly and the amount of blurring is soft. I could not tell in what % of FOV stars are blurred since the degradation increases towards the edge progressively. What´s more, the amount of edge blurring is not the same in all directions, I mean, there is more blurring in the upper part of the FOV edge (at 12 o'clock) for both eyepieces than at the bottom of the FOV (6 o'clock) where blurring is less. In fact, the stars at 6 o´clock barely are out of focus whereas they are clearly out of focus at 12 o´clock (but much less than Lunts) . This happens for both eyepieces as I mentioned above.

 

Have you experienced this?

 

If after observing through Fujis I take the Lunts to make quick comparison, the blurring is much more evident in every directions.

 

The differences between Fujis and Lunts are evident but not that much. I admire how Lunt did copy Fuji at 1/3 of the price and have an optical performance comparable to the Fuji´s...


  • Jon Isaacs, Rich V., EverlastingSky and 5 others like this

#2 Grimnir

Grimnir

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,291
  • Joined: 28 Apr 2010
  • Loc: London, England.

Posted 11 June 2021 - 09:08 AM

 What´s more, the amount of edge blurring is not the same in all directions, I mean, there is more blurring in the upper part of the FOV edge (at 12 o'clock) for both eyepieces than at the bottom of the FOV (6 o'clock) where blurring is less. In fact, the stars at 6 o´clock barely are out of focus whereas they are clearly out of focus at 12 o´clock (but much less than Lunts) . This happens for both eyepieces as I mentioned above.

 

Have you experienced this?

 

 

No, I've not experienced this. Did you try inverting the binocular and seeing whether the effect is the same?

 

Graham



#3 Bosco

Bosco

    Sputnik

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 25
  • Joined: 10 Sep 2016
  • Loc: Bilbao(Spain)

Posted 11 June 2021 - 09:17 AM

Hmm nope, I didn't try to observe with binoculars inverted. I will try to do this in a couple of days (Will not have access to bins this weekend)

 

Thanks :) 



#4 PEterW

PEterW

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,622
  • Joined: 02 Jan 2006
  • Loc: SW London, UK

Posted 11 June 2021 - 12:19 PM

I thought the Lunt was essentially the same as the APM ED… which was extremely close to the Fuji….?

Peter

#5 ihf

ihf

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 776
  • Joined: 14 Jan 2019
  • Loc: California, USA

Posted 11 June 2021 - 12:31 PM

IIRC the Lunt should have the same eyepiece (=flatness) as the APM MS but does not use ED glass.



#6 garret

garret

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,737
  • Joined: 26 Jul 2009
  • Loc: Netherlands

Posted 11 June 2021 - 01:07 PM

I thought the Lunt was essentially the same as the APM ED… which was extremely close to the Fuji….?

Peter

Sample variation?


  • SMark likes this

#7 Rich V.

Rich V.

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 7,713
  • Joined: 02 Jan 2005
  • Loc: Lake Tahoe area, Nevada

Posted 11 June 2021 - 01:07 PM

I'm surprised the 10x50 MS doesn't sound like it has the very good edge correction that the 16x70s have.  I've never looked through the 10x MS but the 16x70 MS and MS ED are every bit as good as the FMTs or perhaps even a bit better.

 

I think they use the same eyepieces but the shorter focal length of the 50mm must be contributing to the greater amount of FC that isn't corrected.

 

Rich


  • Fiske and Jon Isaacs like this

#8 Nate1701

Nate1701

    Ranger 4

  • *****
  • Posts: 358
  • Joined: 28 Feb 2020
  • Loc: Toronto, Canada

Posted 11 June 2021 - 09:50 PM

I thought the Lunt was essentially the same as the APM ED… which was extremely close to the Fuji….?

Peter

His Lunt would essentially be the same as the APM MS non-ED



#9 Fiske

Fiske

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3,146
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2004
  • Loc: Kansas (Kansas City area) / USA

Posted 11 June 2021 - 10:50 PM

I'm surprised the 10x50 MS doesn't sound like it has the very good edge correction that the 16x70s have.  I've never looked through the 10x MS but the 16x70 MS and MS ED are every bit as good as the FMTs or perhaps even a bit better.

 

I think they use the same eyepieces but the shorter focal length of the 50mm must be contributing to the greater amount of FC that isn't corrected.

 

Rich

I haven't observed with a Fujinon 16x70, but I do own a 10x50 FMTR-SX and the APM 16x70 ED MS.

 

I rate the APM as sharp to 95% or a little better, which is exceptionally good performance. At least for my corrected vision. For whatever reason the edge performance is considerably better for corrected than for uncorrected vision (-5.50 sphere in both eyes). Focused for my uncorrected vision it is only sharp to about 75-80% of the FOV -- this variation is quite a bit more than I see in other binoculars, and I presume is a consequence of the eyepiece design.

 

The Fuji 10x50 is sharp to perhaps 85-90% of the FOV, which is extremely good. Keep in mind that these 10x50s are showing 6.5 degree FOVs with wide AFOVs and the consequence is that edge performance suffers. The 16x70s are showing something like a 4.1-4.3 degree FOV. That the 10x50 Fuji provides excellent edge performance with such a wide field is due the quality of its optics. And why it costs 3x what Lunt, Oberwerk Ultra, and Orion Resolux 10x50 binoculars cost. They are still a good value, significantly outperforming anything in their price range.

 

I find the APM 12x50 ED MS has slightly better edge performance than even the 16x70 -- sharp to something like 98% of the FOV. Honestly, sharp to 85% of the FOV is as good as it needs to be from my perspective. Sharp past that is nice to have but not critical for astronomy and virtually undetectable in daytime.

 

With only 16mm eye relief, I suspect Bosco would find the APM 12x50 unusable. I almost fell out of my chair reading that he finds the 10x50 Fuji comfortable with the eye cups folded down. I have been looking for ways to increase the eyecup extension because of "excessive" eye relief. grin.gif I have resorted to inserting the plastic Nikon 10x70 SP wing cup adapters into the Fuji eyecups for an additional 6mm of extension, which is about right for me.

 

Fiske


Edited by Fiske, 11 June 2021 - 11:07 PM.

  • Grimnir likes this

#10 Fiske

Fiske

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3,146
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2004
  • Loc: Kansas (Kansas City area) / USA

Posted 11 June 2021 - 11:03 PM

Oh, and I do see edge performance variation depending on where I look in the FOV -- 12 o'clock, 3 o'clock, 6 o'clock etc. I am talking about edge peeping at the extreme edge of the field. I see that with about every binocular I own. Well, maybe not the Nikon 7x50 SP. wink.gif

 

I don't fret about it. It is not noticeable in normal observation with an instrument sharp to 85% of the FOV or more.

 

One advantage of owning a range of binoculars is you stop worrying that somehow you don't have the right instrument. You see what the variation is among top performing binoculars and go with the ones you like best. And concentrate on the night sky instead of how sharp your binocular might be compared with some other instrument.

 

Other than the Nikon 10x50 WX, I don't know what 10x50 binocular would outperform the Fuji 10x50 FMTR-SX.

 

Fiske

 

PS: My Oberwerk 25x100 Deluxe shipped today, and I am still contemplating an APM 25x100 ED MS. What a fun shootout that would be.

 

watching.gif


Edited by Fiske, 11 June 2021 - 11:10 PM.

  • DeanD likes this

#11 B 26354

B 26354

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,933
  • Joined: 05 Jan 2017
  • Loc: Southern California semi-desert (NELM mag 5.3)

Posted 12 June 2021 - 12:02 AM

Other than the Nikon 10x50 WX, I don't know what 10x50 binocular would outperform the Fuji 10x50 FMTR-SX.

 

PS: My Oberwerk 25x100 Deluxe shipped today, and I am still contemplating an APM 25x100 ED MS. What a fun shootout that would be.

 

I owned the Oberwerk 20x80 Deluxe IIIs. If the Oby 25x100 Deluxe are of similar optical quality... they'll probably rate an "OK". I purchased my APM MS 25x100 EDs a year ago (when they were $240 less expensive), and after a couple of side-by-side comparisons, I completely stopped using the Oberwerks, and eventually sold them.

 

Would I pay the going price for the APMs?... Definitely.

 

I'll be putting my beloved Zeiss Jenoptem 10x50Ws in the CN classifieds shortly, as their 10mm eye-relief has become too short for my aging eyeglass prescription. I'm planning on getting a pair of the APM MS 10x50 EDs to replace them.

 

grin.gif


  • Fiske likes this

#12 DeanD

DeanD

    Messenger

  • *****
  • Posts: 479
  • Joined: 05 May 2018
  • Loc: South Australia

Posted 12 June 2021 - 04:58 AM

Hi folks,...

 

If after observing through Fujis I take the Lunts to make quick comparison, the blurring is much more evident in every directions.

 

The differences between Fujis and Lunts are evident but not that much. I admire how Lunt did copy Fuji at 1/3 of the price and have an optical performance comparable to the Fuji´s...

Thanks for the review!

 

The Lunt's and APM's are 80-90% of the Fuji's price if I was to get them from here in Oz... It would be nice if they were only 1/3!  wink.gif


Edited by DeanD, 12 June 2021 - 05:03 AM.


#13 Fiske

Fiske

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3,146
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2004
  • Loc: Kansas (Kansas City area) / USA

Posted 12 June 2021 - 06:11 AM

I owned the Oberwerk 20x80 Deluxe IIIs. If the Oby 25x100 Deluxe are of similar optical quality... they'll probably rate an "OK". I purchased my APM MS 25x100 EDs a year ago (when they were $240 less expensive), and after a couple of side-by-side comparisons, I completely stopped using the Oberwerks, and eventually sold them.

 

Would I pay the going price for the APMs?... Definitely.

 

I'll be putting my beloved Zeiss Jenoptem 10x50Ws in the CN classifieds shortly, as their 10mm eye-relief has become too short for my aging eyeglass prescription. I'm planning on getting a pair of the APM MS 10x50 EDs to replace them.

 

grin.gif

B,

 

Have you tried the Fuji 10x50? Guessing the eye relief would be fine for your glasses. They are sharp and bright. I am referring to the FMT-SX / FMTR-SX.

 

The 20x80 Deluxe III I received is remarkable sharp. Edge performance at least as good as the APM 16x70. Some issues with the CF and twist up eyecups, but trade offs for easily sharing views with it are a net positive to me. The advantage of IF for focus control came as quite a surprise, something I learned with the OB 10 x50 Ultra. I ordered the IF version of the 25x100s.

 

Between the OB 15x70 Ultra and the APM 16x70 ED MS I have trouble choosing a clear winner. The OB is more comfortable, is reasonably sharp, works well with glasses and better than the APM for my uncorrected vision. The APM is a bit sharper and possibly brighter, works equally well with glasses or a little better, but is somewhat finicky with regard to eye position. For reasons I don't fully grasp, I find myself using the APM most of the time now. I am planning to continue using both instruments for at least a year or so and then re-evaluate keeping both. I recommend the OB 15x70 Ultra without hesitation, considering it an excellent binocular and a better value than the APM unless someone is willing to spend 2x the money for a slight increase in optical performance. I guess that is true for me. wink.gif

 

Hopefully you will share your impressions of the APM 10x50 here. At 23mm it has too much eye relief for me. grin.gif And with a 10x50 instrument, the ability to use it comfortably without glasses is critical from my perspective,  more so than for 16x70s which I almost always use mounted.

 

Fiske


Edited by Fiske, 12 June 2021 - 07:14 AM.


#14 B 26354

B 26354

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,933
  • Joined: 05 Jan 2017
  • Loc: Southern California semi-desert (NELM mag 5.3)

Posted 12 June 2021 - 10:14 AM

B,

 

Have you tried the Fuji 10x50? Guessing the eye relief would be fine for your glasses. They are sharp and bright. I am referring to the FMT-SX / FMTR-SX.

 

The 20x80 Deluxe III I received is remarkable sharp. Edge performance at least as good as the APM 16x70. Some issues with the CF and twist up eyecups, but trade offs for easily sharing views with it are a net positive to me. The advantage of IF for focus control came as quite a surprise, something I learned with the OB 10 x50 Ultra. I ordered the IF version of the 25x100s.

 

Hopefully you will share your impressions of the APM 10x50 here. At 23mm it has too much eye relief for me. grin.gif And with a 10x50 instrument, the ability to use it comfortably without glasses is critical from my perspective,  more so than for 16x70s which I almost always use mounted.

 

Fiske

The APM MS 10x50 EDs have a 20mm eye-relief, not 23mm.  wink.gif

 

https://www.apm-tele...rogen-fill.html

 

Like you, I agree that for me, 23mm would be too long. I recently bought a pair of the Oberwerk 8x56LWs for a friend... but I tested them myself, first, and their 24mm eye-relief was basically unusable for me, even if I fully extended their rather long, folding eyecups. Basically, all I could see was "kidney-bean soup".  lol.gif   Thankfully, my friend loves them... but that person is a very "casual" user.

 

I have a pair of Bresser Pirsch 8x56 ED roof-prisms that have 19.7mm ER, and I don't experience any blackouts at all with them... so the APM's 20mm will be fine. My APM 25x100's eye-relief is 16mm, BTW... and I can see the full FOV with my eyeglasses on.

 

I've never had the opportunity to try a pair of the Fuji 10x50s. But I will definitely add a review of the APM MS 10x50 EDs to this thread, once I have them. Looks like they won't be available until mid-July though... if then.  fingertap.gif



#15 ECP M42

ECP M42

    Ranger 4

  • -----
  • Posts: 356
  • Joined: 28 Apr 2021
  • Loc: central Europe 45°N

Posted 12 June 2021 - 12:19 PM

Other than the Nikon 10x50 WX, I don't know what 10x50 binocular would outperform the Fuji 10x50 FMTR-SX.

Could the 12x50 APM do that, or is the optics inferior to the Fuji? smirk.gif

 

Obviously, your sentence limited to 10x50, but I believe that 1 degree of field less should not give the exclusion: the WX has a good 4 ° more than the Fuji ...

 

PS: Have you already written reviews of the 12x50 and 16x70, which I missed? 

 

 

 

I owned the Oberwerk 20x80 Deluxe IIIs. If the Oby 25x100 Deluxe are of similar optical quality... they'll probably rate an "OK". I purchased my APM MS 25x100 EDs a year ago (when they were $240 less expensive), and after a couple of side-by-side comparisons, I completely stopped using the Oberwerks, and eventually sold them.

Maybe, because 25x is better than 20x, or have you noticed a drastic difference in optical quality?


Edited by ECP M42, 12 June 2021 - 07:39 PM.


#16 Jon Isaacs

Jon Isaacs

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 92,689
  • Joined: 16 Jun 2004
  • Loc: San Diego and Boulevard, CA

Posted 12 June 2021 - 01:19 PM

Bosco:

 

:goodjob:

 

I enjoyed reading your review.. 

 

Thanks

 

Jon



#17 Fiske

Fiske

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3,146
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2004
  • Loc: Kansas (Kansas City area) / USA

Posted 12 June 2021 - 06:05 PM

The APM MS 10x50 EDs have a 20mm eye-relief, not 23mm.  wink.gif

From the Lunt Site:

 

Eye Relief: With an eye relief of 23 mm, you are sure to find comfort with these binoculars. Eye Relief refers to where your eye needs to be placed to see the full image being produced.

 

https://luntsolarsys...trogen-filling/

 

question.gif



#18 Rich V.

Rich V.

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 7,713
  • Joined: 02 Jan 2005
  • Loc: Lake Tahoe area, Nevada

Posted 12 June 2021 - 06:22 PM

That's odd, Fiske, looks like Lunt has the wrong info for the 10x50.  It's the 7x50 that has 23mm ER.   APM has always listed the 10x MS ED as having 20mm ER.  Markus told me the MS and MS ED models both use the same eyepieces.  Those "20mm" eyepieces have a measured effective ER of about 18mm from the inner face of the eyecup. 

 

Rich 


  • B 26354 likes this

#19 Fiske

Fiske

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3,146
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2004
  • Loc: Kansas (Kansas City area) / USA

Posted 12 June 2021 - 06:39 PM

Thanks Rich!

 

It's not just Lunt, though. Other sites list it that way too. It makes sense that is the ER for the 7x50, and probably not too hard for them to get mixed up on websites.

 

Fiske


Edited by Fiske, 12 June 2021 - 06:42 PM.


#20 B 26354

B 26354

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,933
  • Joined: 05 Jan 2017
  • Loc: Southern California semi-desert (NELM mag 5.3)

Posted 12 June 2021 - 07:14 PM

Maybe, because 25x is better than 20x, or have you noticed a drastic difference in optical quality?

I agree. To my eyes, the difference between 20X and 25X is very significant.

 

But aside from that... I found the APMs to be optically far superior to the Oberwerks. Once these big glasses have reached thermal equilibrium, they are tack sharp across the central 80-85% of their FOV. I discussed both factors in this review, almost a year ago:

 

https://www.cloudyni...arpoint-p-gram/

 

biggrin.png



#21 Nate1701

Nate1701

    Ranger 4

  • *****
  • Posts: 358
  • Joined: 28 Feb 2020
  • Loc: Toronto, Canada

Posted 12 June 2021 - 08:51 PM

I agree. To my eyes, the difference between 20X and 25X is very significant.

 

But aside from that... I found the APMs to be optically far superior to the Oberwerks. Once these big glasses have reached thermal equilibrium, they are tack sharp across the central 80-85% of their FOV. I discussed both factors in this review, almost a year ago:

 

https://www.cloudyni...arpoint-p-gram/

 

biggrin.png

nice report. enjoyed that. Almost makes me regret selling my 25x100's.  ( almost )


  • B 26354 likes this

#22 ECP M42

ECP M42

    Ranger 4

  • -----
  • Posts: 356
  • Joined: 28 Apr 2021
  • Loc: central Europe 45°N

Posted 12 June 2021 - 08:57 PM

...the difference between 20X and 25X is very significant.

But ... I found the APMs to be optically far superior to the Oberwerks.

This is interesting! ... naturally, that 25% more thrust, helps in detachment from Earth and takes we deeper into space. But of course, the optical quality also deeply helps all observation.

Hai fatto un buon salto, passando dal 20x80 al 25x100 e si percepisce anche nella revisione del link.

 

 

I liked the Moon very very very much, after exceeded 32x ...  waytogo.gif  bow.gif


Edited by ECP M42, 12 June 2021 - 09:00 PM.

  • B 26354 likes this

#23 Fiske

Fiske

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3,146
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2004
  • Loc: Kansas (Kansas City area) / USA

Posted 13 June 2021 - 12:06 PM

I have to say that I have not found the APM binoculars to be "far superior" optically to Oberwerk binoculars. Somewhat superior in my experience, depending on the instrument. They are far superior in price, however. wink.gif Not saying they aren't a good value -- I am quite pleased with the two I have purchased and am seriously considering the addition of a third.

 

Relevant binoculars currently in my collection:

  1. Nikon 7x50 SP
  2. Oberwerk 10x50 Ultra
  3. Fujinon 10x50 FMTR-SX
  4. APM 12x50 ED MS
  5. Oberwerk 15x70 Ultra
  6. APM 16x70 ED MS
  7. Oberwerk 20x65ED
  8. Oberwerk 20x80 Deluxe III CF

The lack of edge sharpness with the 10x50 Ultra is somewhat distracting, honestly. Softening can be seen at 50-60% of the FOV and becomes progressively worse to the edge. A particular difference between it and say the Fuji 10x50 FMTR-SX is that stars are not only sharper near the edge in the Fuji but also are much brighter which is more noticeable in peripheral vision than edge sharpness.  I still like the instrument -- my most comfortable handheld astronomy binocular and it easily outperforms anything in its price category. A significant contributor to the optical performance issue is that to be profitable 10x50 binoculars need to offer a wider FOV and AFOV -- a 5 degree 10x50 binocular is at a significant disadvantage for day time use, even though it would have better edge performance at the same cost of a wider field instrument. Edge performance is far more apparent on star fields than for day time applications. The APM 12x50 ED MS has significantly sharper edge performance (sharp to 95-98%), but the FOV is about 5 degrees. The challenges of wider FOVs is why so many better quality 10x50 binoculars aren't particularly great in this regard, Oberwerk, Resolux (really rebranded Kunming instruments), and the older Lunt 10x50. I am curious to know how the APM 10x50 ED MS compares, but not curious enough to buy one! wink.gif Expecting to have similar comfort issues with it as with the Fuji 10x50, which is as good optically as I need a binocular to be. And before you ask, ECP, no I do not consider a 12x50 5 degree binocular to be a reasonable substitute for a 10x50 6.5 degree binocular. grin.gif  (Any more than I consider the Nagler 17mm T4 eyepiece to be a reasonable substitute for the 22mm T4 -- I like and use them both.)

 

The edge performance of the APM 16x70 is better than the 15x70 Ultra (sharp to 95% compared with the Ultra's 85%), but the Ultra is still plenty sharp and is more comfortable for me to boot, so somewhat of a toss up there. I do find myself using the APM more and will be seeing how that plays out over time. Biggest bang for the buck? 15x70 Ultra hands down. But I do not consider the  APM 16x70 to be overpriced. Some eyepieces cost more! lol.gif

 

I'm bemused by the reports concerning the OB 20x80 Deluxe III. Mine is sharper on the edge than the APM 16x70, though others haven't seen the same with theirs. In fact, the only traditional binocular I own which is sharper on edge is the Nikon 7x50 SP. (Which also easily bests the APMs in this regard.) But, keep in mind this is a lower magnification instrument with a comparatively narrow AFOV ( approx 53 degrees?). Looking through it truly gives a porthole effect (which I don't see in my other binoculars), but the instrument is none the less likeable for astronomy as a result. In fact, it has its own charm because of it.

 

The 20x65ED is another extremely sharp, extremely well corrected Oberwerk instrument, astonishing for a $520 USD binocular. The result of the longer f-ratio and ED glass. 

 

When one really wants to talk about tack sharp and pin point stars, no binocular I have observed with compares with either of my APO refractors -- TV-101 and Mini-Borg 60ED. All one need do is examine a few double stars, comparing views between APO refractors and binoculars to see the difference. This is not to say binoculars don't provide fine views of double stars -- in fact enjoying double stars with both eyes and wide star fields adds a lot to the aesthetic enjoyment of them. But the advantage of the binocular for double stars has nothing to do with the sharpness of the view because it's not even close to an APO refractor in this regard.

 

Fiske


Edited by Fiske, 13 June 2021 - 07:40 PM.

  • SMark, Nate1701 and ECP M42 like this

#24 Rich V.

Rich V.

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 7,713
  • Joined: 02 Jan 2005
  • Loc: Lake Tahoe area, Nevada

Posted 13 June 2021 - 12:54 PM

It just goes to to show how subjective our impressions of different binoculars can be between one person and another.  The mating of optics with our individual eyes and facial features is unpredictable, at least.  The advantage of binocular vision is undeniable for most of us, I'd think, though.  

 

Rich


  • SMark, Pinac and ECP M42 like this

#25 ECP M42

ECP M42

    Ranger 4

  • -----
  • Posts: 356
  • Joined: 28 Apr 2021
  • Loc: central Europe 45°N

Posted 13 June 2021 - 03:05 PM

Thanks Fiske, applause.gif  it's always a pleasure to read your feedback on the equipment. I'm having fun!  

So much so that you almost pushed me to take the Deluxe 20x80, with the comparison you made with the 16x70ED. But it would be too heavy and too bright for my needs, so I resisted. 

 

In the meantime I have noticed that your mixed use with and without glasses could sometimes alter some results, as you have also rightly mentioned. And that certainly obliges you to declare every time whether or not you are using glasses in your tests. Since the emmetropic (or emmetropic) eye is usually the basic reference (in optics), although different eyes can see different things. 

 

1 - I do not consider a 12x50 5 degree binocular to be a reasonable substitute for a 10x50 6.5 degree binocular. grin.gif

 

2 - ... I am curious to know how the APM 10x50 ED MS compares, but not curious enough to buy one! wink.gif

... The edge performance of the APM 16x70 is ... sharp to 95%

 

 

 

3 - When one really wants to talk about tack sharp and pin point stars, no binocular I have observed with compares with either of my APO refractors -- TV-101 and Mini-Borg 60ED.

1 -  grin.gif grin.gif lol.gif  ... could i do it?  grin.gif

 

2 - The eyepieces of the 16x70ED should be the same as the 10x50ED. But the longer 70mm focal length and probably the higher focal ratio (f4 vs f3.6), could slightly improve views in the 16x. However, you would already have a rough idea at your fingertips. 

 

3 - It would be enough to double the APO TV-101 or the Mini-Borg 60ED, and you would get the best pin point stars binoculars (?!)

 

 




CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.


Recent Topics






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics