is the upgrade from 42mm to 50mm for lowlight worth it?

[iseegeorgesstar]

Hey,

I do a lot of lowlight and no-light viewing and have always wondered if the upgrade to a 50mm from a more typical 42mm would be worth it? My concern is that 50mm bino will simply be too heavy but I could also see the weight balancing things out. I also like to one-hand view sometimes so I could brace or position myself so the lioghter weight helps there too.

Is there a significant brightness difference between the two in practice?

The other issue is that some 50mm binos like Meopta are a lot heavier than others such as Tract.

Anyone move up a weight class and then regret it?

Thanks for your comments.

 

[Eastonsgrandpa]

Really depends on the magnification. An 8x42 will not be noticeably brighter with a 50mm objective as the exit pupil is already at useable size.

A 10x50 will be brighter as it has the 5mm exit pupil, which is basically the perfect size in low light.

Or just get NL Pures and you’ll never wish you had a 50mm objective, even with 12 power.

 

[iseegeorgesstar]

I always forget to think in terms of exit pupil. Thanks for the reminder. For handheld, I've never gone past 10x though have always wanted to.

I was thinking upgrade from 10x42 to 10x50. I'm trying to imagine if I would see any extra detail, I just can't imagine it being that significant but was hoping to hear from someone who did the jump and convince me otherwise.

The 12x42 NL is definitely a dream binocular for sure.

 

[roweraay]

I always forget to think in terms of exit pupil. Thanks for the reminder. For handheld, I've never gone past 10x though have always wanted to.

I was thinking upgrade from 10x42 to 10x50. I'm trying to imagine if I would see any extra detail, I just can't imagine it being that significant but was hoping to hear from someone who did the jump and convince me otherwise.

The 12x42 NL is definitely a dream binocular for sure.

You will definitely see more detail by moving from a 10x42 to a 50 or 56, all things being equal. You are moving from a 4.2mm exit pupil, to a 5mm or 5.6mm exit pupil. Many a time, all things are not equal, since people tend to compare a really high end 42, to a 50/56 that’s built to a lower price point, with lower-end optical components.

Having said that, these are all a matter of trade-offs. Are you willing to take a big trade-off in weight and portability, for the additional coverage from the 50/56 during lower-light situations ? How much of lower-light type of usage, post-dusk or per-dawn, do you have ? Etc. For some the trade-offs are worth it, while for others not.

I recently bought the Swarovski 10x56, intending to use it as a one-and-done bino for general purpose use. The 56 would provide the light-intensification needed during low-light conditions. In practice, yes, there was a noticeable improvement in low-light ability, over the 12x42 NL Pures that I also have…..however, to me, the overall usability, the handling, the petite size etc won out, and I decided to return the 10x56 back. Your mileage and use-cases may vary !

 

[Shraggs]

Really depends on the magnification. An 8x42 will not be noticeably brighter with a 50mm objective as the exit pupil is already at useable size.

A 10x50 will be brighter as it has the 5mm exit pupil, which is basically the perfect size in low light.

Or just get NL Pures and you’ll never wish you had a 50mm objective, even with 12 power.

8x42 = 5.25 mm exit pupil
8x50 = 6.25
All things equal it’s potentially brighter.

8x56 = 7.00
10x50 = 5.00
10x56 = 5.60

I own quite a bit of alpha. Lens coatings can also have an effect. My zeiss 8x42 victory fl are extraordinary in how bright they are, a blue ish vs my swaro which is more natural or greenish for slc. I can easily see deer at night at several hundred yards.

 

[Eastonsgrandpa]

8x42 = 5.25 mm exit pupil
8x50 = 6.25
All things equal it’s potentially brighter.

8x56 = 7.00
10x50 = 5.00
10x56 = 5.60

I own quite a bit of alpha. Lens coatings can also have an effect. My zeiss 8x42 victory fl are extraordinary in how bright they are, a blue ish vs my swaro which is more natural or greenish for slc. I can easily see deer at night at several hundred yards.

Agree that it will definitely bring in more light. The issue is that the human pupil is only capable of dilating so far and 5 mm is typically the largest dilation for most people.

 

[Shraggs]

I’m 61 now so even less capability in my eyes but it still obvious when I look thru great glass with larger exit size.

 

[iseegeorgesstar]

You will definitely see more detail by moving from a 10x42 to a 50 or 56, all things being equal. You are moving from a 4.2mm exit pupil, to a 5mm or 5.6mm exit pupil. Many a time, all things are not equal, since people tend to compare a really high end 42, to a 50/56 that’s built to a lower price point, with lower-end optical components.

Having said that, these are all a matter of trade-offs. Are you willing to take a big trade-off in weight and portability, for the additional coverage from the 50/56 during lower-light situations ? How much of lower-light type of usage, post-dusk or per-dawn, do you have ? Etc. For some the trade-offs are worth it, while for others not.

I recently bought the Swarovski 10x56, intending to use it as a one-and-done bino for general purpose use. The 56 would provide the light-intensification needed during low-light conditions. In practice, yes, there was a noticeable improvement in low-light ability, over the 12x42 NL Pures that I also have…..however, to me, the overall usability, the handling, the petite size etc won out, and I decided to return the 10x56 back. Your mileage and use-cases may vary !

This is exactly the type of feedback I was looking for -- thank you. Yes, it's about tradeoff and I know from experience I can start off holding the bino rock solid but tire quickly so while I really like the idea of the 50mm or above I'm not sure it's for me. That said, I would say I do a lot of low light usage and do crave the light intensification.

I currently switch from a 10x42 roof to a 10x40 porro. And the porro is insanely brighter than the roof. However now the "tradeoff" is that the focuser isn't so easily placed.

 

[iseegeorgesstar]

8x42 = 5.25 mm exit pupil
8x50 = 6.25
All things equal it’s potentially brighter.

8x56 = 7.00
10x50 = 5.00
10x56 = 5.60

I own quite a bit of alpha. Lens coatings can also have an effect. My zeiss 8x42 victory fl are extraordinary in how bright they are, a blue ish vs my swaro which is more natural or greenish for slc. I can easily see deer at night at several hundred yards.

Thanks for the table. Going back to what one of the posters suggested. I guess there's also the question of what is the effective usable exit pupil? 5mm? I'm not well versed in those matters.

 

[roweraay]

Thanks for the table. Going back to what one of the posters suggested. I guess there's also the question of what is the effective usable exit pupil? 5mm? I'm not well versed in those matters.

Most aged eyes, can only use upto around 5mm. However, some older folks can use 7mm. Most younger people can certainly use the typical max of 7mm. Not everyone has the same physiology.

There are some younger folks whose pupils dilate to over 7mm…..typically younger people. I know at least one older gentleman (60+ years old) whose pupils dilate to over 7mm……not a typical scenario, however. Again, physiology varies from person to person.

However, one factor in having a larger exit pupil in a bino (7mm etc) is that the eye strain is lesser than a 4.2mm or a 5mm, regardless of whether your pupils dilate to beyond 5mm or not. Your pupils have more space to play around in, with all of that extra light flooding in. But the trade-off in needing to carry that extra load around, is certainly real.

 

[10ringer]

Vortex and maven have fantastic 10x50 options. They are bright, fairly light and compact. My viper 10x50’s weigh in about even with my 10x42 el’s. They beat out my 10x42 SLCs in low light. It took moving up to 10x42 NL’s to have slightly better low light performance.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Shraggs]

Thanks for the table. Going back to what one of the posters suggested. I guess there's also the question of what is the effective usable exit pupil? 5mm? I'm not well versed in those matters.

These threads always get too detailed, so maybe that post wasn’t smart by me.

I agree with roweeya. Although I’m older I’m more comfortable with 5mm.

The CL is a great bino as many attested as do I. You seemed specially focused on low light, in timber. Even a great 8x30/32 will gather less light then comparable quality in a larger objective.

You will love the CL.

Or look at new 8x42/50/56 or 10x50 etc from multiple makers and price points. There are several very good “b” binos priced significantly less new than than alpha pricing. Thay are nearly as good. I would encourage you to do your observations at dusk outdoors since that is your priority. You can asses ergonomics and features at a counter, maybe resolution if they have a chart. At low light you’ll see if one stands out as in brighter with clarity and you like how it feels.

If a ZEISS conquest or meopta impresses you and in your budget buy it new. If an alpha is better comb rokslide classified’s- there lots of them used here.

I hope that helps better?

I can tell you buy ZEISS victory or swaro NL x model. Someone else with experience here can do the same and now your choosing between advise…

Put your hands on as many products as you can and choose what’s best for hunting and budget. Bet if you posted any roksliders near x city that has “list of binos” you may find folks here close and willing to help.

 

[JohnJohnson]

I just ran across this video and thought I'd throw it in here even if it's only semi-related. The video covers a lot of aspects of how scopes work but specifically starting at the 12:15 mark for the next couple minutes goes over interesting stuff about how we perceive a scope's light gathering abilities. Apparently larger objectives don't gather more light we just feel they do because in low light our pupils are dilating larger than in daytime and if the scope has limited exit pupil it doesn't fill our pupils as much which seems darker. Is the same true for binoculars?

As an aside the video is the best tutorial on how scopes actually work that I've ever seen. Still going through and processing it but it's definitely getting saved.

 

[Reed104R]

If you have good quality binos with 42mm objectives, there's no need for 50mm in my opinion. I have spent alot of time testing binoculars and scopes over the years and glass quality is the most important factor. All things being equal, the 50mm only provides a slight advantage for the last few minutes of daylight. There will typically be an eye relief advantage with the larger objective, but sometimes a reduction in FOV. The eye relief advantage is sometimes important for old men like me.

 

[eltaco]

A couple of years ago I had a pair of Swaro EL 10x42 and 10x50 and used them side by side for a while. Ultimately, I kept the 50s but have to say that I couldn’t notice much of any difference in low and no-light situations. Both were outstanding but truly splitting hairs between the two in low-light. It just wasn’t very noticeable if there was any difference at all. I kept the 50s, truthfully because in theory they should be better in low light (though I didn’t see it in field use) and have slightly larger FOV.

In the end, I moved to Swaro NL 10x42, which felt like a major upgrade coming from the EL 50s. The weight and size difference was appreciated, I don’t feel like I gave up any low light performance, and the FOV difference was absolutely noticeable.

 

[iseegeorgesstar]

These threads always get too detailed, so maybe that post wasn’t smart by me.

I agree with roweeya. Although I’m older I’m more comfortable with 5mm.

The CL is a great bino as many attested as do I. You seemed specially focused on low light, in timber. Even a great 8x30/32 will gather less light then comparable quality in a larger objective.

You will love the CL.

Or look at new 8x42/50/56 or 10x50 etc from multiple makers and price points. There are several very good “b” binos priced significantly less new than than alpha pricing. Thay are nearly as good. I would encourage you to do your observations at dusk outdoors since that is your priority. You can asses ergonomics and features at a counter, maybe resolution if they have a chart. At low light you’ll see if one stands out as in brighter with clarity and you like how it feels.

If a ZEISS conquest or meopta impresses you and in your budget buy it new. If an alpha is better comb rokslide classified’s- there lots of them used here.

I hope that helps better?

I can tell you buy ZEISS victory or swaro NL x model. Someone else with experience here can do the same and now your choosing between advise…

Put your hands on as many products as you can and choose what’s best for hunting and budget. Bet if you posted any roksliders near x city that has “list of binos” you may find folks here close and willing to help.

The CL is a bino I've always admired from afar, particularly the CL-B (bright?) version they released a while ago. I've always been curious if that magical swarovski "clarity" persists across all it's binoculars and not just the habicht. Supposedly the Curio is really impressive for what it is.

I agree hands on practice is the best but I always feel so guilty buying something and returning, especially when I know my heart isn't with the product I bought.

The meopta's were another line I was really interested in except it's price increases the last year turned me off -- basically you're near alpha prices so might as well go with the alphas. And also after they got bought out the hedge fund group. They discontinued support one of their older line of binoculars which makes me wonder about their commitment for their current binos in the future (though they're still currently supported).

 

[Shraggs]

The CL b, is very very comparable to previous generation 8x32 el. Non SV. The old EL was a touch brighter, while equal in detail and neutral color. The biggest difference is fov which noticeable in favor of EL and the weight which is noticeable in favor of CL.

I’d say buy them. Your heart is there and it’s a great product. Worst case, they don’t meet low light timber needs - then buy a different pair and sell or start your collection like the rest of us…

 

[Lionhound1975]

Although I think you will see a slight improvement in jumping from 42mm to 50mm if you are comparing the same exact model, I also think each model with its specific coatings is going to have just as much effect on the difference as the extra 8mm in the objective lens.

I recently compared the following in low light conditions off and on over the last several weeks (30 min before sunrise, overcast day at sunset, 30 min after sunset, half moon, 3/4 moon, no moon) on objects from 30-600 yards. I don't currently have any 50mm so it was all comparing 30s, 40, and a 56.

Zeiss SF 8x42
Zeiss SF 10x32
Euro/Meostar HD 8x32
SLC 8x56
Swaro EL 8x32
Swaro Habicht GA 8x30
Swaro Habicht GA 7x42
Swaro Habicht GA 10x40
NL Pure 10x42

The brightest was the SLC 8x56 which was no surprise. The next in brightness and seeing detail was a tie between the Habicht 7x42 and Zeiss SF 8x42. The 7x42 might have been a little brighter but the 8x42 had a noticeably wider FOV as well as the 1x increase in magnification which made up for any slight advantage the 7x42. The Habicht and Zeiss SF are two very different animals.

In the 30mm group, the Habicht was just as bright and crisp as the EL (in the middle of the image) and noticeably brighter than the Euro/Meostar HD. All 3 were brighter than the Zeiss SF 10x32 due to the 8x vs 10x magnification.

The Habicht 10x40 was much brighter than the SF 10x32 and was just as crisp as the NL 10x42 in the middle of the image. The NL's huge FOV made it look brighter. The strange thing was that even though they are both 10X, the NL's magnification looked a little larger. This might be due to the difference in porros vs roofs.

Also take into consideration not only when you will be using them but also how you will hold them. I can handhold the SF 8x42 more still than the big SLC 8x56. So I end up seeing more detail while handholding. If I was just hunting for a blind and had the optic on a tripod, I would go for the big 56mm and not worry about 50mm.

 

[iseegeorgesstar]

I just ran across this video and thought I'd throw it in here even if it's only semi-related. The video covers a lot of aspects of how scopes work but specifically starting at the 12:15 mark for the next couple minutes goes over interesting stuff about how we perceive a scope's light gathering abilities. Apparently larger objectives don't gather more light we just feel they do because in low light our pupils are dilating larger than in daytime and if the scope has limited exit pupil it doesn't fill our pupils as much which seems darker. Is the same true for binoculars?

As an aside the video is the best tutorial on how scopes actually work that I've ever seen. Still going through and processing it but it's definitely getting saved.

Thanks for the link. I'm very curious about the physics of it as well. I think you're onto something as well because we're hampered by our effective exit pupil size. For me, the further confusion is that I see people swear by the increased resolution or detail graspability of the bigger objectives. It's why I really like hearing hands-on experience of people who have tried the instruments.

If you have good quality binos with 42mm objectives, there's no need for 50mm in my opinion. I have spent alot of time testing binoculars and scopes over the years and glass quality is the most important factor. All things being equal, the 50mm only provides a slight advantage for the last few minutes of daylight. There will typically be an eye relief advantage with the larger objective, but sometimes a reduction in FOV. The eye relief advantage is sometimes important for old men like me.

Thanks for sharing.

A couple of years ago I had a pair of Swaro EL 10x42 and 10x50 and used them side by side for a while. Ultimately, I kept the 50s but have to say that I couldn’t notice much of any difference in low and no-light situations. Both were outstanding but truly splitting hairs between the two in low-light. It just wasn’t very noticeable if there was any difference at all. I kept the 50s, truthfully because in theory they should be better in low light (though I didn’t see it in field use) and have slightly larger FOV.

In the end, I moved to Swaro NL 10x42, which felt like a major upgrade coming from the EL 50s. The weight and size difference was appreciated, I don’t feel like I gave up any low light performance, and the FOV difference was absolutely noticeable.

It's interesting that you prefered the wider fov over the brightness gain. Thanks.

 

[WCB]

IMO quality of glass would be more noticeable going from an 8x42 to an 8x50. As stated your eye can only use so much light and and "in theory" brighter (larger exit pupil) MAY make it more comfortable for the eyes but not a guarantee. If you move up in mag then 100% move in objective diameter if the exit pupil drops below your eye ability.