Levenhuk Sherman Pro 8x42 Binoculars

[Oli]

Had a chance to try these binoculars out (review of them Here) and was intrigued by how wide the views would be with a Real Field of View 8.1. My comparison binocular was my Vortex Viper HD 10x50 which has a FOV of 5.3 so I was expecting a significant difference. However this didn't seem to be the case and the difference was rather small.

For the price I paid (£140) I found the optics were good and the image sharp but I was expecting a much wider view. Perhaps my expectations were too high.

Oli°

[Ruud]

For 8 times magnification, if the true field is 8.1°,  the apparent field of view must be 8 * 8.1° = 64.8°
For 10 times magnification with a true field of 5.3°, the afov must be 10 * 5.3° = 53°

Binocular eyepieces often have an afov  of either 50° or 65°. You have one of each.

The difference is not that small. from 50° to 65° is an increase by  a factor 1.3
The area increases by the square of this factor: 1.3^2 = 1.69. That's 70% more 'square degrees'.

Congratulations on the new binoculars!

 

[Louis D]

2 hours ago, Oli said:

Had a chance to try these binoculars out (review of them Here) and was intrigued by how wide the views would be with a Real Field of View 8.1.

You linked to an 8x32 binocular review.  Your sig says you have a Vortex Viper 8x42.  Did you buy a second 8x42 or is the thread subject incorrect and should read 8x32?  Have you compared whatever you just bought to the Vortex Viper pair?

I have the Meade Safari Pro 8X42 WA binoculars which sound similar to the Levenhuk Sherman Pro 8x42 Binoculars.  I really like their ease of use and the relatively lighter weight compared to 10x50s.

[MarsG76]

Congrats on your binos... no matter what you AFOV is through the binos, believe me it's way wider than through the eyepiece in a telescope.

 

[Oli]

8 hours ago, Ruud said:

For 8 times magnification, if the true field is 8.1°,  the apparent field of view must be 8 * 8.1° = 64.8°
For 10 times magnification with a true field of 5.3°, the afov must be 10 * 5.3° = 53°

Binocular eyepieces often have an afov  of either 50° or 65°. You have one of each.

The difference is not that small. from 50° to 65° is an increase by  a factor 1.3
The area increases by the square of this factor: 1.3^2 = 1.69. That's 70% more 'square degrees'.

Congratulations on the new binoculars!

 

Exactly, except that didn't feel like a 70% difference. More like a 10-20% difference. 

 

7 hours ago, Louis D said:

You linked to an 8x32 binocular review.  Your sig says you have a Vortex Viper 8x42.  Did you buy a second 8x42 or is the thread subject incorrect and should read 8x32?  Have you compared whatever you just bought to the Vortex Viper pair?

I have the Meade Safari Pro 8X42 WA binoculars which sound similar to the Levenhuk Sherman Pro 8x42 Binoculars.  I really like their ease of use and the relatively lighter weight compared to 10x50s.

I haven't posted here in a while so my sig is not up to date. I sold my old viper and now have a 10x50. The review I linked was to confirm that these binoculars are defined as wide even though that specific model reviewed was a smaller version.

7 hours ago, MarsG76 said:

Congrats on your binos... no matter what you AFOV is through the binos, believe me it's way wider than through the eyepiece in a telescope.

 

Thanks but I've decided to return them. I'm gonna see if I can try out a 7x35 binocular in store somewhere. (possibly the Nikon's) 

[Stu]

I have some Barr & Stroud 8x42s and they have a 8.2 degree fov and I enjoy them very much. They are pretty well corrected across the field. I’ve also got some old Chinon Countryman 7x35s which claim 11 degrees but are more like 10 soni think specs can be optimistic. Quite fun but relatively poorly corrected in the outer field, plenty of astigmatism I think it is.

I guess the differences may not be as obvious as you expect, but when you actually try fitting pairs of stars in, or larger asterisms it does become clear which ones show more sky. For instance, the 8.1 degrees should fit the whole of Orion’s Belt and sword in, whereas the 5.3 degrees won’t.

[MarsG76]

4 hours ago, Oli said:

Exactly, except that didn't feel like a 70% difference. More like a 10-20% difference. 

 

I haven't posted here in a while so my sig is not up to date. I sold my old viper and now have a 10x50. The review I linked was to confirm that these binoculars are defined as wide even though that specific model reviewed was a smaller version.

Thanks but I've decided to return them. I'm gonna see if I can try out a 7x35 binocular in store somewhere. (possibly the Nikon's) 

I have a set of Bushnell 8x50s and Olympus DPS-I 10x50s.

Both have great glass and a great FOV, the benefit of the Bushnells is that they're autofocus... or in focus all the time... so very comfortable and convenient to use.

[Oli]

On 09/09/2018 at 10:59, Stu said:

I have some Barr & Stroud 8x42s and they have a 8.2 degree fov and I enjoy them very much. They are pretty well corrected across the field. I’ve also got some old Chinon Countryman 7x35s which claim 11 degrees but are more like 10 soni think specs can be optimistic. Quite fun but relatively poorly corrected in the outer field, plenty of astigmatism I think it is.

I guess the differences may not be as obvious as you expect, but when you actually try fitting pairs of stars in, or larger asterisms it does become clear which ones show more sky. For instance, the 8.1 degrees should fit the whole of Orion’s Belt and sword in, whereas the 5.3 degrees won’t.

 

Thanks for the diagram Stu, I would say it looked about half that difference so perhaps I wasn't seeing all the FOV (I do wear glasses).

On 09/09/2018 at 15:34, MarsG76 said:

I have a set of Bushnell 8x50s and Olympus DPS-I 10x50s.

Both have great glass and a great FOV, the benefit of the Bushnells is that they're autofocus... or in focus all the time... so very comfortable and convenient to use.

Thanks for recommendations. If I find any of these in store I'll certainly try them out.

[Stu]

@Oli it does sound like maybe you weren't taking in the whole fov. Are there eyecups you can find down? I'm assuming you have astigmatism, otherwise you should be able to use them without glasses?

[Oli]

I have a slight astigmatism but I'm usually okay when viewing without glasses (didn't think about taking them off ha!). The wife wasn't a fan of these either so they've been returned to amazon. Thanks for your help though!

[Louis D]

3 hours ago, Oli said:

I have a slight astigmatism but I'm usually okay when viewing without glasses (didn't think about taking them off ha!). The wife wasn't a fan of these either so they've been returned to amazon. Thanks for your help though!

Consider the Orion UltraView 8x42 Wide-Angle Binoculars which are basically the same as my Meade Safari Pro 8X42 WA binoculars.  Sure, it's a 20 year old design, but it was good one then and still is today.  The eyecups fold completely flush with the eye lenses so use with eyeglasses is not a problem.  They seem to deliver 8.2 degree field they claim.  I still use mine occasionally, and they're still smooth operating and the rubber armor hasn't become sticky with age.  They're also still made in Japan instead of China.