Is HD really that much better??

[eastkoot]

Been looking at high end spotters (leica/Zeiss and Swaro) and wondering if anyone really notices the difference between HD and regular glass in the higher end spotters ?? I guess, is the money worth the difference !!

[ryanb]

Optics are an investment with diminishing returns the more expensive you go. Only you can decide whether the difference (yes there is a difference between hd and non-hd) justifies the price. For me, I have had a lot of middle of the road optics. Finally this year decided that I was going to get the absolute best spotter money could buy, judged by numerous impartial industry reviews. It was worth it for me, but only because I could afford it and still go hunting. If the difference means you don't get to go hunting because you have to work to pay it off, it's kind of pointless isn't it?

[The Hermit]

Eastkoot - Feel like I'm yelling into the wind some days but... You should really look into the Kowa Prominar spotters. The 880 series is often reviewed as the best of the best at any price and is A LOT less than the others. It goes beyond HD glass with mere flourite coatings to using a pure flourite crystal that Kowa grows in their medical lab as the objective lens.

Also, the Kowa 770 XD Series totally compares to the competition at a price point that will save you enough money for a new rifle or bow! Check my website and call for HBC price.

[300rum700]

I have non hd glass and don't feel at a disadvantage, that being said there is a difference although its hard to tell sometimes. There are some great prices out there on ATM and STM swarovski spotters right now so if I were buying today would go with HD and be done with it.

[300rum700]

Eastkoot - Feel like I'm yelling into the wind some days but... You should really look into the Kowa Prominar spotters. The 880 series is often reviewed as the best of the best at any price and is A LOT less than the others. It goes beyond HD glass with mere flourite coatings to using a pure flourite crystal that Kowa grows in their medical lab as the objective lens.

Also, the Kowa 770 XD Series totally compares to the competition at a price point that will save you enough money for a new rifle or bow! Check my website and call for HBC price.

I think it's time for some Kowa demo spotters to be available to HBC customers. Now that your able to accept credit card info why not give someone a week or two to try it and if they don't like them send it back for a full refund, might be a good opportunity to get the word out, otherwise yes I does sound like your yelling in the wind.

[The Hermit]

I think it's time for some Kowa demo spotters to be available to HBC customers. Now that your able to accept credit card info why not give someone a week or two to try it and if they don't like them send it back for a full refund, might be a good opportunity to get the word out, otherwise yes I does sound like your yelling in the wind.

Not asking that people belive it just because I say its so... I am suggesting people do some research, read some reviews, maybe check them out at the trade shows and if they want to save some money ... well you get the gist. Sorry, I'm not able to send $2K+ product around for people to use for a couple weeks and return... kicking tires at a auto dealer is one thing but that is like asking Ferrari to send you a car to demo for a week or two. :-)

[Gateholio]

Kowa makes great optics. Hermit is right, they are comparable to the big names at less cost. If I was looking for a spotter, Kowa would be on my list thsee days.

[goinghunting]

I looked into this last year before buying a new spotting scope. If you plan on taking pictures through your spotting scope you need the hd if not the non-hd is fine. The human eye cannot tell the difference between the 2. I've had my non-hd swaro right beside my buddies hd swaro and can't tell a difference.

[knightcc]

Not asking that people belive it just because I say its so... I am suggesting people do some research, read some reviews, maybe check them out at the trade shows and if they want to save some money ... well you get the gist. Sorry, I'm not able to send $2K+ product around for people to use for a couple weeks and return... kicking tires at a auto dealer is one thing but that is like asking Ferrari to send you a car to demo for a week or two. :-)


Hermit is right. Kowa optics are very, very good and they more than hold their own against the Big 3. Try one out. They are top shelf quality. I have a Kowa spotter and would put it up against a Swaro any day.

[hunter1993ap]

the eyes behind them are what matters, no matter what the glass on the average to top end optics. i have a non hd spotter and take pictures fairly well, good enough to tell what i'm looking at and not that blurry. i have never compared an hd to non hd.

[300rum700]

Hermit is right. Kowa optics are very, very good and they more than hold their own against the Big 3. Try one out. They are top shelf quality. I have a Kowa spotter and would put it up against a Swaro any day.

Ya that would be the point, try one out.

[Buck]

Try this out lots of very good reviews even in the birding community.And about 2 grand cheaper than the big 3 that means more hunting for you..http://www.zen-ray.com/shop/zenspotter82-angled.html and this review http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=202943And You won't feel so bad if you drop it.

[greenhorn]

Is there even such a thing as HD glass? What exactly do they do to the glass to make it HD?

When it comes to TVs, HD is basically a reference to screen resolution.....

Is it possible that the hunting brands found a new gimmick to get everyone to buy new stuff again??

[keoke]

Hd stands for high density, from what I have read it is a little bit clearer around the edges and is only really benificial if you are taking pictures through the scope.

[greenhorn]

Hd stands for high density, from what I have read it is a little bit clearer around the edges and is only really benificial if you are taking pictures through the scope.

Not a personal attack on you - but that sounds made up.

Optical glass is like any other glass - it's cast into slabs and then machined after casting to make lenses and prisms. The density (mass per unit volume) of the slab is dictated by the chemical makeup (silica, fluorite) and the casting process.

Looking at a few marketing claims for HD binocs - they talk about extra low dispersion glass. Dispersion in glass is dictated by the quality of the cast glass - you want high purity glass with uniform cast quality. Lens coatings can also help fight dispersion by helping to focus all colors of light to the same point in your eye.... The quality of the lens machining is just as important as the glass quality - if the lens is misshapen the optic wont focus correctly no matter how great the glass is.

Maybe they've changed the lenses to give better focus across the field of view for better picture taking???

There's a rule of thumb that people who know optics tend to state, it goes something like this: "If the manufacturer makes a big deal about special glass or how much magnification the optic has, it's best to pass and look somewhere else"

[The Hermit]

Looks like VantagePoint will be at the WSSBC convention in Kelowna this year if anyone wants to have a look at Kowa high end spotters.

[Andrewh]

Looks like VantagePoint will be at the WSSBC convention in Kelowna this year if anyone wants to have a look at Kowa high end spotters.

I will be sure to have a look, do you have access to a zeiss or swaro so we can do side-side comparisons?

I will be purchasing one this summer and would love to line them all up to compare. Don't really want to test them all at different times/locations and make my decision based on that...

Andrew

[The Hermit]

Im not sure if the other manufacturers or vendors will be there but hapy to line them up. :-) Every time I've done that in the field with buddies Kowa has been the clear winner... and at trade shows Ca ching! ;-)

[ryanb]

I have lined my 884 up beside a 80mm zeiss and 80mm Swarovski. Brighter, yes as it should be since its an 88mm objective, but noticeably sharper/clearer too. They are a big spotter though, to be sure.

Have a look at any comparison review that includes the kowa 880 series and the kowa always wins.

[BiG Boar]

From what I have come to understand, HD glass has less dispersion/chromatic dispersion/aberration of light.

More on dispersion/aberration here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispersion_(optics)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromatic_aberration

Here is a good article trying to explain the dif between high def and non hd:

High Definition gets a lot of bad press because it is a marketing tool. It is TRUE that in many instances, High Definition is used as a marketing tool. Many of the lower - middle end rifle scope makers plunk the term HD or High Definition on their products in order to gain "'creds" they don't really have. In most cases, not all, it can be, somewhat reasonably, explained that they have upgraded their glass. Does a single step glass upgrade qualify to be called HD??? In some cases, definitely yes... when the beginning glass was so bad it was almost like looking through the bottom of a 1950's Coke bottle, any upgrade that would allow one to actually SEE through the scope could be considered High Definition. In some cases, glass quality is significantly improved and if the company wants to market that as HD, it doesn't really bother me. Generally, the better the quality of the glass (and other mitigating factors), the less dispersion/chromatic dispersion there will be. That is a good thing, even if it is a marketing tool.

The first company to produce High Definition glass was Nikon in 1975, but its name was ED or Extra-low Dispersion glass. Many have jumped on the bandwagon since. ED was not used in rifle scopes until very recently. The constant demand for better and better quality has forced rifle scope makers to answer the calls for better and better optical glass. I won't enter into a discussion of how "good" rifle scope glass is overall. Some would be very depressed. A number of the high-end camera lenses are good old Nikon ED glass...

HOWEVER, High Definition DOES have meaning. I thought I read some time ago about the specifications on HD, (and have discussed at various of the laboratories I frequent) but was convinced by a significant number of others that I was in error. I conceded for a time, but it kept bothering me, as I know my memories are only slightly enhanced over reality. So, in the manner of a true investigation and review, I called the companies. "Which ones??", someone might ask. The ones I originally suggested actually HAD REAL HD glass. SWAROVSKI and ZEISS.

In speaking with a representative of Swarovski, he CONFIRMED that Swarovski does, in fact, produce a High Definition glass with an appropriate specification using calcium fluoride as an anti-dispersive additive. It is a complicated process and I don't intend to go into it here. If you want to know more, call Swarovski... maybe they'll 'splain it to you. Lens alignment and orientation is also a factor, but HD Glass is a factor in the production of ALL Swarovski Z6 rifle scopes WITH side focus adjustment. Currently ONLY those Swarovski riflescopes have the HD glass, but binoculars and spotting scopes also have it. It has a specification Swarovski uses to reproduce this HD glass for every product they market it in.

Zeiss labels their HD glass "FL" and it is currently only used in the 6-24x72 and all the tactical Hensoldt scopes. (Yes, RC, you have some HD glass.) Zeiss does have a specification for the HD/FL glass making process.
While zealous, exhuberant and quite often abrasive, I do my homework. HD glass is "real", if only for a small few rifle scope makers.
There SHOULD be a standard for HD glass, but there is not. There are, however, specifications for at least two brands plus the ED glass. There is also a labeling of UD (ultra low dispersion) which I am told may also enter the rifle scope market in a not TOO distant future. But it will be expensive. The "highest quality" optical glasses are not used in rifle scopes because it is cost prohibitive.

The next question is... Is it really needed? I have not yet looked through the newest Hensoldt scopes (my attempts to meet up with the rep in this area have failed, so far), my experience with Hensoldt is much older. It was "top of the line" back then. However, in talking with the Swarovski engineer, he assured me that only the MOST discerning eye would be able to tell a difference between my Zeiss Victory Diavari and the Swarovski Z6 with HD glass. He said the Zeiss is about as good as it gets and their coatings are some of the best in the world. High praise from a competitor. But he did say some COULD see a very slight difference at the edges especially at high angles to the light source in "rapidly" changing light conditions.


The SS10xHD has a very good quality glass. It does perform less well than the Zeiss Victory Diavari, BUT it is expected to. What is not expected is how close it comes...


My rule in optics are buy the best you can afford. More so than a quad, or a fancy rifle.

[greenhorn]

Good info Big Boar;

I think one thing to keep in mind is that low dispersion glass is nothing new (like you stated), and I doubt it's a coincidence that scope manufacturers are calling low dispersion glass "HD", given everyone's obsession with High Def TVs.

As someone who works with optics alot - I just want to caution people to not believe all the hype they hear. The brutal truth is that most people's eyesight is the limiting factor. Like you say - the only real test is to look through the scope and see which one seems better.

As a side comment - I can't count how many people I know that have zillion dollar scopes that they never bother to clean the glass on - rendering them no better than my bargain basement scope....


From what I have come to understand, HD glass has less dispersion/chromatic dispersion/aberration of light.

More on dispersion/aberration here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispersion_(optics)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromatic_aberration

Here is a good article trying to explain the dif between high def and non hd:

High Definition gets a lot of bad press because it is a marketing tool. It is TRUE that in many instances, High Definition is used as a marketing tool. Many of the lower - middle end rifle scope makers plunk the term HD or High Definition on their products in order to gain "'creds" they don't really have. In most cases, not all, it can be, somewhat reasonably, explained that they have upgraded their glass. Does a single step glass upgrade qualify to be called HD??? In some cases, definitely yes... when the beginning glass was so bad it was almost like looking through the bottom of a 1950's Coke bottle, any upgrade that would allow one to actually SEE through the scope could be considered High Definition. In some cases, glass quality is significantly improved and if the company wants to market that as HD, it doesn't really bother me. Generally, the better the quality of the glass (and other mitigating factors), the less dispersion/chromatic dispersion there will be. That is a good thing, even if it is a marketing tool.

The first company to produce High Definition glass was Nikon in 1975, but its name was ED or Extra-low Dispersion glass. Many have jumped on the bandwagon since. ED was not used in rifle scopes until very recently. The constant demand for better and better quality has forced rifle scope makers to answer the calls for better and better optical glass. I won't enter into a discussion of how "good" rifle scope glass is overall. Some would be very depressed. A number of the high-end camera lenses are good old Nikon ED glass...

HOWEVER, High Definition DOES have meaning. I thought I read some time ago about the specifications on HD, (and have discussed at various of the laboratories I frequent) but was convinced by a significant number of others that I was in error. I conceded for a time, but it kept bothering me, as I know my memories are only slightly enhanced over reality. So, in the manner of a true investigation and review, I called the companies. "Which ones??", someone might ask. The ones I originally suggested actually HAD REAL HD glass. SWAROVSKI and ZEISS.

In speaking with a representative of Swarovski, he CONFIRMED that Swarovski does, in fact, produce a High Definition glass with an appropriate specification using calcium fluoride as an anti-dispersive additive. It is a complicated process and I don't intend to go into it here. If you want to know more, call Swarovski... maybe they'll 'splain it to you. Lens alignment and orientation is also a factor, but HD Glass is a factor in the production of ALL Swarovski Z6 rifle scopes WITH side focus adjustment. Currently ONLY those Swarovski riflescopes have the HD glass, but binoculars and spotting scopes also have it. It has a specification Swarovski uses to reproduce this HD glass for every product they market it in.

Zeiss labels their HD glass "FL" and it is currently only used in the 6-24x72 and all the tactical Hensoldt scopes. (Yes, RC, you have some HD glass.) Zeiss does have a specification for the HD/FL glass making process.
While zealous, exhuberant and quite often abrasive, I do my homework. HD glass is "real", if only for a small few rifle scope makers.
There SHOULD be a standard for HD glass, but there is not. There are, however, specifications for at least two brands plus the ED glass. There is also a labeling of UD (ultra low dispersion) which I am told may also enter the rifle scope market in a not TOO distant future. But it will be expensive. The "highest quality" optical glasses are not used in rifle scopes because it is cost prohibitive.

The next question is... Is it really needed? I have not yet looked through the newest Hensoldt scopes (my attempts to meet up with the rep in this area have failed, so far), my experience with Hensoldt is much older. It was "top of the line" back then. However, in talking with the Swarovski engineer, he assured me that only the MOST discerning eye would be able to tell a difference between my Zeiss Victory Diavari and the Swarovski Z6 with HD glass. He said the Zeiss is about as good as it gets and their coatings are some of the best in the world. High praise from a competitor. But he did say some COULD see a very slight difference at the edges especially at high angles to the light source in "rapidly" changing light conditions.


The SS10xHD has a very good quality glass. It does perform less well than the Zeiss Victory Diavari, BUT it is expected to. What is not expected is how close it comes...


My rule in optics are buy the best you can afford. More so than a quad, or a fancy rifle.

[goinghunting]

reat info Big Boar,

But you talk about rifle scopes alot in here so makes we wonder what everyone else opinion is? I use good glass for both my spotting scope and bino's( zeiss and swaro) but when it comes to rifle scope how much does it really matter? I myself use a burris with the posi lock so not anything special for glass but tuff as nails and wont be knocked out of zero? Why do some of you feel it important to have high quality glass for a rifle scope? I don't see the need?



From what I have come to understand, HD glass has less dispersion/chromatic dispersion/aberration of light.

More on dispersion/aberration here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispersion_(optics)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromatic_aberration

Here is a good article trying to explain the dif between high def and non hd:

High Definition gets a lot of bad press because it is a marketing tool. It is TRUE that in many instances, High Definition is used as a marketing tool. Many of the lower - middle end rifle scope makers plunk the term HD or High Definition on their products in order to gain "'creds" they don't really have. In most cases, not all, it can be, somewhat reasonably, explained that they have upgraded their glass. Does a single step glass upgrade qualify to be called HD??? In some cases, definitely yes... when the beginning glass was so bad it was almost like looking through the bottom of a 1950's Coke bottle, any upgrade that would allow one to actually SEE through the scope could be considered High Definition. In some cases, glass quality is significantly improved and if the company wants to market that as HD, it doesn't really bother me. Generally, the better the quality of the glass (and other mitigating factors), the less dispersion/chromatic dispersion there will be. That is a good thing, even if it is a marketing tool.

The first company to produce High Definition glass was Nikon in 1975, but its name was ED or Extra-low Dispersion glass. Many have jumped on the bandwagon since. ED was not used in rifle scopes until very recently. The constant demand for better and better quality has forced rifle scope makers to answer the calls for better and better optical glass. I won't enter into a discussion of how "good" rifle scope glass is overall. Some would be very depressed. A number of the high-end camera lenses are good old Nikon ED glass...

HOWEVER, High Definition DOES have meaning. I thought I read some time ago about the specifications on HD, (and have discussed at various of the laboratories I frequent) but was convinced by a significant number of others that I was in error. I conceded for a time, but it kept bothering me, as I know my memories are only slightly enhanced over reality. So, in the manner of a true investigation and review, I called the companies. "Which ones??", someone might ask. The ones I originally suggested actually HAD REAL HD glass. SWAROVSKI and ZEISS.

In speaking with a representative of Swarovski, he CONFIRMED that Swarovski does, in fact, produce a High Definition glass with an appropriate specification using calcium fluoride as an anti-dispersive additive. It is a complicated process and I don't intend to go into it here. If you want to know more, call Swarovski... maybe they'll 'splain it to you. Lens alignment and orientation is also a factor, but HD Glass is a factor in the production of ALL Swarovski Z6 rifle scopes WITH side focus adjustment. Currently ONLY those Swarovski riflescopes have the HD glass, but binoculars and spotting scopes also have it. It has a specification Swarovski uses to reproduce this HD glass for every product they market it in.

Zeiss labels their HD glass "FL" and it is currently only used in the 6-24x72 and all the tactical Hensoldt scopes. (Yes, RC, you have some HD glass.) Zeiss does have a specification for the HD/FL glass making process.
While zealous, exhuberant and quite often abrasive, I do my homework. HD glass is "real", if only for a small few rifle scope makers.
There SHOULD be a standard for HD glass, but there is not. There are, however, specifications for at least two brands plus the ED glass. There is also a labeling of UD (ultra low dispersion) which I am told may also enter the rifle scope market in a not TOO distant future. But it will be expensive. The "highest quality" optical glasses are not used in rifle scopes because it is cost prohibitive.

The next question is... Is it really needed? I have not yet looked through the newest Hensoldt scopes (my attempts to meet up with the rep in this area have failed, so far), my experience with Hensoldt is much older. It was "top of the line" back then. However, in talking with the Swarovski engineer, he assured me that only the MOST discerning eye would be able to tell a difference between my Zeiss Victory Diavari and the Swarovski Z6 with HD glass. He said the Zeiss is about as good as it gets and their coatings are some of the best in the world. High praise from a competitor. But he did say some COULD see a very slight difference at the edges especially at high angles to the light source in "rapidly" changing light conditions.


The SS10xHD has a very good quality glass. It does perform less well than the Zeiss Victory Diavari, BUT it is expected to. What is not expected is how close it comes...


My rule in optics are buy the best you can afford. More so than a quad, or a fancy rifle.

[BiG Boar]

The information wasn't intended to be used only for scope choice. It was basically about glass and was saying what HD really is. Is there a point to HD glass in a scope? In my opinion, having a great piece of glass that transmits the most light possible is perfect for making those late dusk/early dawn shots, when most of the animals are active. I'd recommend spending more money on a scope than on the rifle under it, as a deer getting hit with a 300wm from a Savage is just as bad as getting hit with a 300wm from a Kahlunka. But yeah, HD isn't neccesary really for anything. But it is nice, especially if you do any digiscoping.

[goinghunting]

The HD glass info was great much more indepth then I've ever had hd to non-hd explained. Just sparked the rifle scope question for me. After many many years of hunting I can't recall once missing an animal because of the optical quality of my rifle scope. I've used a cheap fixed power bushnell, leupolds and now a burris, but never higher end glass like say a swarovski or zeiss rifle scope. The only animals I've ever missed were due to a scope being knocked out of zero from a hard fall or hard use (i'm very hard on equipment, comes with the territory when mountain hunting I guess?) This is why I bought the burris scope with the posi lok option that I'm using right now. glass quality would be a little less then a leupold vx-3 but absolutely indestructable. I agree with what your saying with low light situations, but if your hunting in legal shooting light I haven't ran into into any trouble with my lesser quality glass scopes. So for me when it comes to rifle scopes the enphasis is put on durability over optical quality. Was wondering what everyone else's thoughts are?

On a side note when it comes to bino's, good quality glass is must in my opinion and if your sheep hunting or goat hunting high quality glass on a spotting scope is a must as well!




The information wasn't intended to be used only for scope choice. It was basically about glass and was saying what HD really is. Is there a point to HD glass in a scope? In my opinion, having a great piece of glass that transmits the most light possible is perfect for making those late dusk/early dawn shots, when most of the animals are active. I'd recommend spending more money on a scope than on the rifle under it, as a deer getting hit with a 300wm from a Savage is just as bad as getting hit with a 300wm from a Kahlunka. But yeah, HD isn't neccesary really for anything. But it is nice, especially if you do any digiscoping.

[The Hermit]

What I've found to be a huge factor in the spotting scope world is the eye piece! Check the specs on it as much as the body/lens!